Panasonic 4K GH4 possibly coming next Spring...

The main reason I am buying the GH4 is to get rid of the GH3 moire issue, as that's my only real complaint I have with the camera.

Yes, greater DR would be nice, along with 4:2:2 color. ( 4K downgraded to 1080 HD will take care of this )

I will buy the "Brick" to be able to shoot 4K 4:2:2, but I'll probably only use it for Indie work.
 
Jaime Valles said:
I honestly don't understand all the fuss about a camera not having built-in ND filters.
Click to expand...

People need something to complain about apparently. We get a 4K shooting GH4 at a (speculated) decent price and people are whining it's not an AF200 or that it doesn't have built in NDs, like every other GH camera in the lineup. I don't get it.
 
No one is whining about the GH4 - only pointing out that we REALLY WANT a higher end offering in between the GH4 and something like the Varicam, and many are worried Panny won't fill in the gap.

Jaimie - Haha that's quite the rant with very few seeming questions that seem actually inquisitive. Travelling international and shoot live event, one man band, on the AF100 is a dream BECAUSE of the built in ND filters.

Two of my ISO settings are between ISO 200 and ISO 400. Then I have manual lenses where I can change a stop up or down quickly. And then the ND filter switch. This allows me INCREDIBLE control of light, DoF, etc. within a matter of 2-3 seconds. When shooting live event and documentary where you are sometimes quickly moving between indoor and outdoor shots, or shaded or non shaded shots, where a good shot can literally escape within seconds, 10 seconds is WAYYYYYYYY too long. Basically, with these settings I can dial in almost any look without moving away from my camera or missing a shot. I can stop down for deeper DoF and maintain the same exposure; or keep my aperture within one stop and yet adjust for dramatically changing light.

Especially since it's not just the filter change time, it's the awkwardness of setting down or balancing my whole rig/stabilizer (in sometimes very crowded or precarious situations), reaching into my lens belt or shoulder pouch to find the appropriate ND filter (even if they are magnetized and thread matched), and one handed-ly trying to get it on. Besides the fact that 10 seconds is about 10x too long, there's also more far likelihood of dropping glass, smudging glass, etc. and more small pieces to pack. The GH4 is discreet, which is great, but not by the time you add necessary hardware/stabilization. So since the rig needs to be bigger anyway, an AF100 form factor is much better for my uses since it can pack in things like ND filters and things that get added by bulky brick boxes...

Point is: I totally get why for many people in many scenarios the GH4 is great and ND filters, or matteboxes, or screw-ons are great and built-in is a non-issue. But just because it's not for YOU, doesn't mean there aren't a ton of people out there who who genuinely benefit greatly from built-in ND filters.

By the way, that is NOT a complaint about the GH4. The GH4 is brilliant for what it is. The point is, it's just not a REPLACEMENT for an AF100-style body/features and a LOT of us are banking hard on Panasonic to finally release something this year that fits our needs.

In fact, to answer your question as to WHY not go to another manufacturer: For me, it's because NONE of the other cameras on the market fit my needs or offer what I am looking for. A few are VERY close and so it's exceptionally frustrating that they can't seem to get it right on a few key things. Seriously. It's not that hard. AF100 with a better sensor and some more codecs and software features. That it's. Yet no one can seem to get this... I don't want to have to step back in MAJOR areas important to the way I work just to get better IQ, and so I'm still with the dated AF100.

* FS700 does not do variable frame rates such as 36fps, 48 fps, etc. It's 60, 120, 240. WTF? Really? I utilize the inbetween frame rates a LOT because it creates beautiful b-roll. Also, the ergos suck and the menu is convulted and the Panny IQ mojo is better.

* BMC needs too many accessories to kit out, doesn't have built in ND, immature menu systems, no slow motion, etc.

* Red cameras are AWESOME... except they are very expensive, no built in ND options, very noisy for on camera mic (a big challenge for interviews as a one-man band), heavy, bulky (difficult for extensive travel). There is a whole forum section on Reduser devoted EXACTLY to what I am talking about here for camera needs with a lot of people clamoring for a RED all in one design. To address the ND filter issue, Red developed a $4000 electronic ND filter option thread mount but it does have some drawbacks (one stop of ND filter is always on, ie there is no "clear" setting). It's also crazy expensive. But they recognize the need.

* Canon C100 is awesome... except it doesn't do slow motion...

* GH4 is epic in everyway. If they threw that in a C100 body with built in ND and included XLR and a few other items it would be perfect, like a Panny MFT version of the C100... so close for what I am personally looking for...

