GH4 Panasonic GH5 coming in 2017

[combatentropy]

From the PetaPixel link...

the new sensor can capture 88dB signal-to-noise ratio, which translates into approximately 14.6 stops of dynamic range in each direction or 29.2 stops EV. By comparison, the best sensor currently on the market (according to Adorama) is found in the Nikon D800E, and clocks in at only 46dB or approximately 7.7 stops in each direction or 15.3 stops EV

So if they've got this right . . .

They haven't. In fact they managed to be wrong about two different things:

1. Dynamic range isn't the same thing as signal-to-noise ratio. Look at the spec sheet for image sensors, and each should be listed separately (for example, the CMV12000 has 60 dB of dynamic range and a signal-to-noise ratio of 41.3 dB; the IMX174 has 74 dB of dynamic range and a signal-to-noise ratio of 44.8 dB).

2. Neither has ever meant "in both directions." I really don't know where they got this.

Looking on the web I found a Sony White Paper on Dynamic Range that states that the best CMOS sensors have a dynamic range of only 60 dB

That white paper must be old. That would mean that the best CMOS sensors have a dynamic range of 10 stops (decibels divided by 6 equals f-stops).

 

[DLD]

This could be something ... or nothing at all.

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/hig...n-rangefinder-camera-could-be-named-leica-sl/

Leica is apparently coming out with a mirrorless non-rangefinder full frame camera called SL. I repeat full frame. And it's co-developed by Panasonic. And it's expensive. Because it's a Leica. But it is full frame.

 

[brudney]

Yes, it's full frame, so what? I don't see Panny abandoning m4/3 anytime soon, it wouldn't make any sense at all.

 

[TheDingo]

Leica is apparently coming out with a mirrorless non-rangefinder full frame camera called SL.

Leica has been producing $$$$ FF cameras and lenses since day-one, it makes sense that they would enter the FF mirrorless market.

Now if Leica had been exclusively producing a long line of Micro 4/3 cameras and lenses for the past 7-8 years, I would be very surprised that they would suddenly add on a FF camera.

FF makes a lot of sense for still photo work, but not so much sense for video work.

 

[DLD]

Yes, it's full frame, so what? I don't see Panny abandoning m4/3 anytime soon, it wouldn't make any sense at all.

I didn't imply Panasonic is abandoning MFT. But, IMO, there's a good chance they'll add FF and it will be a higher tier product line than MFT, GH4/5 included.

... FF makes a lot of sense for still photo work, but not so much sense for video work.

Sony would disagree with that notion, especially in the photo-video hybrid sector. There's a reason the A7 series is full frame.

My conjecture/analysis here is that Leica doesn't generate enough sales numbers to go into the FF mirrorless by themselves and, presuming Panasonic contributed to the design of the camera, the technology will make its way down to Panasonic. In a win-win exchange, Panasonic will then buy or manufacture under license a ton of Leica lenses.

 

[joe12south]

The "GH" line is by definition Micro Four Thirds. Then look at Panasonic's investment in lenses. There's a ton of improvement that can be gained with new sensor technology without abandoning the M43 platform.

 

[TheDingo]

Panasonic will then buy or manufacture under license a ton of Leica lenses.

Leica won't license their lenses for cheap, and I can't see Panasonic being able to sell a $3K FF prime lens based upon a Leica design. There are already too many players in the FF arena, so I can't see Panasonic making any real profit by jumping into the already crowded FF pool.

Sony would disagree with that notion, especially in the photo-video hybrid sector. There's a reason the A7 series is full frame.

The reason is that Sony makes the sensors so making FF mirrorless cameras is an easy way to carve out their own niche and keep the price at a higher profit margin. It's going to be a real blood-bath once Canon and Nikon finally wake up and start making their own FF mirrorless cameras.

I also don't see too many advantages of shooting FF format over Super35. For super shallow DOF or super low-light shooting a Full Frame camera has the upper hand, but for everything else Super35 is where it's at.

Most filmmakers want a workable DOF when they are shooting. For the Micro 4/3 format this translates to f/2.0 - f/2.8, for APS-C / Super35 format this translates to f/2.8 - f/4.0, and for Full Frame this translates to f/4.0 - f/5.6.

