GH4 Panasonic GH5 coming in 2017

The 6K announcement is exactly why I jumped in with the GH4. I figure cameras will continue to increase their capabilities, exponentially - so why buy into a camera system in the $3K range or higher, when it will be rendered obsolete in a few years (or less.) Better to buy the relatively inexpensive GH4 and upgrade when the GH5 comes out - keeping my lenses and accessories viable for the upgrade.
 
Kennfilms said:
The 6K announcement is exactly why I jumped in with the GH4. I figure cameras will continue to increase their capabilities, exponentially - so why buy into a camera system in the $3K range or higher, when it will be rendered obsolete in a few years (or less.) Better to buy the relatively inexpensive GH4 and upgrade when the GH5 comes out - keeping my lenses and accessories viable for the upgrade.
Click to expand...

If the relatively inexpensive m4/3 system satisfies your needs, then yes. That's what I did too - but I now regret it, because it does not satisfy my needs by a long shot. I absolutely need low-light capability - which the GH line doesn't have. That's why it would've been wiser to pay the $3K for the a7Sii - which in addition has IBIS. I used to be a Sony avoider, but it seems they've changed their approach. I'm intrigued by reports that Sony has managed to come up with workable video autofocus - which would be fantastic on a gimbal. All that would totally be worth paying the roughly 2x price for the GH. As is, I now sit with a lot of m4/3 peripherals worth many thousands of $ (lenses, adapters etc.), and it could have been invested much better. I frankly don't see the m4/3 GH line ever delivering on what I want - much better low light performance, IBIS, usable video autofocus etc. Be careful when you commit to a system.
 
Doing the math I'm just not sure how they are getting 6k from a 20MP sensor unless that sensor is no longer 4x3. You need a 24MP 4x3 sensor in order to get 6000 pixels wide.

My other concern is low light. The more pixels you cram into a 4/3" sensor the smaller each photo site is. The GH4 is an amazing camera but it really gets panned in the professional market for its lack of sensitivity. Making each of those pixels even smaller will have the opposite effect of the only limitation many feel the current GH4 has. Unless the GH5 uses an APS-C sensor and can only do 6k in adapted mode or is finally implementing their organic sensor technology I would take a guess and say the low light may suffer a bit compared to the GH4 or stay about the same.

The other negative effect could be the increased crop for 4k mode. If they do in fact cram 6k worth of pixels in the same 4/3" space that means the crop factor in 4k mode could be even more extreme than that of the GH4. Again unless they all of a sudden decide to use an APS-C sensor kind of like on the new Nikon D500. In that case then the 4k crop mode could be around a 2.0 crop like we are used to. JVC did it so maybe its not as unrealistic as we thought.

Still even if it does use APS-C the math is off and typically only a 24MP APS-C can capture 6000 pixels wide if it does maintain a 4x3 aspect ratio. I would think since Panasonic is investing in anamorphic so much they would want to keep a 4x3 aspect sensor. Unless they in fact view a 1.33x anamorphic lens option as more realistic to use with a 6k 16x9 sensor. Then again if a 6k sensor is real a 4x3 crop of the middle would still be more pixels than what the current GH4 has even if the GH5 sensor is in fact no longer 4x3 so maybe its not all that big of a deal.

With all of that said I think moving to 6k is the least important factor of quality for the GH5 and I would rather see them focus on other improvements such as dynamic range, sensitivity, internal color depth handling like 10bit, etc. 6k while nice is more of a marketing tactic to make the GH5 seem amazing while many film makers are now more focused on latitude and color than an endless chase of more pixels which do the same as before.
 
Thomas Smet said:
With all of that said I think moving to 6k is the least important factor of quality for the GH5 and I would rather see them focus on other improvements such as dynamic range, sensitivity, internal color depth handling like 10bit, etc. 6k while nice is more of a marketing tactic to make the GH5 seem amazing while many film makers are now more focused on latitude and color than an endless chase of more pixels which do the same as before.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If the GH5 does not concentrate on better sensitivity, DR, and color management, then it's just another nail in the coffin for me as far as the m4/3 world. I'm about ready to jump ship for Sony (all systems have weaknesses - f.ex. Sony is weak in lenses for me) - I'll wait to see where Panasonic wants to take the GH line with the GH5, but odds are overwhelming that I'm selling my m4/3 cameras and gear. My personal expectations for the GH5 are not optimistic.
 
I assume there won't be a crop for 4K. It'll use the entire width of the sensor like A6300 (which is, incidentally, 24 MPX in 6,000 x 4,000). Having said that, we really don't know anything. There are technologies that will bump the MFT sensor low light performance significantly - Clear Pixels, Copper Wiring, Back Side Illumination - but no one knows if Panasonic will use any of them.
 
Last edited:
I too share the concern for the m4/3rds format. I know the GH cameras have been a great tool for folks but I see this as a 2nd tier format. Sort of a different direction that has inherent difficulties that will always force it to be in 2nd or 3rd place.

To me it is simple, the fact that the GH4/GH5 is a hybrid is what is holding it back. The only way to make a true video winner is to lower the pixel count so the photo sites can be larger. The format needs all of the help it can get for light gathering and cramming pixels to satisfy still buyers will put quite a squeeze on the video side as stated. I have interest in the GH line so I will be watching. I was let down by the DVX200's image. Lets hope the GH5 has some more video improvements as Sony is leading the pack these days.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I too share the concern for the m4/3rds format. I know the GH cameras have been a great tool for folks but I see this as a 2nd tier format. Sort of a different direction that has inherent difficulties that will always force it to be in 2nd or 3rd place.
Click to expand...
Well : medium format, full frame, s35/APS-C, MFT, 1".

