Not to put words in Cary's mouth but I think he is trying to tell you that there is likely nothing wrong with the lens or the camera. However they both need a lot more care in setting exposure and associated parameters to get the most out of them. The GH5 is a very complicated camera and it is very easy to get images much worse than a simpler camera. I have just got a GH5 a couple of weeks ago and am still learning what to do with it. By the way I am 75 years old and into photography since I was 15, film cameras since I was 23 and video for the last 37 years. Not a pro but certainly not without some experience and ready to learn as new things come out that need different approaches to get the most out of them.
GH4 Panasonic GH5 coming in 2017
- Thread starter Dan Keeble
- Start date
Cary, your comparison was eye opening. His shots do look overexposed. We know the same lens is extremely capable given the razor sharp shots we've seen from other shooters at similar focal lengths. So I seriously doubt there's anything inherently wrong with the lens in general. The worst results I've seen are from Flinty with this lens. I just don't think it would hurt to have his lens checked out.
Cary Knoop
Veteran
Obviously any lens could be faulty, but I would first try to eliminate other factors.
What I would suggest is to make an ISO 200 recording on a tripod at f/8 using the Natural profile and all other settings to default (no pedestal or lowered contrast etc) and OIS, IBIS and e-stabilization off and compare that recording to the other camera.
Last edited:
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Yup I told him the same thing in the past. Flinity is seeing acutance and not detail. The Sony camera uses a lot of edge enhancement to overcome its smaller sensor and lack of natural raw detail. This gives an illusion of a sharper image but it doesn't have more detail. Looks nice to people watching video on their TVs at home but it is not better. Its an illusion. The GH5 can be set within seconds to match this contrasty and overly video sharp look.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sharpness.htm
That thick black line around the edge of the white pole is a dead give away of an overly excessive amount of sharpening/edge enhancement.
I dont purchase and use cameras and say they are the best thing since sliced bread until i change them for another and then rubbish the camera,lets be honest thats what you always do,i brought 6 friends and my son to watch similar footage from the cameras not with the suspect lens everone like me must be under an illusion but i do like the GH5 look but cant understand how it can be called super datailed,and Ken call me Chris like you do elsewhere.
Last edited:
Flinty, the only reason I didn't call you Chris here was because I wasn't sure that's how you wanted to be referred to here. I saw people calling you 'Flinty'. No problem.
Now it's a bit of an overstatement saying I trash the old camera when I get a new one. Obviously I wouldn't buy a new camera if I didn't think it exceeded the quality of the old one.
I've always said and still say the lens on the RX10iii is the major selling point. It's a phenomenal lens and unequalled...certainly by any fixed lens camera. However, saying there's significant edge enhancement in the RX10iii, is not 'trashing' it, but simply stating a fact. Excessive edge enhancement is not the fault of the lens, but rather how Sony tunes the electronics. I think Cary & Tom showed quite well how that edge enhancement can be mistaken for additional detail when it's not. You also saw what Cary did to a grab of your original clip, turning it from lifeless into something that was more comparable to what you got with the RX10iii.
People are simply trying to help here.
With that said, I've said from the beginning and still feel the lens should be inspected to ensure it's within spec.
Now it's a bit of an overstatement saying I trash the old camera when I get a new one. Obviously I wouldn't buy a new camera if I didn't think it exceeded the quality of the old one.
I've always said and still say the lens on the RX10iii is the major selling point. It's a phenomenal lens and unequalled...certainly by any fixed lens camera. However, saying there's significant edge enhancement in the RX10iii, is not 'trashing' it, but simply stating a fact. Excessive edge enhancement is not the fault of the lens, but rather how Sony tunes the electronics. I think Cary & Tom showed quite well how that edge enhancement can be mistaken for additional detail when it's not. You also saw what Cary did to a grab of your original clip, turning it from lifeless into something that was more comparable to what you got with the RX10iii.
People are simply trying to help here.
With that said, I've said from the beginning and still feel the lens should be inspected to ensure it's within spec.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Flinty,
Nobody thinks you are crazy. The Gh5 you shot is much softer without a doubt. We believe you. What we are trying to explain is that there is a logical reason for that. It is ironic but the cheaper the video cameras the more of this type of sharpness you will find. If you hate the way the GH5 looks you would absolutely be appalled shooting with the ARRI Alexa or Red cameras and would likely have a heart attack if you shot on 35mm motion picture film.
What you are seeing really comes down to the different camera settings between each camera. The RX10 is designed to have an out of the box punchy look to it. some people love that look and that is exactly why Sony made that camera look that way. It wasn't a mistake and Sony knew exactly what they were doing. The GH5 can be made in camera to look more like that but you need to play with the settings. Out of the box the GH5 is going to have a less enhanced look to it because thats what other types of shooters prefer. Its no different than one artist preferring blue paint while another prefers red paint. To each their own.
