GH5 Panasonic GH5S Press Announcement

People who rip on the non need for IBIS frankly, IMO, don’t have creative vision for possibilities. Full stop.

Not to be disagreeable, but the answer to no IBIS isn’t a tripod gimbal or slider. The answer to no IBIS is no longer working in the incredible manner IBIS makes possible: quasi dolly movements handheld. Discreet stable handheld shooting, even with long lenses. Ultra quick shot setup time and maneuvering. Staying super compact and lightweight. The list goes on.

I own every tool in the book for stabilization and IBIS might be my favorite. It’s ability to creatively free the operator and/or save time is spectacular.

It seems every time someone expresses a sentiment about a camera limitation it turns into a debate about whether or not it’s a necessity, or if the operator is a lazy hack who can’t use a gimbal or turn on a light. Everyone’s needs and shooting environments are different. At the end of the day, I think we all know that tools are tools and help make our jobs easier and offer more creative freedom. No one said they can’t shoot without IBIS. But many people may not want to anymore.

I’m still getting a GH5s. And yes, im still irked it doesn’t have IBIS. I will rarely reach for it over my EVA1 and GH5 now, only in select lowlight circumstances. With IBIS it probably would have seen equal game time as the EVA1.
 
filmguy123 said:
People who rip on the non need for IBIS frankly, IMO, don’t have creative vision for possibilities. Full stop.

Not to be disagreeable, but the answer to no IBIS isn’t a tripod gimbal or slider. The answer to no IBIS is no longer working in the incredible manner IBIS makes possible: quasi dolly movements handheld. Discreet stable handheld shooting, even with long lenses. Ultra quick shot setup time and maneuvering. Staying super compact and lightweight. The list goes on.

I own every tool in the book for stabilization and IBIS might be my favorite. It’s ability to creatively free the operator and/or save time is spectacular.

It seems every time someone expresses a sentiment about a camera limitation it turns into a debate about whether or not it’s a necessity, or if the operator is a lazy hack who can’t use a gimbal or turn on a light. Everyone’s needs and shooting environments are different. At the end of the day, I think we all know that tools are tools and help make our jobs easier and offer more creative freedom. No one said they can’t shoot without IBIS. But many people may not want to anymore.

I’m still getting a GH5s. And yes, im still irked it doesn’t have IBIS. I will rarely reach for it over my EVA1 and GH5 now, only in select lowlight circumstances. With IBIS it probably would have seen equal game time as the EVA1.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more regarding the specifics around IBIS.

But also... it would be a much more enjoyable place if everyone simply stated their desires, observations, preferences, how they work in their productions, and yes their disappointments, but then followed all of it with a simple: "...for me." Instead of all of the personal attacks, claims that we're not doing it the professional way it's been done since the dawn of time before IBIS. You see the same crap regarding autofocus. I don't use it, but some folks have developed entirely new and effective workflows that depend on it for paying clients, and of course they get **** on when they express disappointment in not having it in a new tool because "that's not what a professional uses."
 
Thomas Smet said:
And yet we see hundreds of comparisons online where the Gh5 with V-log holds up well compared to other cinema cameras dynamic range. 12 stops is within cinematic range. It may not be as high as other cameras but it is well above the rec709 video range of dynamic range.

A lot of factors go into the dynamic range of a camera and because of dual ISO the Gh5s still likely has a clean 12 stops at ISO 2500 vs other higher dynamic range cameras that may drop below 12 stops at ISO 2500. The Sony A7S for example may only get around 11 stops at ISO 2500 so indoors the GH5s is a better choice for dynamic range. The original RED camera also had 12 stops of dynamic range and there were a lot of feature films created with that camera. The Sony F900 Cinealta had much less dynamic range (10?) and was used on some rather big budget Hollywood movies, Star Wars for example and Robert Rodriguez used it a lot for some of his films like Once Upon a Time in Mexico. Dynamic range isn't really a definition of cinematic because marketed cinema cameras really range from 10 stops up to 16 stops depending on the camera. Movies shot on the RED One are not suddenly less cinematic. Just means cameras today can be used with a bit more flexibility. Once graded for delivery most of that extra range above 12 stops is lost anyway. 12 stops on the GH5 just means you have to take a little extra care when shooting. Using traditional tools like lights and bounce cards to pump some of the light back into the shadows will be more important. In the end I think it forces GH5 shooters to be better film makers because they create a more balanced image that will deliver better to a wider range of users.
Click to expand...