Which is why many of us basically just want an AF200. Or an s35 version of the AF100. it's not hard. Yet literally not a single camera in the past 4 years has done this. The FS700 and C100 come closest.

Love the GH4. it's just not a replacement for a $5-$8k camera offering. Holding my breath to see if Panasonic can save the day this year. I know I'm not alone.
 
Last edited:
roxics said:
People need something to complain about apparently. We get a 4K shooting GH4 at a (speculated) decent price and people are whining it's not an AF200 or that it doesn't have built in NDs, like every other GH camera in the lineup. I don't get it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely a mis-characterization. Many - if not most - shooters don't want to use a DSLR/stills camera to shoot video. Shorter battery life, difficultly replacing batteries/memory cards (esp if in a rig), no XLR, a no SDI/full size HDMI, no ND - are just some of the many many reasons why someone might not want a GH4 or any other DSLR, to shoot video even if it shot rainbows out on a good take.

No one - not one - person suggested someone shouldn't buy a GH4 for lack of ND filter. Rather, what I and others are suggesting is that we want a true video camera from Panasonic that delivers the already existing good things from the AF100, plus a little more under the hood for a $5K or less price tag. Constructive criticism and suggestions shouldn't be considered "whining" either by you or a camera company.

ND not a deal breaker for me either, yet it is clear that it's an expected feature at this point for many shooters. And great points Filmguy - the GH4 will (likely) be great, which is why we want a great AF200 too.
 
Keep in mind that the "DSLR revolution" or whatever you want to call it was mostly about getting a "cinema" look on a low budget (at least in my view). So arguably that's still the target the manufacturers are shooting for, since cinema cameras don't have internal NDs or professional built-in audio (XLRs etc). You guys are talking about a different target, which is ENG cameras. I'm not saying one is more valid than the other or that manufacturers shouldn't try to satisfy both, but just pointing out that the DSLR hype was more about cinema than about ENG, so I believe that the manufacturers reacted accordingly. The requests are all over the place, some wanting cinema features and others wanting ENG features, and some manufacturers have tried to satisfy the crazy mix of features, but what we ask for must sound pretty crazy and ever-changing to them.
 
Last edited:
jdv said:
An AF200 could potentially be a Canon C300 killer, or at the very least a serious competitor - esp if it any sort of slo-mo capacity. And the GH4 would seem to indicate it's technically completely possible at the $4-5 K price range. Hey, I can dream can't I?
Click to expand...

Honestly, Canon is probably about to kill the C300 themselves with an internal 4K camera anyway. I doubt anyone would buy an AF200 sans 4K.
 
Hey, Filmguy123. You make a lot of very good points. I'll try to address them below.

filmguy123 said:
No one is whining about the GH4 - only pointing out that we REALLY WANT a higher end offering in between the GH4 and something like the Varicam, and many are worried Panny won't fill in the gap.
Click to expand...

As I said, it's fine to want an AF200 with 4K and ND. But there are plenty of folks in this thread and others complaining about the GH4 lacking one thing or another.

Jaimie - Haha that's quite the rant with very few seeming questions that seem actually inquisitive. Travelling international and shoot live event, one man band, on the AF100 is a dream BECAUSE of the built in ND filters.

Two of my ISO settings are between ISO 200 and ISO 400. Then I have manual lenses where I can change a stop up or down quickly. And then the ND filter switch. This allows me INCREDIBLE control of light, DoF, etc. within a matter of 2-3 seconds. When shooting live event and documentary where you are sometimes quickly moving between indoor and outdoor shots, or shaded or non shaded shots, where a good shot can literally escape within seconds, 10 seconds is WAYYYYYYYY too long. Basically, with these settings I can dial in almost any look without moving away from my camera or missing a shot. I can stop down for deeper DoF and maintain the same exposure; or keep my aperture within one stop and yet adjust for dramatically changing light.

Especially since it's not just the filter change time, it's the awkwardness of setting down or balancing my whole rig/stabilizer (in sometimes very crowded or precarious situations), reaching into my lens belt or shoulder pouch to find the appropriate ND filter (even if they are magnetized and thread matched), and one handed-ly trying to get it on. Besides the fact that 10 seconds is about 10x too long, there's also more far likelihood of dropping glass, smudging glass, etc. and more small pieces to pack. The GH4 is discreet, which is great, but not by the time you add necessary hardware/stabilization. So since the rig needs to be bigger anyway, an AF100 form factor is much better for my uses since it can pack in things like ND filters and things that get added by bulky brick boxes...

