GH4 Panasonic GH5 coming in 2017

[stoneinapond]

I have a ton of scenes I want to shoot in a very small space (think small 2 person tent size) at a remote location, where dragging lights out there is a complete non-starter from every point of view.

While I appreciate what you are saying, and you will make whatever choice you want, it seems as if you are using a hammer to crack an egg. There are many small, and I mean small lights available (did I say small) that can easily get lost in a pocket (OK, I exaggeraterogar-Happy(DBG) that would instantly solve such a predicament - unless of course you don't want to advertise your presence. Much cheaper that completely selling and buying into a new camera system. Of course, you might want to spy on sunbathers at midnight on Brighton Beach........ but that's another story (sorry, I've already used up my one smiley per post).

 

[DLD]

That's not an "I agree" emoticon? :shocked:...

I had to look up the language first.

... I have a ton of scenes I want to shoot in a very small space (think small 2 person tent size) at a remote location, where dragging lights out there is a complete non-starter from every point of view...

Not that there's anything wrong with shooting two people in a tent - heyooo - but there are those LED string lights that can be cut to any length. And a roll will fit into some pockets.

Corpse, who said low light=low class?

Not "low". 4th best! That's like being in a semifinal. Very, very high.

 

[Thomas Smet]

I did not want to imply that the GH4 or its users are 2nd class etc... What I meant is in terms of industry acceptance and overall position in the pro world. Lets face it, a lot of folks own Canon or Nikon glass that is designed for FF but can be used on APS-C. Photo and video folks. Way less own m4/3rds lenses. Panasonic chose to go this route because why? It was kind of the only path to having something different in the marketplace. The fact they have stuck with it is kind of stubborn imho.

Folks like how much smaller everything is but I see it as an expense. Noise Reduction is what smaller sensors are all about. I agree with Thomas, especially with 4k. There is a lot of NR needed. I like big lenses as this lets a ton a light in through great quality glass. That is how you get the best images, light and great glass. Yes, I know Panasonic has a few nice lenses but they need to be faster to make up for the sensor noise. F2.8 on a m4/3rds is not the same as f2.8 on an APS-C or FF in terms of noise.

I just wish Panasonic would move this series to APS-C and all doubts would be taken away. Instead of trying to prove the format is viable, move the format so many want to use. I know this will not happen though.

I always hear people talk about how great FF glass is but it doesn't always look very good wide open. It is well known that a lot of lenses should be stopped down to use their sweet spot. FF glass that sometimes is around f4 and f5.6. m43 glass on the other hand is insanely detailed with high contrast even opened up all the way to f1.8. Most of the f1.8 lenses are insanely detailed at f1.8. That gives a lot of native m43 lenses a pretty huge advantage in terms of optical quality. Take the Olympus 75mm f1.8 vs the Rokinon 85mm f1.4 lens. You really have to stop down that Rokinon to get to the same level of resolved detail and contrast that the Olympus has at f1.8. Any low light advantage APS-C or FF has is pretty much tossed out the window if you want to try to get consistent detail and contrast in your shots. Edge softness is also a big issue on a lot of FF lenses and they have to be stopped down a lot to get the edges and center to balanced levels. m43 glass suffers from this as well but typically not by as much. There are some m43 lenses sharper at f1.8 on the edges than some FF lenses are in the center at f2.8.

So I don't buy into this FF glass is superior thing. FF glass is optimized for FF sensors and those sensors have a lot of extra pixels to the point where every single pixel isn't as critical. A 16MP sensor needs to make every pixel count so I think the lenses tend to be better at resolving as much detail as they can.

Plus I'm not all that convinced that APS-C is all that much superior to m43. At least this is true on cameras that try to cram 24MP into that sensor size. I have seen RAW stills from a D5500 and a GH4 with no NR and a high ISO level that didn't look all that much different. I would say at best maybe the D5500 was 2/3 of a stop cleaner. Its really the NR that makes a big difference on many APS-C cameras. I was kind of surprised by this but even when comparing RAW to jpeg on those cameras there was a huge difference. I'm talking about just the RAW sensor here and no processing. I think if Panasonic just figures out a vastly better way of handling NR it would have a huge impact on the GH5. The G7 is a good example of this.