1. Since when is REC709 "cinematic"? It's practically the definition of "video". One of the tells of digital or "video" vs film is a compressed, contrasty image.
2. Early examples of movies shot on digital are not good aspirational markers. They were barely good enough, and had a clearly inferior PQ to film in almost every way. Content is king, so they got away with it.
3. Because digital sensors handle extremes (clipping at the high end and noise on the low end) differently than film, a sensor needs even more absolute dynamic range to approach the latitude and analog characteristics of film. When cameras started hitting 14 stops is about when DP's stopped complaining. :-)
4. Artificially limiting yourself so as to create discipline or for artistic reasons should be a choice, not a baked in limitation of the hardware. Some people like the discipline of a 10 minute film canister. Should the GH-series only record for 10 minutes a pop?
5. Finally, not saying 12 stops is bad. Certainly not saying 12 cleaner stops aren't an improvement. Just saying that there is a concrete reason 14 stops is a a clear mile marker.
 
filmguy123 said:
People who rip on the non need for IBIS frankly, IMO, don’t have creative vision for possibilities. Full stop.

Not to be disagreeable, but the answer to no IBIS isn’t a tripod gimbal or slider. The answer to no IBIS is no longer working in the incredible manner IBIS makes possible: quasi dolly movements handheld. Discreet stable handheld shooting, even with long lenses. Ultra quick shot setup time and maneuvering. Staying super compact and lightweight. The list goes on.

I own every tool in the book for stabilization and IBIS might be my favorite. It’s ability to creatively free the operator and/or save time is spectacular.

It seems every time someone expresses a sentiment about a camera limitation it turns into a debate about whether or not it’s a necessity, or if the operator is a lazy hack who can’t use a gimbal or turn on a light. Everyone’s needs and shooting environments are different. At the end of the day, I think we all know that tools are tools and help make our jobs easier and offer more creative freedom. No one said they can’t shoot without IBIS. But many people may not want to anymore.

I’m still getting a GH5s. And yes, im still irked it doesn’t have IBIS. I will rarely reach for it over my EVA1 and GH5 now, only in select lowlight circumstances. With IBIS it probably would have seen equal game time as the EVA1.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Whether or not IBIS is important to you is a highly personal, highly use-case specific decision. I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the GH5's stabilization. As you said, it has allowed me to shoot in ways I would not have before. It is a new kind of tool, just like gimbals aren't steadicams. All that being said, when I look at what I NEED to do, and what I value the MOST, I have to admit that I will begrudgingly give up IBIS for the GH5s picture quality improvements.
 
joe12south said:
3. Because digital sensors handle extremes (clipping at the high end and noise on the low end) differently than film
Click to expand...

Low-light film is SUPER noisy compared to digital. This did not bother me too much until the last decade where I've grown to hate the "sandy" look of shooting low-light with film. ( and we are only talking about 1000+ ISO )


joe12south said:
5. Finally, not saying 12 stops is bad. Certainly not saying 12 cleaner stops aren't an improvement. Just saying that there is a concrete reason 14 stops is a clear mile marker.
Click to expand...

It's only a marker when you want to emulate the 14 stops of DR that properly exposed professional negative film stock has. Otherwise, if you forget about trying to simulate the film-look, you can still create gorgeous looking images with far less dynamic range. Back in the pre-digital days, transparency film had only about 7 stops of dynamic range, but this did not stop professional shooters from creating absolutely gorgeous images.
 
Heh, oh yeah, and any more than 3/2rds of a stop off and you were screwed !!

TheDingo said:
Otherwise, if you forget about trying to simulate the film-look, you can still create gorgeous looking images with far less dynamic range. Back in the pre-digital days, transparency film had only about 7 stops of dynamic range, but this did not stop professional shooters from creating absolutely gorgeous images.
Click to expand...
 
TheDingo said:
Low-light film is SUPER noisy compared to digital. This did not bother me too much until the last decade where I've grown to hate the "sandy" look of shooting low-light with film. ( and we are only talking about 1000+ ISO )
Click to expand...
Yes, digital has been more sensitive to low light for a long time. What I said was the response is "different". Most people simply prefer the look of organic, monochromatic film grain to video's sparkly RGB noise.