I am very curious to see what happens with the RED Weapon 8K Full Frame camera rentals and the specialized lens rentals over the next year or two. Standard cine glass won't cover the Full Frame format, so you either have to put up with crappy still photo lenses, or rent specialized Full Frame cine glass. ( and I don't mean the still photo converted cine lenses, but rather lenses designed as cine glass right from the start ) So I'm very curious to see if the market will support this new format or not. I suspect there's going to be a lot of resistance to the larger Full Frame format.

 

[combatentropy]

I also don't see too many advantages of shooting FF format over Super35. For super shallow DOF or super low-light shooting a Full Frame camera has the upper hand, but for everything else Super35 is where it's at.

Most filmmakers want a workable DOF when they are shooting. For the Micro 4/3 format this translates to f/2.0 - f/2.8, for APS-C / Super35 format this translates to f/2.8 - f/4.0, and for Full Frame this translates to f/4.0 - f/5.6.

As you point out, the difference from one format to the next is just one f-stop. It is this fact that makes me wonder why people clamor for full frame over S35, as if it were a big deal (or the reverse, saying S35 instead of full frame), or even that people complain about 4/3.

The differences are small. In fact, between 1950 and 2000, most movies were shot in a format called Flat 35, which was 21.95 x 11.86 mm. So the format today that is closest to the long-entrenched Hollywood standard is . . . Four Thirds!

 

[Brandon Freeman]

As you point out, the difference from one format to the next is just one f-stop. It is this fact that makes me wonder why people clamor for full frame over 135, as if it were a big deal (or the reverse, saying S35 instead of full frame), or even that people complain about 4/3.

The differences are small. In fact, between 1950 and 2000, most movies were shot in a format called Flat 35, which was 21.95 x 11.86 mm. So the format today that is closest to the long-entrenched Hollywood standard is . . . Four Thirds!

Right?? When I shoot S35 I want that iris at f5.6. When I shoot m43 I want it at f2.8. If I ever shoot FF I'll probably have a ceiling of f8. I like some blur, but I want my subject (ALL of it) in focus, man!

 

[DLD]

The arguments are cogent ... but, with 8K somewhere down the road, the move to FF is very likely. It is indeed will be led by Sony. Others may choose not to respond but I have an inkling they'll have no choice.

PS. Canon and Nikon would love a move toward FF. Pentax is joining Sony already and Fuji is rumored to be on its way too. To quote my horoscope from a few days ago, Panasonic can then, "Lead, follow or get out of the way". And I don't think they want to get out of the way. Or follow. They want to lead.

 

[aldolega]

Full-frame isn't just about shallow DOF and low-light. It's also about focal lengths. A 24mm on FF and a 12mm on m4/3 may have the same angle of view, and you can make the DOF the same if your 12mm is fast enough, but you can't get around the two focal lengths' differences in compression/background/foreground/etc. Especially for shooting faces and people- longer focal lengths will be more flattering. The exact same thing is true in photography, between medium or large format and the "small" formats (of which 135/FF is the largest).

Note that I'm not a FF fanboy by any means. I have a GH4 and don't even have a speedbooster for my lenses over 20mm (yet). Doesn't mean I'm not aware of the differences.

 

[combatentropy]

Full-frame isn't just about shallow DOF and low-light. It's also about focal lengths. A 24mm on FF and a 12mm on m4/3 may have the same angle of view, and you can make the DOF the same if your 12mm is fast enough, but you can't get around the two focal lengths' differences in compression/background/foreground/etc.

Pics, or it doesn't happen.

A 12mm on 4/3 at 2.8 should have the same depth of field, angle of view, and perspective ("compression/background/foreground/etc.") as a 24mm at 5.6 on FF. In fact, I believe Samuel H has some pictures that show this very thing.

 

[TheDingo]

Full-frame isn't just about shallow DOF and low-light. It's also about focal lengths. A 24mm on FF and a 12mm on m4/3 may have the same angle of view, and you can make the DOF the same if your 12mm is fast enough, but you can't get around the two focal lengths' differences in compression/background/foreground/etc. Especially for shooting faces and people- longer focal lengths will be more flattering.

This is absolutely bonkers. I started out as a commercial studio photographer 30 years ago working mainly with 4x5 and 8x10 inch film cameras ( Sinar and Toyo ), and I've shot with everything from a 8mm Minox film camera ( you are shooting with 8mm movie film ) up to the 20x24 inch Polaroid instant print camera with it's 5+ foot long bellows and f/180 lens F-stops. What you are saying makes no sense at all. There is no "magic FF" recipe that makes a FF lens produce a better image than a Super35 lens, or even a 16mm lens. When properly designed you can achieve the SAME optical qualities from a lens made for almost any format, assuming you can match the same relative tolerances when manufacturing each lens.