 

[Bassman2003]

True and good points. I, like many already own FF glass and would prefer to cultivate one lens collection to be used for still and video work. Adapters can work here but they are getting pretty pricey. And the whole crop thing as well.

No doubt the GH4 creates nice images as the GH5 will. I have just never been compelled to invest/stay with the system.

 

[David W. Jones]

The whole point of using Full Frame glass is that it covers all sensor sizes up to full frame. It makes sense for folks who use multiple camera systems, who don't want to purchase say 3 different lens sets, which could get silly expensive.

 

[OldCorpse]

Corpse, who said low light=low class?

See:

[...]Its only those that insist on shooting in the dark without any lights that consider the GH4 a lower class of camera but I would argue thats a lower class of production and not a lower class of camera.[...]

Again, for those who offer that small LED lights are available - I'm well aware of that, but there are additional issues that I didn't want to get into why I simply can't use lights like that, but without writing pages of specific production notes, the bottom line is that the technical capability of a camera is a legitimate criterion for picking a camera, and it's not like that's somehow bad. It's an indisputable fact, that with a very high sensitivity camera, you open up options simply not available to a low sensitivity camera - on a purely logical basis if I can cut down my light requirements by several stops, it gives me the option of using that much less light gear, period, and that of course includes artistic choices. You can always argue for workarounds, but why should you? It's like saying, gee, you don't need a car, because you can just walk somewhere. Different tools exist for a reason, even if you can probably build a house just using a screwdriver given enough time and labor. Tools are just that, and it's silly to prescribe what others may need based only on your own needs. For you the low-light performance of a GH4(x) may be enough, but for others it won't, and there is nothing to argue about.

 

[Thomas Smet]

Corpse, who said low light=low class?

See:



Again, for those who offer that small LED lights are available - I'm well aware of that, but there are additional issues that I didn't want to get into why I simply can't use lights like that, but without writing pages of specific production notes, the bottom line is that the technical capability of a camera is a legitimate criterion for picking a camera, and it's not like that's somehow bad. It's an indisputable fact, that with a very high sensitivity camera, you open up options simply not available to a low sensitivity camera - on a purely logical basis if I can cut down my light requirements by several stops, it gives me the option of using that much less light gear, period, and that of course includes artistic choices. You can always argue for workarounds, but why should you? It's like saying, gee, you don't need a car, because you can just walk somewhere. Different tools exist for a reason, even if you can probably build a house just using a screwdriver given enough time and labor. Tools are just that, and it's silly to prescribe what others may need based only on your own needs. For you the low-light performance of a GH4(x) may be enough, but for others it won't, and there is nothing to argue about.

Using lights is not a work around. Movies have been shot on 35mm film for over a century and they always used lights. Using lights is about a lot more than just filling a dark void. Its how you separate the subject from the background and create mood and add depth to a scene. No sensor will ever be able to magically do that. Any serious production uses lights for just as many creative reasons as they do technical reasons. without using lights any super sensitive sensor may look clean and noise free but its still a dull lifeless image with no depth. If anything is a workaround its using a FF camera so one doesn't have to use lights. That is the work around.

No matter how many excuses people try to make for not using lights the reality is not using lights is low production value. Period. Nothing will ever take the place of that. Want to know what makes the film look? Its lighting. Not the damn camera. A well lit iPhone video will blow away a RED camera with no lighting at all. Even outdoors in bright light we tend to use things like bounce cards to get the light just right on our subjects. These are all century old concepts and not just some silly excuse m43 users make. That is how films are made. You use lights, bounce cards, ND filters, whatever it takes to get that shot as nice and rich looking as possible.