It's only a marker when you want to emulate the 14 stops of DR that properly exposed professional negative film stock has. Otherwise, if you forget about trying to simulate the film-look, you can still create gorgeous looking images with far less dynamic range. Back in the pre-digital days, transparency film had only about 7 stops of dynamic range, but this did not stop professional shooters from creating absolutely gorgeous images.
Click to expand...
No, not quite. The point I was trying to make is that you actually need MORE dynamic range (headroom) from a digital sensor if you want to mimic the response of a film curve. The top stop or so is going to have noticeable color problems as the channels peak at different times, causing ugly color shifts. The common trick is to simply remove the saturation at the top (a fairly effective hack) but if you really want to deal with it, you need to make sure you don't peak.
 
There is some confusion it seems (in my mind anyway) on the number of stops of dynamic range.

I presumed VLOG-L is limited (or designed?) for a max of 12 stops, perhaps HLG is more in camera, but from this official video from Panasonic, Luke Neumann, clear states 'a two stop increase will bring this up to 14 stops of dynamic range which is just about film'

Start at 1m42s - https://youtu.be/1ZngGNXZiMI?t=1m42s
 
TheTrickster said:
There is some confusion it seems (in my mind anyway) on the number of stops of dynamic range.

I presumed VLOG-L is limited (or designed?) for a max of 12 stops, perhaps HLG is more in camera, but from this official video from Panasonic, Luke Neumann, clear states 'a two stop increase will bring this up to 14 stops of dynamic range which is just about film'

Start at 1m42s - https://youtu.be/1ZngGNXZiMI?t=1m42s
Click to expand...

When looking on some side to side comparison between the GH5 and the GH5s, I don't see more. But I see more usable DR in dark/high ISO scenarios.
 
TheTrickster said:
but from this official video from Panasonic, Luke Neumann, clear states 'a two stop increase will bring this up to 14 stops of dynamic range which is just about film'
Click to expand...

It's possible that Panasonic means a 2 stop DR increase at 2500 ISO, which going by the DXOMark numbers makes sense. ( GH5 has 9.5 stops DR at 2500 ISO, A7SII has 11.0 stops DR at 2500 ISO )
 
A fundamental issue I have been hearing all over the internet in regards to the GH5s is that most people are thinking of it as an upgrade. It is not. It is a side grade or an alternative option. I think it is important that we all think of the GH5s in this way.

I totally get the IBIS thing. It is a bummer for me too. My only perspective is I and many others have used cameras without IBIS for a very long time and there are always options. I realize those options may require more effort but they are nevertheless still options. With that said the loss of IBIS is a huge blow to many of you.

The GH line of cameras is now about choices. We are no longer limited to a single model to choose from. If one is in the market for a new camera they have to decide what is more important to them:

low light, timecode, slightly better color

or

IBIS, higher resolutions stills, slightly better detail

I don't think Panasonic intended current GH5 owners to be the market for this new camera but more those who were still on the fence and still put off by the low light abilities of the GH5. Panasonic now provides a choice for new users as a way to get more people to join the m43 world. In the past crappy low light was always the mantra against m43. Now with the GH5s that is no longer an issue. Canon 5D users can actually get better low light on the GH5s and that is a big incentive for the Canon, Sony and Nikon users out there who wanted a GH5 but didn't want to give up their sensitivity.

I honestly doubt many GH5 users will side grade to the GH5s because the ROI for most is just not there and they spent a long time getting used to the low light of the GH5. I started off with GH cameras since the GH1 and never really had a huge issue with the low light. Certain projects could benefit from better sensitivity in much the same way that certain projects benefit greatly from the IBIS. It is really all about choices now for new users. If I already had a GH5 I also likely wouldn't give that up no matter what right now. If I needed two cameras I would likely get one of each because each camera provides strengths for certain projects. For example the GH5 can use a prime while the GH5s could use a slower super zoom with equal sensitivity. On the flip side the GH5s can be used on a tripod or other rig while the GH5 used handheld for stable shots across both cameras. If one only ever has one camera the choice is much more difficult. Canon, Nikon and some Sony users never had IBIS but they had more sensitive cameras so the move to the GH5s might make a lot more sense for how they work.

Now with the choice between the GH5 and Gh5s the GH line has one remaining issue and that is auto focus. I personally don't consider that an issue but to some it is a serious issue. Pretty much every other need is now met between the two GH5 models. Oh yeah and the dynamic range thing. I'm sure people will still harp on those two issues.