How does the 4th Place sound? You can still get a medal for that ... at a Wold Cup.

To me it is simple, the fact that the GH4/GH5 is a hybrid is what is holding it back. The only way to make a true video winner is to lower the pixel count so the photo sites can be larger...
Click to expand...
One needs 17.6 MPX to do a 4:2:2 4K and that means a ~ 22 MPX sensor. An 8.8 MPX sensor needs a lot of processing to get its colors up to par and even C300 MKII only gets a ~ 1,550 lines of res after the loss to Debayering. And besides, Panasonic wants to do 8K anyway and will require 33 MPX at the lowest. In other words, photo is actually meeting video here and technologies have been developed to give an MFT size sensor a reasonable - by the historical standards - low light performance.

PS. IMO, the market will allow for the special low light cameras such as A7S/II. There'll also be a special high FPS cameras and 8K cameras and a shooter might have to have all of the three. But, they'll likely sell for no more than $300 each.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I too share the concern for the m4/3rds format. I know the GH cameras have been a great tool for folks but I see this as a 2nd tier format. Sort of a different direction that has inherent difficulties that will always force it to be in 2nd or 3rd place.

To me it is simple, the fact that the GH4/GH5 is a hybrid is what is holding it back. The only way to make a true video winner is to lower the pixel count so the photo sites can be larger. The format needs all of the help it can get for light gathering and cramming pixels to satisfy still buyers will put quite a squeeze on the video side as stated. I have interest in the GH line so I will be watching. I was let down by the DVX200's image. Lets hope the GH5 has some more video improvements as Sony is leading the pack these days.
Click to expand...

2nd tier? Just because of the low light? I never said m43 is bad and in fact I find it to be a great balance between size, weight, DOF and light gathering.

m4/3 can hold its own compared to many other systems out there. Image quality has many benchmarks and sensitivity is just one of those benchmarks. In many ways the GH4 after being over two years old can still hold its own when it comes to quality. 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. How many other DSLR cameras offer 10bit output or an HD-SDI option? How many have DCI 4096x2160 or a 4x3 mode for anamorphic? How many DSLR's have a LOG format or at least a LOG format that can benefit from a 10bit output?

Cinema cameras do have an edge but how much of an edge really when you sit down and actually look at what comes out of them? Sure you get more range in post if you shoot RAW but 10bit ProRes LOG gets you almost 99% there of what is actually useful or visible in an image. Some cinema cameras are not even all that great in low light despite the fact they do have larger sensors.

I have compared APS-C sensor RAW stills to m43 RAW stills and honestly when you remove NR from the equation an APS-C isn't all that much more sensitive. I mean they cram a lot more pixels into that extra space so each pixel is only a little bit larger than m43 pixels right now. What I find to be better on APS-C cameras is their level of in camera NR. Not sure why that is but maybe they sacrifice video quality for better NR. Panasonic chose to go the other direction and give the most natural detail at the expense of NR. Take a look at the G7 at what m43 can really do for sensitivity. People consider the G7 to be at least a stop better at higher ISO levels than the GH4. When you compare RAW stills however the noise is about the same. This means the G7 is just that much better at in camera NR than the GH4. I see no reason why the GH5 couldn't get to that level as long as it has enough processing power to handle the NR without sacrificing everything else it does.

m43 is an amazing sensor size capable of great quality and in any serious production with serious talent devoted to lighting it will kill many other cameras out there. Lighting is that one thing that can almost always be added to a shot. Detail, pixels, lack of aliasing, lack of moire and a lack of line skipping is not. Right now with the right care the GH4 can really hold its own compared to many cinema cameras and in my opinion the only DSLR class camera that is a pseudo cinema camera.
 
stoneinapond said:
Yeah, that sounds right. S35 is definitely third tier. :2vrolijk_08:
Click to expand...

I got a "vrolijk" for that?

Anyway, Alexa65 is medium format, ~ $8,000/day rental, current state of the art.

Red Weapon Vista Vision - full frame. If you want 8K, full frame is the most reasonable size and that's where the high end cinema cameras are going.

s35/APS-C 4K is the current high end, soon to be very affordable.

MFT is the low end pro, higher end consumer for 4K.

1" is the consumer and bridge.

1/2.3" is the entry level P&S.
 
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 think it's silly to argue that because you want to shoot in low light means you have a "low class production". As if all sensitivity problems are solved with throwing more light fixtures at it... hey, if that's the case, why bother ever shooting above ISO50 and why even in film days did they bother to develop any film faster than 100. Just throw more lights at it! It's a stupid argument. There are many reasons you may want a small sensitive camera like the a7S, and they are purely practical - 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. Even under ordinary circumstances, more lights = more time, and what if you are time-constricted by f.ex. a fast moving documentary format, where dragging lights around is simply 100% not possible. And even on purely aesthetic grounds, I may want to use a minimal light aesthetic that precludes anything beyond small practicals. None of that makes a production "low class". Every user has to determine what they require. I don't criticize or degrade anyone whose needs indicate a very insensitive camera - it's all about the needs being met with the tech. But I - and clearly many others - have a low class need for greater light sensitivity from a camera, and the GH line does not deliver and doesn't seem set to deliver anytime soon... and that is a deal-breaking TECHNICAL limitation in the capability of that line of cameras. So I will turn to whatever delivers on those capabilities, rather than throw up my hands and say "I guess I should resign from my needs, because someone thinks it's low class, I guess I'm stuck". As if poor low light performance is a point of pride, and only a fool would ask for a sensitive camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top