Besides having a camera capable of pulling in enough light is kind of the point of m43 to begin with. It may not be as bright as FF but its no slouch either compared to 1/4", 1/3", 1/2", 2/3" and 1" cameras. This really puts m43 at the upper scale of low light performance and not the lower end like some people want to think of it. Combine that with plenty of fast glass options and m43 can really hold its own.

My whole point is that if the environment or situation gets to the point where m43 and fast glass can no longer capture enough light it is time to start using some lights. That will be true for just about any camera out there. No camera really looks creative once the light gets down to that point. Once you reach a certain point of darkness it doesn't matter if you are using a 1/3", 4/3" or a FF camera. Its time to bring out some lights to add character and life to the scene.

 

[OldCorpse]

[...]No matter how many excuses people try to make for not using lights the reality is not using lights is low production value. Period.

Well, that's certainly a load of nonsense. It's all about the final look - which is an artistic choice. Once upon a time film was of quite low sensitivity by today's standards. As a result, lighting schemes had a certain look to them - this was driven by the technical capabilities and limitations of the gear at the time. That "look" was an artifact of the particular time, not some universally agreed upon aesthetic standard. It's the same stupid argument over "filmic":

[...]Want to know what makes the film look? Its lighting.

It's a whole bunch of things, including lighting, but it's ahistoric and narrow-minded to associate a particular look with "filmic". It's like those who claim that you need "grain" in order to make it filmic and clean footage has a "digital" and "clinical" look. Erm, no - grain got associated with film, because that's what people experienced for the decades where clean noise-free footage was not easily available. It was an artifact of its time, not a universal agreed upon "look" that uniquely qualified it as "filmic". No need to add grain to footage, because standards change as technology changes. Today we can get more noise-free footage and eventually the whole "grain" aesthetic will die. That's happened countless times - you had smooth camera movement associated with film, and then New Wave and Cinema Verite and handheld came about and completely re-defined what made a "film" image. So too with lighting that was associated with low sensitivity film - it was a look that was specific to the time and defined by technological limitations and capabilities. To proclaim confidently that "not using lights is low production value. Period" is laughable on its face. What matters ultimately is the artistic experience - if the film calls for a no-light look, then that's its own legitimate aesthetic choice, and not "low production value". It's like in music, we had super slick production, and we've had a more dirty grungy production sound - a conscious choice. It's pretty narrow-minded to try to define one particular look as "low class" as if artists don't continually make choices for completely legitimate artistic reasons.

[...]These are all century old concepts and not just some silly excuse m43 users make. That is how films are made. You use lights, bounce cards, ND filters, whatever it takes to get that shot as nice and rich looking as possible.

This is just funny drivel. You are describing a certain very specific parameter as if that's a universal artistic standard. What if someone is not looking to make a shot as "nice and rich looking as possible"? And what is "nice" anyway - is there a universally agreed upon standard? Taste doesn't enter into it? What if you want to make an intentionally grungy image, with a narrow and desaturated color palate, instead of a "nice" and "rich"? That takes just as much skill and artistic commitment as it is to make a "rich-looking" shot. The same with a choice of tools - it all depends on the effect you want to achieve, and sometimes you will use "bounce cards, ND filters" etc., and sometimes you won't. Once upon a time it was unthinkable to take the camera off the tripod/dolly and into your hands, but then New Wave cinema came about and suddenly there were sequences where the tripod/dolly was entirely absent, and then whole films were made handheld. No tool - including lights - is definitionally necessary to every shot or film. An artist may wish to take the camera off the tripod and so needs/wants a camera they can carry in their hands, but I guess you'd tell them to stick with those giant cameras from the 1920's which never left a dolly. All cinematic tools - including lights - are a matter of choice and can be used or discarded as the objectives dictate. No single tool defines what is "filmic" and what is not, and what is "low class" and what is "classy". Lighting is an artistic choice, all along the spectrum from tons of lamps to no extraneous sources of light. It's an artistic choice. And no such choice is "low class". Tools evolve - cameras and camera capabilities evolve. Aesthetic criteria evolve - just like once upon a time people tried to claim that only silent film was true film (Chaplin!) - sound came along, and our aesthetic evolved. Same with color and B&W. And so too with high sensitivity cameras - today we have such an option, and for some that will be a conscious artistic choice and there's nothing "low class" about it. It's called technical progress. I like my cameras more sensitive. You may not - there are still some old pre-sound era Mitchell hand-crank cameras ready for super low sensitivity film - check 'em out, you'll be in heaven - for many scenes they required those huge Brute lights that could light up a stadium and melted makeup off the actors face and led to DP's going blind longer term. Good times! High class! I won't knock your artistic choices, mine lead me to more sensitive cameras, but variety is the spice of life, so it's all good!