As for dynamic range yes more would be very welcome. I would also love to have 14 stops. When I defend the dynamic range of the GH5 it isn't to indicate there is no use for more dynamic range. My point is that 12 is a good amount of dynamic range and while not perfect it does cover a lot of situations. More would of course be better but that doesn't mean the 12 stops is worthless. just means you have to put in a little extra effort. Considering what else is perfect on the GH5 and the price point of $2k for a cinema camera I think that is acceptable.

Heres to hoping the GH6s has 14 stops of dynamic range and IBIS and better auto focus. I don't really need it but honestly I just want the complainers to shut up already.
 
You don't even get 12 stops with a GH5 at base ISO. At least 2 of the darkest stops are unusable due to noise 9-10 stops usable if you ETTR perfectly. If the GH5s gives 12 stops of clean image it will be a worthwhile upgrade!
 
Yeah, it is. I am really impressed with the ISO performance on the GH5s.

Seriously, given the total package, the GH5s may well be the best sub $10k lowlight camera on the market.

Who would have thought we'd be saying THAT about a m43 camera? Ever?
 
I watch with irony the tempest over IBIS. As a Blackmagic Pocket user I'm looking at the GH5s and I think I'm part of their target market. As Thomas indicates it's not a GH5 replacement.
While the Pocket and Micro have 13 stops of dynamic range, like other BMD cameras, there's no IBIS. There's no auto focus to speak of either. The problem is there's no UHD/4k either.

So I look at the GH5s and I at least see something that may be close with 12 stops, can shoot an I frame codec and, unlike any small format camera from BMD, it has UHD/4k and High Frame Rates if needed as well. Another important bit is the rolling shutter.
With the Pocket there's issues if I want to stabilize in post. I'm limited to HD and, the rolling shutter issues can make stabilization pointless. GH5s has an edge there so, sans IBIS, I'll have better post stabilization potential.

There may also be BMCC and even BMP4K camera users who want to stay small.

I'm not sure yet about the GH5S and do want to see if BMD has something coming up in a small form factor but the GH5S is really for all the people who didn't find the GH5 adequate because their focus is on things outside of IBIS.

I'd add that at these prices we're really into a multi camera owner world. For run and gun I have a Sony Z90 with good active stabilization and auto focus brought over from Sony's DSLR side, which Panasonic can't touch.
But I'm at the point where I may have to move away from the Pocket given the things it's missing and while the dynamic range might be a tiny bit short, it checks lots on the added benefit side.
 
We really are into a multi camera world. I mean really, it's all good. We've got tools.

Admittedly the dream is high ISO + IBIS in the GHx cameras. It's not just about swapping tools, but about how well those pair together. Think about it. At least for me, I am most likely to utilize high ISO of 6400 not when I am shooting a slow planned corporate gig where I can properly stabilize and light. It's a wedding reception venue, a live event in dim space, an overseas documentary in a small hut in the mountains at night, etc. It's when I can't carry a ton of gear or have to move quick and fast that I MOST need high ISO - and coincidently also when I MOST need IBIS. They go together. It's not a need when I am stabilized perfectly on a planned shoot. So I get the gripe, it's a weird mix. Ultimate run'n'gun camera form factor with ultimate low light feature, without the killer feature of IBIS that brings it all together. Those features are literally begging to be together into one tool - they go hand in hand.

But hey, bottom line: time goes fast. 2019/2020 is around the corner. 2 months ago none of us knew a GH5s was coming. We just got a low light beast dropped in our lap that bests the A7S and the EVA1, for $2500, with matching color science and ergos and memory cards etc. to most of our existing setups. I'm as disappointed as the next guy as to what COULD have been, but I also know in the future it WILL (most likely) be, and as of today, I know I have one more killer tool in the bag, for relatively cheap, that fits right in with my existing gear and workflow.

Today, gear life is better than last year, and next year, it will be better than this year. Ain't that the way of things?

If anything is clear, it's that Panasonic/LUMIX is listening to its users. I think the reality is that there were technically limitations that meant GH5s w/out IBIS, or no GH5s. I've read everything from heat to sensor size etc. etc. I'd rather have a GH5s now, than wait for it with IBIS in 1-2 years. Options are good. That Pana/Lumix is listening is good. It's all good. I can't imagine we won't see a future rendition that brings this together.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top