GH4 Panasonic GH5 coming in 2017

[Jim Simon]

Quicktime is a heck of a lot more universal than MXF or Cineform ever were.

That is precisely the problem. As a multimedia framework that needs to be installed and get's updated, QuickTime is buggy and flawed. As purely a container specification that needs to installation or updating, MXF just works.

As for Cineform vs ProRes, I'd not argue against ProRes in the MXF container, as long as I write the files for free on a Windows system without installing QuickTime. But since that's not possible (or likely) the alternative is Cineform in the MXF container.

It's just better.

 

[Jim Simon]

ProRes also works flawlessly on OSX and FCPX so I'm not sure why it should die.

Because Macs suck, and their use in this industry needs to die along with the QuickTime format.

What works on Windows is all that matters.

 

[Jim Simon]

In my opinion MXF is a failed format that never lived up to the promise of creating a universal easy to use format.

It is true that camera makers have not used the format properly. It's designed to hold video, audio, timecode and metadata in a single file, with no need of any kind of folder structure.

That is the ideal scene, here. I argue for that where I can.

 

[Jim Simon]

Cineform also has the down side of requiring editors to buy a plugin to use it.

Comes free with Adobe. Unfortunately, however, they do use it in the lesser QuickTime format. So that should be corrected as well.

 

[Jim Simon]

Like it or not but ProRes is the only professional format that delivered on the promise of giving professional quality to the wider market with the widest amount of support.

DNxHD in the MXF container can be read and written on both Windows and Macs, so it has "wider support" in that sense. And it's every bit as good quality-wise. But none of the downsides of QuickTime.

It does have a downside compared to Cineform, however, in that it's locked to a limited set of resolutions and frame rates, whereas Cineform is also every bit as good quality but more flexible on those fronts.

So from a usability standpoint, I do make the argument that Cineform MXF files are the ideal scene here.

 

[DLD]

Ooooh, give me that with 4:2:2, 10 bit internal recording and I'm SOLD!!!

200 Mbps should give you a 4:4:4 equivalent. 4:2:2 HQ is ~ 120.

 

[DLD]

A slight revision - the relative file sizes are about 6.5-to-1 in ProRes vs HEVC, so 4:2:2 HQ would be ~ 135 Mbps.

 

[Thomas Smet]

DNxHD in the MXF container can be read and written on both Windows and Macs, so it has "wider support" in that sense. And it's every bit as good quality-wise. But none of the downsides of QuickTime.

It does have a downside compared to Cineform, however, in that it's locked to a limited set of resolutions and frame rates, whereas Cineform is also every bit as good quality but more flexible on those fronts.

So from a usability standpoint, I do make the argument that Cineform MXF files are the ideal scene here.

Except not all software can open MXF and it isn't exactly an easy format to implement in software. As a software developer I hate MXF and it is much easier to implement support for the Quicktime wrapper. MXF is also not very forgiving and only really works with standards. Its harder to use it for multimedia purposes and involves way too much cross conversion or rewrapping.

 

[Thomas Smet]

Because Macs suck, and their use in this industry needs to die along with the QuickTime format.

What works on Windows is all that matters.

Well now you are just being biased and silly. You are going to start a flame war with talk like that. I don't deny that Macs have their issues but they far from suck. As one who uses both platforms on a professional level I can tell you they both have their pros and cons. Not one sucks any more than the other. At the end of the day they are just tools and I learned to embrace both tools to their full extent. Adobe software works just as good across both platforms. I know because I use it on both platforms every single day.

 

[Bern Caughey]

Because Macs suck, and their use in this industry needs to die along with the QuickTime format.

What works on Windows is all that matters.

I rarely encounter Windows machine at any point of a production & most look like a pop-up Apple Store.

Good luck with your personal crusade. And be wary of those naughty Wind Mills.

 

[DLD]

So, the early rumors have the camera being announced in the second half of 2016. Which would make it a half-rumor. And no specs given.

 

[DPStewart]

The sensor and software on that new $7,000 LEICA dslr are a STRONG indication that the GH5 will be a full-frame 4k internal high D.R. camera.

But then I suspect MOST cameras will meet this general description next year.

 

[DLD]

The sensor and software on that new $7,000 LEICA dslr are a STRONG indication that the GH5 will be a full-frame 4k internal high D.R. camera.