 

[DLD]

Not to get in the middle of crossfire but the next step in the narrative low-light image acquisition will probably be a medium format camera with a fairly small pixel count (4 - 9 MPX) that should deliver a feature film worthy image at moonlight and would be a more narrowly tailored version of Alexa65, which has 20 MPX in MF and was used for low light scenes in the "Revenant".

On the other hand, one should be able to stage "natural lighting", or lack thereof, regardless and do this on a very small budget, as some of these new LED panels can be purchased for under $50. That is aside of the "best tool for the job" conversation.

 

[Jaime Valles]

I understand the reasoning behind "smaller pixels = less sensitivity" but even Full Frame 35mm cameras are getting smaller pixels for higher resolutions and yet they keep getting better in low light. Why not a Micro 4/3 sensor?

Also, m4/3 cameras may not be as sensitive as FF cameras, but how many f/0.95 lenses are out there for FF or APS-C cameras? I LOVE my Voigtlander lenses on my GH4, because I can shoot in the dark and yet have manageable depth of field to be able to focus on what I'm shooting.

I don't want a larger sensor, I want a better sensor. I hope the GH5 can provide that.

 

[Bassman2003]

I don't want a larger sensor, I want a better sensor. I hope the GH5 can provide that.

I think everybody can agree that a better sensor is always a good thing.

 

[TheDingo]

I've been shooting with the GH4 for the past 18 months and overall I've been very happy with the image it produces, especially when shooting with older Nikon glass. Everything I shoot is lit so I never go higher than 800 ISO, which is probably why I've been so happy with the GH4 performance. If low-light was a big issue for me I would probably switch up to the Sony A7S II, as I don't ever expect the GHx line of cameras to be great low-light performers.

All I want from the GH5 is better color and dynamic range, so I'm hoping Panasonic can give us 10-bit 4:2:2 internal with the next generation so that multi-camera setups won't require multiple external recorders. I also don't want to ever give up the unlimited recording time feature of the GHx cameras, so I'm willing to forget about IBIS in order to keep this feature.

 

[Thomas Smet]

I understand the reasoning behind "smaller pixels = less sensitivity" but even Full Frame 35mm cameras are getting smaller pixels for higher resolutions and yet they keep getting better in low light. Why not a Micro 4/3 sensor?

Also, m4/3 cameras may not be as sensitive as FF cameras, but how many f/0.95 lenses are out there for FF or APS-C cameras? I LOVE my Voigtlander lenses on my GH4, because I can shoot in the dark and yet have manageable depth of field to be able to focus on what I'm shooting.

I don't want a larger sensor, I want a better sensor. I hope the GH5 can provide that.

I actually think m43 sensors have improved. From the GH1 to the the GH4 we can use a higher ISO than we could before. Look at how much higher the gain can go on the G7 and thats m43. There was a time with the GH1 we didn't dare go above ISO 640.

I think its harder for us to see the improvements because we see what FF is doing and it clouds our vision as to how much m43 has improved. The G7 is surprisingly clean at higher ISO levels mainly due to its better NR in camera. I honestly think thats what makes a lot of Nikon and Canon APS-C cameras seem better at higher ISO levels. Its the in-camera NR. If you look at a RAW still from the D5500 and the GH4 at ISO 3200 they are both pretty noisy with maybe at best a 2/3 stop difference in noise. Yeah its better but not by a lot. jpegs and video from the larger sensor cameras have much less noise but since the RAW stills show what the sensor is actually capable of this means its mainly the in-camera NR that helps the larger sensor cameras. At least in the case of APS-C.

