(Rumored) Panasonic FF mirrorless

filmguy123 said:
And the latest today is an FT5 with "99% Accuracy" that the camera has "way more than 30mp".

https://www.43rumors.com/ft5-the-new-panasonic-ff-has-way-more-than-30-megapixels/

So, there's been a lot of past rumors about Panasonic's organic sensor tech. It would seem surprisingly soon for that technology, but "way more than 30mp" makes me think that this may be it... that's a lot of megapixels. Unless Panasonic is really focusing on resolution to the determent of lowlight, etc. (seems unlikely as they have just shown an emphasis on less megapixels with the GH5S).

But a higher megapixel resolution sensor really does seem to indicate that crop modes may be a big focus... a camera that truly operates well with all lenses on the market -- FF, M43, and APS-C/S35 -- from pretty much any lens mount -- would be super, super cool.

Very interesting.
Click to expand...


As weird a thing as this seems to be for Panasonic to pursue, in terms of how much they lack lens wise to have a healthy FF lineup any time soon, this is also literally the only moment they could possibly start because as much of a disadvantage as they have it's also the smallest disadvantage they could have, considering the fact that Nikon and Canon have gotten it together.
 
I don’t understand as a filmmaker why it matters if Panasonic has its own glass?

I wouldn’t buy it anyway, and it seems many others wouldn’t either - they’d just adapt.
 
I think the glass matters because this would presumably be a FF stills camera as well. How is it going to sell with the stills community offering only 'a couple' of lenses they might introduce at launch? Adapted lenses often have questionable AF. So yes, for filmmaking AF does not matter too much but this camera is going to be out in the wild being judged as a still camera up against Canon and Nikon with their super lineups.
 
filmguy123 said:
I don’t understand as a filmmaker why it matters if Panasonic has its own glass?

I wouldn’t buy it anyway, and it seems many others wouldn’t either - they’d just adapt.
Click to expand...

Because these are not just film making tools. A FF camera will likely appeal a lot more to photographers than it would film makers. I for one would only be interested in a FF Panasonic camera based on what it would mean for stills over the GH5S. From a video only perspective the GH5S with or without a SpeedBooster does everything I would need a DSLR to do.
 
filmguy123 said:
I don’t understand as a filmmaker why it matters if Panasonic has its own glass?

I wouldn’t buy it anyway, and it seems many others wouldn’t either - they’d just adapt.
Click to expand...

DPAF is the future of all these small single operator cameras, if you don't have lenses that are compatible with that AF system people will be less and less likely to buy into your system. Right now it's still OK with the GH5 has a bad AF system, but in 3-4 years? It'll be considered unacceptable. I would not buy a hybrid camera without a great video AF system again.
 
I see, I did not realize the AF systems were so compromised via adapter since I don't do stills. So for a Sony A camera, using an EF to E adaptor nets poor auto focus results?

Leica has been a close partner to Panasonic for a while... Panasonic could surprise with a nice line-up of killer native Pana and Leica glass (primes and zooms) right from launch.
 
puredrifting said:
True enough, but the practicalities of shooting FF video often mean that you must close down the lens enough to get enough DOF to be practical to where you question why you have fast lenses when you can't use them wide open or even at 2.0/2.8. It's much more about weddings, run & gun events and documentary coverage and for those types of shoots, FF is sub-par to S35 IMHO.
Click to expand...

I’m pretty pragmatic about sensor size. I prefer APS-C. But have no issues with M43 or Full frame either. But lens availability is where I see an adavantage for Full frame. 24-105mm f/4 lenses are ubiquitous for full frame cameras. There is no comparable lens for APS-C camera. It has 4x zoom, f/4 would be comparable to f/2.8 on APS-C. Show me the 15-64 f/2.8 lens for APS-C. I’d buy that in a hot second. As far as razor focus goes, full frame tends to give better sensitivity and allows you to step down your iris to deal with it. It’s taking away with the left hand while giving back with the right.
 
IanTheM said:
DPAF is the future of all these small single operator cameras, if you don't have lenses that are compatible with that AF system people will be less and less likely to buy into your system. Right now it's still OK with the GH5 has a bad AF system, but in 3-4 years? It'll be considered unacceptable. I would not buy a hybrid camera without a great video AF system again.
Click to expand...

We do both videography and photography. Two reasons kept me from investing in a GH5 system, autofocus, and sensor size. The new camera should solve these issues. Currently, we are using Nikon and Canon and would be willing to move over to Panasonic if autofocus is great, and the new camera has all the features of the GH5, including dual sd cards and 4k/60p. I believe Panasonic will come out a great system for both videograpehrs and photographers and this will force the others to respond (sooner than later) which will be great for us as it will speed the release of new features.
 
FT5 rumor confirms the Panasonic FF camera will have more than 42mp. Will Panasonic include 8k video?
 
I personally think thats the entire point to having a 42mp sensor. To finally achieve their goal of 7680 wide 8k video. Also makes for some very high resolution stills which is kind of a win/win hybrid camera. Also makes for some perfectly scaled UHD and HD video options which again in a win/win.

Only thing to potentially take a hit is sensitivity and perhaps dynamic range. 42mm is a lot on even a FF sensor but the Sony A7R III has a 42mm sensor and it has better dynamic range and sensitivity than the GH5 so I'm sure it will still be an improvement compared to what GH5 users are used to. At least the potential is there to be an improvement.