But then I suspect MOST cameras will meet this general description next year.

IMO, GH5 will have a lot more in common with DVX 200 than with Leica SL, which is in a different weight class entirely. (It's Gert Fröbe of DSLR's) But I certainly don't think that the design, the sensor and the electronics of the SL will be wasted. It will be a part of something else. Someday.

 

[k0bayashi]

The sensor and software on that new $7,000 LEICA dslr are a STRONG indication that the GH5 will be a full-frame 4k internal high D.R. camera.

But then I suspect MOST cameras will meet this general description next year.

Ok, I'll play - Why would the GH5 be a FF camera (which I believe it won't be) when all their lenses are MFT? I mean that would be a rather poor business decision to market e top of the range product which requires lenses from 3rd parties? Panasonic are way to invested in the MFT ecosystem to make the jump.

I may be wrong, but I really doubt it will be FF. There's also very heavy competition there from Sony's mirrorless and Canon/Nikon DSLRs. They'll be swimming against the tide from the get go.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

Ok, I'll play - Whey would the GH5 be a FF camera (which I believe it won't be) when all their lenses are MFT? I mean that would be a rather poor business decision to market e top of the range product which requires lenses from 3rd parties? Panasonic are way to invested in the MFT ecosystem to make the jump.

I may be wrong, but I really doubt it will be FF. There's also very heavy competition there from Sony's mirrorless and Canon/Nikon DSLRs. They'll be swimming against the time from the get go.

Spot on. There is no indication anywhere that Panasonic will come out with anything that isn't MFT.

 

[David W. Jones]

And lets be honest, does it really matter?

A year after the GH5 has been released, everybody will be Jones'n for a GH6! :2vrolijk_08:

 

[DPStewart]

Spot on. There is no indication anywhere that Panasonic will come out with anything that isn't MFT.

This is based on speculation of where Leica got their new sensor from.

As was noted by Andrew Reid:
"Another very strong hint that this is our first glimpse of a full frame Panasonic sensor with Panasonic image processing is that the camera does 10bit 4K 4:2:2 over HDMI, just like the GH4. Internally it also records 4K – in 8bit 4:2:0 format. It also has 4096 x 2160 – something the GH4 has, but Sony haven’t implemented on any of their full frame cameras yet. Interesting there’s also a V-LOG style gamma curve labeled “L-LOG” in the menus."

 

[DLD]

Spot on. There is no indication anywhere that Panasonic will come out with anything that isn't MFT.

V-Log on Leica, the long standing cooperation between two companies and the occasional re-badging of various models in the industry make a full frame Panasonic a strong possibility. The form, the shape, the mount and the features are undetermined - although I would speculate that it'll have to be a Leica FF mount - but the move toward full frame and 8K is unmistakable. MFT will become more of a consumer product with narrower margins and lower performance, although that "lower performance" will be more than serviceable for most users.

IMO, GH5 in its low end pro iteration will be the last GH model. With new Sony APS-C models going for as little as $600, getting over $1,200 for an MFT unit will be nigh impossible, unless it came with features of much more expensive cameras. But even that would ruin the profit margins due to more expensive processors, media interface, cards, etc. It's doable but it makes little sense from the long term strategy outlook and, much like with the 1/2.3" sizes relegated to smartphone and the entry level point&shoots, MFT is about to go by the way of a dodo.

 

[k0bayashi]

even if the sensor in the new Leica SL is made by Panasonic, and even if Panasonic came up with a Leica branded FF camera (which would again make very little sense) it would hardly be a LUMIX branded GH product. As a completely different product line - maybe, but under the Lumix line-up - not possible unless they can release 5-6 full frame LUMIX branded lenses in the next six months... hardly an achievable feat by any company that;s never made a full frame lens or camera.

I am sure the GH5 or whatever ends up being called will be a fine camera for both stills and video - but I think some you expect a Ferrari from a "Volkswagen". After all isn't Micro Four Thirds a more affordable semi-professional/professional platform compared to Full-frame? This comes from an ex-GH4 owner. And I did really like my GH4.

 

[k0bayashi]

And lets be honest, does it really matter?

A year after the GH5 has been released, everybody will be Jones'n for a GH6! :2vrolijk_08:

yeah, that too - there's a few Blackmagic design fans out there who already want new cameras even before they;ve delivered the ones they announced 8 months ago... such is the game unfortunately.