Keep in mind the GH4 has a pixel size of 3.75 microns and the D5500 has a pixel size of 3.92 microns. Not a huge difference there. The reason is because that APS-C sensor is packing 24MP compared to the 16MP of the GH4. The 5D mkIII has a pixel size of 6.35 microns. So even though the 5D mkIII does pack a lot of pixels its the size of each pixel that really matters here. The Sony A7S II is a beast with a pixel size of 8.4 microns. You can see why it captures so much more light than the GH4. Of course pixel size isn't everything and newer tech can often replace these rules but for the most part this is true. The G7 uses the same sensor size as the GH4 and yet when shooting video many have said it is much cleaner. RAW stills from both look identical so it really comes down to the quality of the NR.

 

[Thomas Smet]

Well, that's certainly a load of nonsense. It's all about the final look - which is an artistic choice. Once upon a time film was of quite low sensitivity by today's standards. As a result, lighting schemes had a certain look to them - this was driven by the technical capabilities and limitations of the gear at the time. That "look" was an artifact of the particular time, not some universally agreed upon aesthetic standard. It's the same stupid argument over "filmic":



It's a whole bunch of things, including lighting, but it's ahistoric and narrow-minded to associate a particular look with "filmic". It's like those who claim that you need "grain" in order to make it filmic and clean footage has a "digital" and "clinical" look. Erm, no - grain got associated with film, because that's what people experienced for the decades where clean noise-free footage was not easily available. It was an artifact of its time, not a universal agreed upon "look" that uniquely qualified it as "filmic". No need to add grain to footage, because standards change as technology changes. Today we can get more noise-free footage and eventually the whole "grain" aesthetic will die. That's happened countless times - you had smooth camera movement associated with film, and then New Wave and Cinema Verite and handheld came about and completely re-defined what made a "film" image. So too with lighting that was associated with low sensitivity film - it was a look that was specific to the time and defined by technological limitations and capabilities. To proclaim confidently that "not using lights is low production value. Period" is laughable on its face. What matters ultimately is the artistic experience - if the film calls for a no-light look, then that's its own legitimate aesthetic choice, and not "low production value". It's like in music, we had super slick production, and we've had a more dirty grungy production sound - a conscious choice. It's pretty narrow-minded to try to define one particular look as "low class" as if artists don't continually make choices for completely legitimate artistic reasons.



This is just funny drivel. You are describing a certain very specific parameter as if that's a universal artistic standard. What if someone is not looking to make a shot as "nice and rich looking as possible"? And what is "nice" anyway - is there a universally agreed upon standard? Taste doesn't enter into it? What if you want to make an intentionally grungy image, with a narrow and desaturated color palate, instead of a "nice" and "rich"? That takes just as much skill and artistic commitment as it is to make a "rich-looking" shot. The same with a choice of tools - it all depends on the effect you want to achieve, and sometimes you will use "bounce cards, ND filters" etc., and sometimes you won't. Once upon a time it was unthinkable to take the camera off the tripod/dolly and into your hands, but then New Wave cinema came about and suddenly there were sequences where the tripod/dolly was entirely absent, and then whole films were made handheld. No tool - including lights - is definitionally necessary to every shot or film. An artist may wish to take the camera off the tripod and so needs/wants a camera they can carry in their hands, but I guess you'd tell them to stick with those giant cameras from the 1920's which never left a dolly. All cinematic tools - including lights - are a matter of choice and can be used or discarded as the objectives dictate. No single tool defines what is "filmic" and what is not, and what is "low class" and what is "classy". Lighting is an artistic choice, all along the spectrum from tons of lamps to no extraneous sources of light. It's an artistic choice. And no such choice is "low class". Tools evolve - cameras and camera capabilities evolve. Aesthetic criteria evolve - just like once upon a time people tried to claim that only silent film was true film (Chaplin!) - sound came along, and our aesthetic evolved. Same with color and B&W. And so too with high sensitivity cameras - today we have such an option, and for some that will be a conscious artistic choice and there's nothing "low class" about it. It's called technical progress. I like my cameras more sensitive. You may not - there are still some old pre-sound era Mitchell hand-crank cameras ready for super low sensitivity film - check 'em out, you'll be in heaven - for many scenes they required those huge Brute lights that could light up a stadium and melted makeup off the actors face and led to DP's going blind longer term. Good times! High class! I won't knock your artistic choices, mine lead me to more sensitive cameras, but variety is the spice of life, so it's all good!