Point is: I totally get why for many people in many scenarios the GH4 is great and ND filters, or matteboxes, or screw-ons are great and built-in is a non-issue. But just because it's not for YOU, doesn't mean there aren't a ton of people out there who who genuinely benefit greatly from built-in ND filters.
Click to expand...

This is what I do as well. I travel internationally for event videography. I prefer the size and weight of the GH3 for live event shooting. Just my preference, though.

By the way, that is NOT a complaint about the GH4. The GH4 is brilliant for what it is. The point is, it's just not a REPLACEMENT for an AF100-style body/features and a LOT of us are banking hard on Panasonic to finally release something this year that fits our needs.
Click to expand...

I never said it was an AF100 replacement. It's a GH3 replacement that shoots 4K. If a person liked the GH3, they should love the GH4. I had previously written that Panasonic SHOULD come out with an AF100 replacement with all the bells and whistles.

In fact, to answer your question as to WHY not go to another manufacturer: For me, it's because NONE of the other cameras on the market fit my needs or offer what I am looking for. A few are VERY close and so it's exceptionally frustrating that they can't seem to get it right on a few key things. Seriously. It's not that hard. AF100 with a better sensor and some more codecs and software features. That it's. Yet no one can seem to get this... I don't want to have to step back in MAJOR areas important to the way I work just to get better IQ, and so I'm still with the dated AF100.

* FS700 does do variable frame rates such as 36fps, 48 fps, etc. It's 60, 120, 240. WTF? Really? I utilize the inbetween frame rates a LOT because it creates beautiful b-roll. Also, the ergos suck and the menu is convulted and the Panny IQ mojo is better.

* BMC needs too many accessories to kit out, doesn't have built in ND, immature menu systems, no slow motion, etc.

* Red cameras are AWESOME... except they are very expensive, no built in ND options, very noisy for on camera mic (a big challenge for interviews as a one-man band), heavy, bulky (difficult for extensive travel). There is a whole forum section on Reduser devoted EXACTLY to what I am talking about here for camera needs with a lot of people clamoring for a RED all in one design. To address the ND filter issue, Red developed a $4000 electronic ND filter option thread mount but it does have some drawbacks (one stop of ND filter is always on, ie there is no "clear" setting). It's also crazy expensive. But they recognize the need.

* Canon C100 is awesome... except it doesn't do slow motion...

* GH4 is epic in everyway. If they threw that in a C100 body with built in ND and included XLR and a few other items it would be perfect, like a Panny MFT version of the C100... so close for what I am personally looking for...

Which is why many of us basically just want an AF200. Or an s35 version of the AF100. it's not hard. Yet literally not a single camera in the past 4 years has done this. The FS700 and C100 come closest.

Love the GH4. it's just not a replacement for a $5-$8k camera offering. Holding my breath to see if Panasonic can save the day this year. I know I'm not alone.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this 100%. I'm just fed up with the people that complain about the GH4 missing that stuff. Hopefully that helps clarify my position. :)
 
That does! And I can't speak to anyone else but none of my comments are not a dig at the GH4, only conversation on the importance of something more than the GH4. I think the GH4 looks phenomenal. If there was an AF200 and I would definitely pickup a GH4 as a companion camera.

To get an idea of what it would take for me to get a replacement setup for built in ND filters, I just kitted out for my 6 lens the cost of 77m step up rings, 77mm lens caps, ND filters, Xume magnetized adaptors to speed up the process (xumeadaptors.com), and a good pouch to attach to my belt for this. About $700! And it could be more depending on quality of ND filter. Plus, while this setup does in fact WORK, it is a step back and doesn't work as well as the built in ND wheel. So...... here's hoping :)
 
jdv said:
Absolutely a mis-characterization. Many - if not most - shooters don't want to use a DSLR/stills camera to shoot video. Shorter battery life, difficultly replacing batteries/memory cards (esp if in a rig), no XLR, a no SDI/full size HDMI, no ND - are just some of the many many reasons why someone might not want a GH4 or any other DSLR, to shoot video even if it shot rainbows out on a good take.
Click to expand...
I'm a professional event videographer, and I gladly trade in the size and bulk of a traditional video camera body in order to shoot with my three GH3 cameras. I have zero difficulty changing batteries or memory cards, I have XLR via the Tascam DR-40 straight into my GH3, don't need SDI or HDMI. My rig is small and light, and works great.

No one - not one - person suggested someone shouldn't buy a GH4 for lack of ND filter.
Click to expand...