What is different is the amount of detail you can obtain from the recording medium assuming all recording medium behaves the same. ( when film was king this was the case ) So an 8x10 inch camera can record far more detail than a 4x5 inch camera, or a 6x6 cm camera, or a 35mm Full frame camera. But if you match the focal lengths and DOF between formats, whether it's a FF 35mm film camera or a 8x10 inch Sinar sheet-film camera, the image recorded is essentially the same. The amount of recorded detail is vastly different, but if all you are making is 4x6 inch prints you might have a very tough time figuring out which camera shot what.

The same principles apply to digital formats, where different camera optics can produce near identical images if used correctly.

 

[aldolega]

Ok. Then why does a dolly zoom give the effect it does? Ignoring DOF of course (although it would be really cool to see a dolly zoom done with an iris pull and coordinated gain/ISO boost).

 

[aldolega]

Pics, or it doesn't happen.

Not my picture, but here's an example.

http://cdn4.mcpactions.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/focallengtharticle.jpg

 

[combatentropy]

That's a great picture. But for each of those lenses, they stepped farther away from the subject.

How flat or in-your-face something looks --- like whether a model's nose looks big --- depends solely on how far you are standing from them. I guarantee that if you stand 30 feet from someone, their nose will look fine, even if you have a 14mm lens. The problem will be that the person is very, very small.

A telephoto lens lets you step far away from someone while also filling your frame with their head. If you stand 3 feet from someone with a 100mm lens, their nose will be just as in-your-face. It's just that the lens will fit only like part of their nose in the camera frame, instead of their nose, face, and maybe neck and shoulders.

 

[dvbrother]

Not my picture, but here's an example.

http://cdn4.mcpactions.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/focallengtharticle.jpg

I'm afraid you are misunderstanding a concept. Yes, the photos you show illustrate how wider focal lengths exaggerate perspective and elongate facial features, but they do this in proportion to the size of the image sensor. So a 24mm FF image will render perspective and angle of view exactly as a 12mm on a m4/3 camera (assuming an exact 2x crop factor).

You could replicate those photos exactly using a m4/3 camera by using focal lengths that are those numbers divided by 2 (12mm, 17mm, 25mm, etc.) And opening up the iris to accommodate the difference in DOF.
As The Dingo mentioned above, differences are to be found in the quality of the respective lenses (sharpness in corners, actual resolving ability) and in the resolution of the sensor.

 

[losmignones]

I'm afraid you are misunderstanding a concept. Yes, the photos you show illustrate how wider focal lengths exaggerate perspective and elongate facial features, but they do this in proportion to the size of the image sensor. So a 24mm FF image will render perspective and angle of view exactly as a 12mm on a m4/3 camera (assuming an exact 2x crop factor).

You could replicate those photos exactly using a m4/3 camera by using focal lengths that are those numbers divided by 2 (12mm, 17mm, 25mm, etc.) And opening up the iris to accommodate the difference in DOF.
As The Dingo mentioned above, differences are to be found in the quality of the respective lenses (sharpness in corners, actual resolving ability) and in the resolution of the sensor.

Apparently this is not 100% correct. 25mm at 2xcrop is not the same as 50mm full sensor in terms of perspective/distortion. there is a lengthy YouTube video explaining why.. with exemples. I have no clue that stuff is out of my league.

 

[dvbrother]

Apparently this is not 100% correct. 25mm at 2xcrop is not the same as 50mm full sensor in terms of perspective/distortion. there is a lengthy YouTube video explaining why.. with exemples. I have no clue that stuff is out of my league.

If there is some esoteric difference between FF lenses and m4/3 lenses (or APS-C lenses for that matter) with the appropriate adjustment in focal length to match the sensor size, it is so esoteric as to be insignificant. The fact is, I shoot 2 camera interviews every week with a full-frame Canon 5D and either an FS700 or a GH4. Every time, I can match the field of view, perspective and DOF with repeatability between these lenses.

There are plenty of side-by-side comparisons that prove this. One example is just a few posts above.

 

[refocusedmedia]

A 50 is a 50 is a 50. You may have a tighter crop of your 50mm image (aka Field of View or FOV), but that's about it. Worrying about crop factor is the dumbest thing in the world.