Look I'm not saying shooting without lights can't be creative or have a purpose. I'm talking about high production value here and nothing else. There are high production standards and that typically includes careful lighting. Its a thing in the broadcast and film world. I'm not making this up. You could shoot a TV pilot on an Arri and if it has low production value a network will likely reject it. Production value does not mean the same thing as talent or skill. Its just a thing, a standard that professionals live to. Sometimes the story isn't enough and even dark night scenes are lit with tons of lights. Heck we even water down roads at night just because it gives a certain look with lights that somehow equals high production value.

 

[OldCorpse]

Well, we can go round and round on what's low production value, what is perception of value, how standards change and evolve and so on ad infinitum. None of that impacts physical facts. Facts such as light sensitivity. I most certainly reject as absurd any claim that to want, wish for, or require a high sensitivity camera therefore means that any film made with such a camera will be a low class production: you bring a GH4 to set - HIGH CLASS PRODUCTION!!! - you bring an a7Sii - LOW CLASS PRODUCTION!!! Don't you see the absurdity in that claim? And yet that is exactly what you said. By the way, the a7Sii is considerably more expensive than the GH4, just FYI. And you justify that claim by asserting that nobody can possibly need a more sensitive camera, because since we all use lights, the GH4 is sensitive enough for all HIGH CLASS productions. It's plainly stupid. It does remind me of the apocryphal Bill Gates statement he supposedly made "640 kB ought to be enough for anybody" (which he actually never said). By that kind of thinking, we should go back to when cameras used film so insensitive that you needed a fortune in lights and had to contort the sets and resultant limits to filming environments - boy that was very expensive indeed, and since so expensive, they certainly were a HIGH CLASS PRODUCTION. For some reason people developed more sensitive cameras that didn't require quite so much lighting infrastructure and nobody called them low class productions. But at every stage of technological development, you'll always find someone to say "that's it - no need to develop technology any further, we've reached Peak Tech Nirvana" for any given product. With that attitude we'd all still be living in caves. Fortunately, there are those who demand better, and progress happens, even if somebody might call progress low class.

 

[Shenan]

Not to get in the middle of crossfire but the next step in the narrative low-light image acquisition will probably be a medium format camera with a fairly small pixel count (4 - 9 MPX) that should deliver a feature film worthy image at moonlight and would be a more narrowly tailored version of Alexa65, which has 20 MPX in MF and was used for low light scenes in the "Revenant".

DLD, I used to have this romantic idea in my mind that the super low-light performers like the A7S would possibly do away with the need for expensive and cumbersome lighting and we could be free to run around with nothing but a camera and actors, even in the dark, just with moonlight. Freedom! That is, until I saw actual examples of this. They looked terrible -- Super low-contrast, low-saturation, muddy, grey-looking images. Yes, shooting in moonlight is a technical marvel and produces an image that is passable for a documentary if the circumstances don't allow for anything else, but for narrative work it seems to me that it would be unusable in the vast majority of cases. The exceptions would be if that very specific look actually helped the story of the moment/scene/movie. Here's the actual example that made me realize that it's hard if not impossible to do away with lighting dark scenes for narrative work, regardless of how good a camera is in low-light (except in very narrow cases like I mentioned):

Now, that's not to say that low-light performing cameras cannot be a big help to better utilize the light that you do have, or reduce the need for expensive, cumbersome lights.