I went back in this thread and found at least 4 others saying that the lack of ND filters in the GH4 was a problem for them, and one saying it was a dealbreaker. Hence my rant.

Rather, what I and others are suggesting is that we want a true video camera from Panasonic that delivers the already existing good things from the AF100, plus a little more under the hood for a $5K or less price tag. Constructive criticism and suggestions shouldn't be considered "whining" either by you or a camera company.
Click to expand...

I agree completely that Panasonic and others should make that camera.

ND not a deal breaker for me either, yet it is clear that it's an expected feature at this point for many shooters.
Click to expand...

Built-in ND filters are not an expected feature in DSLRs that shoot video. They never have been. They're definitely expected in traditional video cameras, and shame on manufacturers for not including them in those types of cameras.
 
filmguy123 said:
That does! And I can't speak to anyone else but none of my comments are not a dig at the GH4, only conversation on the importance of something more than the GH4. I think the GH4 looks phenomenal. If there was an AF200 and I would definitely pickup a GH4 as a companion camera.

To get an idea of what it would take for me to get a replacement setup for built in ND filters, I just kitted out for my 6 lens the cost of 77m step up rings, 77mm lens caps, ND filters, Xume magnetized adaptors to speed up the process (xumeadaptors.com), and a good pouch to attach to my belt for this. About $700! And it could be more depending on quality of ND filter. Plus, while this setup does in fact WORK, it is a step back and doesn't work as well as the built in ND wheel. So...... here's hoping :)
Click to expand...

Hey, those Xume adaptors look excellent! I may have to get those. Even then, GH4 + $700 "ND filter dream setup" probably costs a lot less than a hypothetical AF200 with built in NDs. ;)
 
Jaime Valles said:
at least 4 others saying that the lack of ND filters in the GH4 was a problem for them, and one saying it was a dealbreaker. Hence my rant.

I agree completely that Panasonic and others should make that camera.

Built-in ND filters are not an expected feature in DSLRs that shoot video. They never have been.
Click to expand...

That was me! No ND filters is a deal-breaker for me! That's not a criticism of the GH4, just Panny's current product line-up - it's simply a statement on why I want Panasonic to make that camera. NAB is just around the corner so hopefully it's a short lived gap... but a lot of people are nervous news will be mum beyond the GH4/Varicam.

Perhaps the misunderstanding here is that for some people, this thread is solely about the GH4. For others, it's about Panasonic's video cameras/m43 offerings. I fall into the latter camp. The GH4 announcement, to me, is not just about the GH4 it's about Panny's camera offerings as a whole. The GH4 is basically an AF100 successor minus ND filters. There has also been talk over the years about "no follow up to the AF100" and very little rumor or news on anything other than a GH4 or Varicam. All a lot of us are saying is "Panasonic, this is awesome but it better not be it!"..... *not* that the GH4 isn't an awesome DSLR style hybrid photo/video camera. It just better not be all the release for under $10k this year, or I am going to extremely disappointed.

Jaime Valles said:
Hey, those Xume adaptors look excellent! I may have to get those. Even then, GH4 + $700 "ND filter dream setup" probably costs a lot less than a hypothetical AF200 with built in NDs. ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, they are! But I'd gladly pay more for the simpler and improved workflow :)
 
filmguy123 said:
All a lot of us are saying is "Panasonic, this is awesome but it better not be it!"..... *not* that the GH4 isn't an awesome DSLR style hybrid photo/video camera. It just better not be all the release for under $10k this year, or I am going to extremely disappointed.
Click to expand...
I see. That makes perfect sense. :)
 
alaskacameradude said:
Not just MFT mount, ANY mount with a shallow flange. Sony E mount can also mount virtually any lens.
I think one of the questions is not is MFT usable, because it obviously is, but are they working
'under a handicap' by staying at the MFT size? Obviously, anyone who has invested in the format does
not want it to go away! But doesn't a smaller sensor limit either your dynamic range or resolution
as compared to a larger chip? In other words, you can have the same number of 'photosites' on a super 35
sensor as a MFT sensor...but each one would be larger on the S35 sensor, giving you more dynamic range?
This of course assumes all else is equal, which is not the case, but as a general statement, I think it is true.
Click to expand...
Good one! So let's say FS100 and 700 have S35- so what? BMCC and Pocket have smaller sensor, beat any of these cameras in DR by a huge margin and CC has almost as good low light sensitivity. Hmm… so where is exact advantage of S35?
 