You clearly prefer the look of the RX10 but that doesn't mean it is better than the GH5 and the GH5 is not in some way defective. It is just a different style out of the box you don't happen to like. A lot of people feel the way you do which is why cameras like the RX10 sell. There is nothing wrong with the RX10 or the GH5. They just take different approaches to creating an image in the camera.
When we point out the edge enhancement it isn't to try to say the RX10 is inferior. We do so so you can better try to match the cameras. Once you know the cause of the look difference you can compensate for it. You either greatly crank down the sharpness on the RX10 or crank up the sharpness on the GH5. Just try it, please. Take the GH5 and crank the sharpness to +5 and see what you get. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
filmguy123
Veteran
What Thomas said... if you want it looking more digitally sharpened, you can dial that in either in camera or in post. Detail is not sharpness. A soft, detailed look is much preferable as you can always amp up artificial sharpening later.
The GH5 in good hands looks remarkable. So do the Sony's. With the right settings, they can match remarkably well. With the wrong settings, either one can be made to look terrible.
I have a portfolio with older work on it shot on a AF100 and still get questions from people enthusiastically asking what camera it was shot on... I find it endlessly amusing (or annoying, depending on how much coffee i've had
) the endless youtube comparison videos that show nothing except people comparing apples to oranges.
At the end of the day, go with the camera you think looks better. It's your art and your eye. If you're trying to get to the bottom of a perceived problem, there's a lot of advice, feedback, and good info here. Most camera's settings are highly malleable, and as such the entire pipeline from lens to processing must be considered.
The GH5 in good hands looks remarkable. So do the Sony's. With the right settings, they can match remarkably well. With the wrong settings, either one can be made to look terrible.
I have a portfolio with older work on it shot on a AF100 and still get questions from people enthusiastically asking what camera it was shot on... I find it endlessly amusing (or annoying, depending on how much coffee i've had
) the endless youtube comparison videos that show nothing except people comparing apples to oranges.At the end of the day, go with the camera you think looks better. It's your art and your eye. If you're trying to get to the bottom of a perceived problem, there's a lot of advice, feedback, and good info here. Most camera's settings are highly malleable, and as such the entire pipeline from lens to processing must be considered.
Thanks guys and i meen that but today i did another test using all the settings advised on GH5 natural f8 etc, ETC off at 800mm on the same scenes,the RX10iii had to have clear zoom to get 800mm , and the result was the same i have just watched the files not bothering to edit them,the Sonys detail and resolution is again a lot higher.So the lens will be checked if its up to standard i will sell it although it may pay to get the Camers checked first before selling the lens.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Did you try different sharpness levels? The defaults for both cameras will have totally different looks. Crank the GH5 to its highest or better yet shoot a short few seconds on each camera at each sharpness level and find the sweet spot on both cameras to the amount of sharpness you prefer.
For anyone that would like to take the discussion of resolution differences, between the GH5 and Sony RX10iii, from the subjective to the objective, follow the link below. By picking the GH5 & RX10iii as the 2nd camera, you can study the actual resolution charts as well as color too. The bottom line is that you can clearly see the GH5 has both better horizontal and vertical resolution as depicted by these resolution charts. The ability to discern individual lines in both the horizontal and vertical, clearly disappears first in the RX10iii. So when I did my tests upon receiving my GH5, it wasn't my imagination that drew me to the same conclusion.
You can move your cursor over different areas of the picture, including the resolution areas, to examine how both cameras handle the same image.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...1&x=0.06999823415150978&y=0.30582660582660587
You can move your cursor over different areas of the picture, including the resolution areas, to examine how both cameras handle the same image.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...1&x=0.06999823415150978&y=0.30582660582660587
Does the GH5 minimum shutter speed and auto iso range/limiter settings work when shooting video?
Does the AFS with half shutter work in 6k photo? manual says no, odd.
Can I adjust contrast, saturation, sharpness and Nr (image adjustmets) with FN-button without searching/digging photo menu?
Does the AFS with half shutter work in 6k photo? manual says no, odd.
Can I adjust contrast, saturation, sharpness and Nr (image adjustmets) with FN-button without searching/digging photo menu?
Last edited:
I don't think either of them work in A mode when shooting 4K-60p video. I set 1/60th min shutter, max ISO at 400 and I get two identical frames like it's filming 30p in a 60p file, the exposure stays correct and the noise is like it's filming in 6400 in a dark area. If everything were locked down it would go black in there at 1/60th and ISO 400.
Plus it doesn't show any information on the screen still in A mode when recording video
Cheers,
Pete
Plus it doesn't show any information on the screen still in A mode when recording video
Cheers,
Pete
Hmm, seems to me the upper ISO limit does work in video mode. Not sure about the shutter speed.
Seems? Do you have a GH5? It should be very easy to test. Does it work in S or A video mode too? How about minimum shutter speed?