This example shot with the C300 looks a bit better because the moonlight-only shots are kept fairly brief, so there's more variety in the look of the piece:

 

[Shenan]

By the way, I was one of the people early on (in this same thread, I believe) that liked the idea of the GH5 having an APS-C/Super 35mm sensor. After some more thought, taking into account all the options of Speedboosters, and after spending a bunch of time reading the MFT forum on dpreview, where there are daily epic battles fought about MFT sensor size, I just don't see the point anymore.

While 135 ("full frame") naturally brings a significant jump up in light-gathering ability (I understand around 2 stops), APS-C/Super 35 isn't that big of a jump (I understand 2/3 to 1 stop). You can throw a speedbooster in there to get that extra 1 stop, and have the flexibility of having either narrower or wider depth of field to suit what you're filming.

So I now agree with folks that say that a better MFT sensor is what is needed (using BSI, organic, whatever latest and greatest technology possible), and not a bigger sensor. This is with the caveat that it would be nice if Panasonic went back to the idea of a multi aspect ratio sensor, where it would make sense to have a bigger sensor but stay within the normal MFT image circle so that no new lenses would be necessary.

 

[Thomas Smet]

Well, we can go round and round on what's low production value, what is perception of value, how standards change and evolve and so on ad infinitum. None of that impacts physical facts. Facts such as light sensitivity. I most certainly reject as absurd any claim that to want, wish for, or require a high sensitivity camera therefore means that any film made with such a camera will be a low class production: you bring a GH4 to set - HIGH CLASS PRODUCTION!!! - you bring an a7Sii - LOW CLASS PRODUCTION!!! Don't you see the absurdity in that claim? And yet that is exactly what you said. By the way, the a7Sii is considerably more expensive than the GH4, just FYI. And you justify that claim by asserting that nobody can possibly need a more sensitive camera, because since we all use lights, the GH4 is sensitive enough for all HIGH CLASS productions. It's plainly stupid. It does remind me of the apocryphal Bill Gates statement he supposedly made "640 kB ought to be enough for anybody" (which he actually never said). By that kind of thinking, we should go back to when cameras used film so insensitive that you needed a fortune in lights and had to contort the sets and resultant limits to filming environments - boy that was very expensive indeed, and since so expensive, they certainly were a HIGH CLASS PRODUCTION. For some reason people developed more sensitive cameras that didn't require quite so much lighting infrastructure and nobody called them low class productions. But at every stage of technological development, you'll always find someone to say "that's it - no need to develop technology any further, we've reached Peak Tech Nirvana" for any given product. With that attitude we'd all still be living in caves. Fortunately, there are those who demand better, and progress happens, even if somebody might call progress low class.

I'm not saying using a larger sensor camera is low production value. I said choosing to not use lights is. There is a rather big difference there. You can have high production value with a GH4, a A7S or a Ursa Mini 4k. You can also have low production value with all three of those cameras. My only point is that the GH4 is not any less of a production tool just because it cannot see in the dark and the A7S is not a superior tool because it can. The A7S does not and will not ever instantly equal high production value if lights are not used and one just assumes they can shoot as is.

I'm not ripping on any camera and I think they are all great cameras for the most part. I think thats kind of the point here. I'm not the one trashing the GH4 or a GH5 that hasn't even been announced yet. I'm happy to use a GH4, A7S or an Ursa Mini 4k. Right now the low light just doesn't bother me so I don't see as much point to move to the A7S. I'm not obsessed with shooting in the dark and I think the GH4 has quality advantages over the A7S outside of low light. I for one consider the A7S severely limited because it cannot output 10bit. I value color depth and range a lot more than I do low light. The Ursa Mini is a darn good camera but I often ask myself do I really need it and will it make my productions better. The answer is almost always no it will not. We now have tools that do amazing things.