Shenan said:
Keep in mind that the "DSLR revolution" or whatever you want to call it was mostly about getting a "cinema" look on a low budget (at least in my view). So arguably that's still the target the manufacturers are shooting for, since cinema cameras don't have internal NDs or professional built-in audio (XLRs etc). You guys are talking about a different target, which is ENG cameras. I'm not saying one is more valid than the other or that manufacturers shouldn't try to satisfy both, but just pointing out that the DSLR hype was more about cinema than about ENG, so I believe that the manufacturers reacted accordingly. The requests are all over the place, some wanting cinema features and others wanting ENG features, and some manufacturers have tried to satisfy the crazy mix of features, but what we ask for must sound pretty crazy and ever-changing to them.
Click to expand...

This is pretty spot on. The reason why I love the AF100 overall is it's effectively a HMC150/AC160 with a m4/3 sensor and lens mount. I'm not a cinema guy. I don't make short films. My work more closely resembles ENG than anything, and the AF100 gives me most of the ENG type features I need and want, but with the benefit of shallow DoF for a "cinema" look. If they took front end of the GH4 and put it in a PX270 body, I would be in heaven.
 
Shenan said:
Keep in mind that the "DSLR revolution" or whatever you want to call it was mostly about getting a "cinema" look on a low budget (at least in my view). So arguably that's still the target the manufacturers are shooting for, since cinema cameras don't have internal NDs or professional built-in audio (XLRs etc). You guys are talking about a different target, which is ENG cameras. I'm not saying one is more valid than the other or that manufacturers shouldn't try to satisfy both, but just pointing out that the DSLR hype was more about cinema than about ENG, so I believe that the manufacturers reacted accordingly. The requests are all over the place, some wanting cinema features and others wanting ENG features, and some manufacturers have tried to satisfy the crazy mix of features, but what we ask for must sound pretty crazy and ever-changing to them.
Click to expand...

Cinema cameras don't have internal ND's or professional built-in audio? Are we talking about the past? Because tons of them
certainly do now! AF100, FS700, C100, C300, F3, F5, F55 and F65. The Alexa XT series has internal ND's as well
(although it is different.) I think the real reason DSLR's didn't have these things had more to do with the fact that they
were STILL cameras that just happened to shoot video, and less to do with the fact that they were 'proper cinema cameras'.
I'm not talking about ENG cameras at all, I actually think cinema cameras should have built in NDs and professional built in
audio. And so do many of the companies that make cinema cameras these days, because plenty of them are making cinema
cameras with these options.
 
snowblindfilm said:
Good one! So let's say FS100 and 700 have S35- so what? BMCC and Pocket have smaller sensor, beat any of these cameras in DR by a huge margin and CC has almost as good low light sensitivity. Hmm… so where is exact advantage of S35?
Click to expand...

They do? What exactly is their 'huge advantage' in DR? Adam Wilt has tested the FS700 at 14...yes 14 stops of DR.

http://provideocoalition.com/awilt/story/review_sony_nex-fs700_super35_lss_avchd_camcorder/

What is the DR for the BMCC and Pocket again? You might also want to take a peek at what guys like Gene have been
putting out with the FS700 and the 7Q.
 
Ryan Lightbourn said:
I've used the FS-700 many more times than the two current BlackMagic cameras and I can assure you, the Blackmagic lineup has superior DR. Since this test was done before raw was even available on the 700, his tests are either incorrect, or he's not reporting actual useable DR.
Click to expand...

A couple things here. First Adam Wilt is usually pretty good on these tests. Maybe you see something
wrong that he did in the article? Or he misinterpreted the charts? Everyone is human, mistakes
happen. Also as an owner of a FS700, I can assure you that when you are shooting ''on board'
the gamma curve used matters. Cinema gamma 4 seems to give best DR.

Furthermore, I said all other things being equal. So lets test FS700 Raw vs BM raw.
Have you done that? I certainly do not see a 'major advantage' to BM line, in fact I
would give the slight edge to the Sony in that test.

Finally, the BM cameras do not have the ability to shoot the same resolution as the
FS700 (well the one announced today does so we will see how that one fares.). The idea
is you can either have the same number of pixels and each is bigger (giving you the same
resolution but better DR) or you can have more pixels that are each as large (giving
you higher resolution with the same DR) if you have a bigger chip. So comparing a
camera with a bigger 4k chip to a camera with a smaller 2.5k chip, you may well find
them with similar DR (which I do when both shoot raw). But the bigger chip camera is
shooting at a higher resolution. This is my theory, I could be wrong, but it seems to
be pure physics that the larger chip just has physical advantages....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top