To be honest I'm already pretty happy with the dynamic range and sensitivity of m43 for most cases so if its even just a stop better for both I think that would be phenomenal considering the massive stills and 8k video potential. Not that I have a ton of need for 8k video but it makes for some killer 4k options.

For the pan and scan fans who still like to deliver in HD that results in some stellar zoom in potential for reframing. They could zoom in post with a 50mm f1.4 lens to a 200mm f1.4 potential. a 4x zoom starts to border on a zoom lens replacement. I'm not a fan of this but for those that require it for a one person operation the potential there is massive. A lot of constant aperture zoom lenses are 2x, 3x or 4x zooms so if one is still ok with HD delivery this camera could very well replace the zoom lens for video. A Tamron 24-70 suddenly becomes a 24-280 zoom lens for HD delivery. Not bad for a constant f2.8. For the m43 users that would be like having a constant 12-140mm f2.8 lens which is pretty much what I always wanted. To replace my workhorse 14-140 lens with a constant aperture and fast speed. If delivering 4k a 8k camera still has that 2x zoom potential so many currently enjoy with a 4k camera and HD delivery which is equally huge.
 
Greg_E said:
If it were me, I'd build a short flange length and make the dimensions and electrical/data connections available to everyone, then not worry about adapters to EF or PL, etc.
Click to expand...

+1 on that.

Why on earth with a new camera design would you by any stretch of the imagination go for an old mirror box flange back distance like the EF when even Canon themselves are moving away from it with their new EOS R 20mm flange distance. They feel offering a suitable adapter to accommodate the older EF mount to be the solution going forward for their EF existing owners. Even ARRI finally realized that their long old 52mm PL mount was showing its age for larger format imaging. Its new LPL mount is back from 52mm to 44mm with a big throat diameter of 62mm. Short flange back distances are the order of the day for larger format imaging. Nikon has gone back as far as 16mm from 46mm. The closer you are to the sensor the wider and faster the lenses can be with the added benefit of being much lighter in weight. Makes no sense to me to market a new camera based on retro technology. Sony really started the trend with its 18mm E-Mount. I don't see any manufacturer today boxing themselves into a corner these days with someone else's old tech. To be honest I was very surprised at the EVA1 coming out with the EF mount. Well I guess on second thoughts they had no FF lens market to protect so I guess they thought why not.

Chris Young
 
brettsherman said:
I’m pretty pragmatic about sensor size. I prefer APS-C. But have no issues with M43 or Full frame either. But lens availability is where I see an adavantage for Full frame. 24-105mm f/4 lenses are ubiquitous for full frame cameras. There is no comparable lens for APS-C camera. It has 4x zoom, f/4 would be comparable to f/2.8 on APS-C. Show me the 15-64 f/2.8 lens for APS-C. I’d buy that in a hot second. As far as razor focus goes, full frame tends to give better sensitivity and allows you to step down your iris to deal with it. It’s taking away with the left hand while giving back with the right.
Click to expand...

Or even a 16-60mm f2.8 lens would be pretty good, only fractionally different from your desired 15-64mm lens.

Actually, we're almost already there with 16-50mm f2.8 lens existing.

Sigma has already pushed the speed forward of APS-C zooms, I wish they'd do the same with reach. Could probably even do say a 16-80 f2.8 lens? How cool would that be!

Ditto, I wish MFT had a 12-50mm f2 lens.
 
I think they could go for a 1.2x crop sensor and keep the m43 mount (like sony did when they switched from E being APS-C only to also FF). That's close enough to full frame not to be an issue, and it allows users to keep using their current lenses with a crop (I guess all Canon M owners must be pissed with the new R mount, among other things because the M mount is wider than E and should allow FF), or to get FF lenses for their crop cameras (the FE 50mm f/1.8 is the standard portrait lens on a6000-a6500 cameras).
 
Could the MFT fit as large as x1.2 sensor in it? I wouldn't be surprised if say x1.4 is the limit.

The other problem, is the same problem as when Sony squeezed a bigger sensor into their smaller E mount:

1) lens design isssues

2) IBIS that doesn't work as well as the competition, as less room left spare to move around in the mount
 
I don't know if the bayonet shape or the placement of the contacts make it more difficult than it was with the E mount, but, looking at the table here, m43 has a throat of 38mm, vs 46.1 mm for the E mount. If we assume that E is right on the limit for FF, then m43 could take a sensor with a diameter crop of 46.1/38=1.21x.

Even more: make it a 16:9 sensor! Then it can be 31.0 x 17.5 mm, which is a 1.16x horizontal crop (with the same 1.21x diagonal crop, so it should be good on a m43 mount). I don't think many people would complain that this is smaller than FF.
 
That math does at first glance does seem to make sense, but like I said... you're be left with some compromises that E mount already experiences. Like inferior IBIS and tougher to solve lens designs
 
Does the diameter of a lens mount need to be as big as the diameter of the sensor? The diagonal of full-frame 35mm is 43.27mm. Yet there have been lens mounts less than that, like the Konica F-mount (40.5mm) and the Asahiflex (37mm).

Just look at the back of your lens. The hole isn't 43.27mm wide. Light spreads out of it, as a cone. It just must be at least 43.27mm by the time it reaches the sensor. I don't know all the details. I'm just pointing out that it's not that simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top