I used to shoot with SONY DVCAM broadcast cameras and once owned a Canon XL1. Heck I remember having to shoot with JVC S-VHS cameras when I first started in this business. Many of those cameras cost now as much as the Ursa Mini does fully loaded. The fact that we even have a camera today like the Gh4 is just mind boggling. Yeah the A7S is a light sucker but I value a lot more than just that with my cameras. I like the look of Panasonic, I like how they give proper controls over the video, I like that they continue to push the envelope in terms of features. First with a decent mirrorless hybrid video, first to 4k, first with the option to add HD-SDI. Sony's first is to shoot by the pale moon light. An impressive thing indeed but just not all that necessary for those who take a more high production value course of action.

Once you factor in an experienced crew, professional lighting, great talent and carefully selected locations these cameras really start to no longer matter and you use the one that works with your style and gives the most creative options. For me thats the GH4 and will likely continue to be a Panasonic camera in the future. I'm not going to keep chasing low light when I know how to deal with low light. Its just such a non issue for me now.

 

[DLD]

DLD, I used to have this romantic idea in my mind that the super low-light performers like the A7S would possibly do away with the need for expensive and cumbersome lighting and we could be free to run around with nothing but a camera and actors, even in the dark, just with moonlight. Freedom! That is, until I saw actual examples of this. They looked terrible -- Super low-contrast, low-saturation, muddy, grey-looking images...

As I mentioned those tiny LED strings a few posts ago, I decided to venture back to eBay for some "state of the art" panels. I found two Yuongno (or however you spell it) 160 and 300 bead panels, selling for $40-$60 a piece. Then I went on YouTube to see if there are any reviews of those products. I found several reviews and a cute night time short - it looked like a 5DIII - made with the aid of these lights. I wouldn't call what I saw a masterpiece but the image quality was perfectly acceptable. IIRC, the husband&wife team ran the 300 bead light as key and bounced the 160 bead one off a white wall. Then they used both indoors. Then they used the 300 as a moonlight at 5000K shooting through the door glass and then at 2700-3200 for the street light effect. (I don't think they were using any negative fills/crimps) And that, to me, is the salvation of the new inexpensive LED - be they panels, rings, Fresnel or what not - and these super light sensitive sensors. You can shot a night scene by a street light. You can do with with $100 worth of LED's. You can do it off a campfire. Off a firecracker (be careful how you hold it - signed, Jason Pierre Paul). Off a New Year sparkler. Off most practicals (fireflies excluded). Et cetera, et cetera. And you don't need Kubrick's/Luftwaffe's Zeiss F0.7 lens for that either.

 

[OldCorpse]

And I in turn never claimed that shooting with no lights is the one and only spec needed in a camera. What I said is that a more sensitive camera gives me more options - I can use smaller lights to the same effect, which is not just or even primarily a budget issue (which is where the "low class production" silliness comes in) - smaller lights allow one to access spaces and environments which would otherwise be impossible or impractical, allow for more battery-powered mobility and less dependence on lighting infrastructure, such as generators and AC; you gain much greater capability to operate in more extreme circumstances and artistic choices (up to and including sometimes relying on no lights). It's the same evolution as ever in any technology including cameras - they've grown progressively more sensitive, so you need lesser and lesser light infrastructure - we've been doing that since the beginning of cinema cameras... at any stage we people could stop and say "that's it, lighting requirements are low enough, anything lower and you got low class production" - 50 years ago, 30 years ago, 20 years, 10 years, today. But we keep evolving camera capabilities, including low-light capability. OK, if you don't need it, that's fine, but others may have different needs. There's one poster on here who just made a silent film feature - hey, if you're making silent films, you don't need to worry about the whole sound department! But others want sound capability - I sure hope he doesn't think that having sound capability makes your camera a low-class production. You don't need or care about low-light, I do - choices are good, and options are good. From my point of view, as I compare the GH4 and a7Sii, the feature mix on the Sony is better suited to my needs - clearly not yours, but I would not criticize your choice of camera or label your productions as low class because of it. I will look to see what GH5 delivers - if it were to deliver what I need, I'd be ecstatic, as I have a lot of m4/3 gear, but I highly doubt it, as neither low-light capability nor IBIS is likely to be what I need in the GH5.