GH4 Second GH4 now or wait for GH5?

[DLD]

Expected by whom? ...

Like I said, I don't expect it to have better specs than DVX200, which is a(n expected) $4,500-$5,000 camera. And the only improvement from GH4 here is the new GX8 20 MPX sensor that improves the 4K resolution by a slight oversample (13.5 MPX). The codec is the same. The internal recording bit rate is the same. The V-Log will come with DVX200 and is presumably a paid upgrade for GH4. There may be a different color science and some workflow benefits to DVX200 that a GH4 might not have but that's about it

So, you think Panasonic will cannibalize its own product by making the ~ $1,700 GH5 far superior on specs? I surely don't.

 

[brudney]

You may be right.
I do hope they inculde unlimited IBIS for video and a better (10bit/422) h265 codec.

 

[TheDingo]

My expectations for a GH5 are...

- New sensor with more dynamic range ( at least 1 stop better than GH4 )

- 4K 60p

- 720 120p

- 2.0x 4K crop

- 4K at 150+ Mbps

- V-log comes standard

- No IBIS ( we are already seeing the 4K overheating problems with the Sony A7R II, so no IBIS for the GH5 )

- No internal 10-bit 4:2:2 color ( this is a prosumer feature that Panasonic won't put into a low cost camera )

- No Micro HDMI connector ( I am really hoping that they go back to the more reliable Mini HDMI )

 

[DLD]

At some point - and this point may be just around the corner - Panasonic will have to figure out whether it wants to stay in the MFT territory entirely or move up in weight class. One of Sony's managers has recently declared that Sony's aim is to migrate its customer base to a Full Frame sensor because APS-C has already slouched toward the "entry level" segment and that the margins on those products are becoming slimmer and slimmer. This is indeed a natural progression within the industry, though some manufacturers like Fuji claim to not have interest in moving to FF while others like Pentax are moving not only into the FF but even the MF. Panasonic does have an s35 high end pro product in Varicam but Sony already has several FF models (A7S and A7RII) retailing under $3,500.

My opinion is that GH5 will be the last "pro" quality MFT model and that its subsequent hybrid and camcorder style units will have a larger sensor. To that extend, not having a next generation of AF100 and instead the release of DVX200 in the same price range makes a lot of sense. A fixed lens MFT line of products can be self-contained and yet deliver excellent performance for a variety of shooters. Once the Back Side Illumination becomes a norm and the processing power becomes a step or two greater, MFT should match quality with the much higher priced competitors of today but it will no longer be a money maker. Once again, going back to Sony, its rumored 4K APS-C photo/video hybrid (A7000 or A6100 or something in that vein) should be out shortly and is likely to be priced around $1,000. If so, this would make a $1,700 GH5 a very hard sell. A $1,200 GH5 would even be a hard sell unless it was loaded with features currently only found in the $5,000-$10,000 segment. This doesn't mean there won't be a GH5 or that, if eventually released, it won't be any good. But Panasonic must be keeping other ambitions to itself.

PS. Just looking at the news - FZ300 has a smartphone size sensor, which was also the norm on most in-demand run-n-gun and event camcorders and yet, despite having $4K and a big time zoom, it's priced at $600. With the amount of the R&D money devoted to the mobile sector, the advances in these smaller size technologies are quite rapid. From BSI to "white/clear" pixels, the related performance goes up faster than in the enthusiast/pro niche and by now is becoming entirely sufficient for an average consumer. This will further squeeze MFT out of its profit zone, leaving its members with very few options down the road. If they want to stay in business, they have to migrate upwards. As will have to the majority of its user base.

(That's my take, obviously. As a FBN/CNBC disclaimer might follow - I do not own any of the stocks mentioned in the comment)

 

[TheDingo]

the margins on those products are becoming slimmer and slimmer.

If you can't sell in quantity, then you have to make it up with higher margins. ( Canon takes this to the extreme with their higher end offerings )

Panasonic does have an s35 high end pro product in Varicam but Sony already has several FF models (A7S and A7RII) retailing under $3,500.

Completely different markets. Neither of these Sony cameras are competitors to the Panasonic Varicam 35 camera. ( just like they don't compete with RED or the ALEXA )

Currently Sony has one FF camera that can't record 4K internal ( A7S ) and another FF camera that overheats when recording 4K internal.( A7R II ) So the Panasonic GH4 still holds it's own.

My opinion is that GH5 will be the last "pro" quality MFT model and that its subsequent hybrid and camcorder style units will have a larger sensor.

I really don't see this at all. Perhaps a multi-aspect sensor like the GH2 had, but the Micro 4/3 sensor has a number of unique advantages over the FF sensor, and I don't see this format going away anytime soon.

its rumored 4K APS-C photo/video hybrid (A7000 or A6100 or something in that vein) should be out shortly and is likely to be priced around $1,000. If so, this would make a $1,700 GH5 a very hard sell.

Again, I disagree on this. I'm not using the Micro 4/3 format because it's cheaper, and if I upgrade it's going to be something more along the lines of a "AF200" or an affordable "C300 Mk2".

 

[Greg_E]

Wait until the organic sensor they are working on with Fuji gets large enough. The problem is making it large, so I would expect to see organic mft before seeing APS-C.

 

[DLD]

If you can't sell in quantity, then you have to make it up with higher margins. ( Canon takes this to the extreme with their higher end offerings ) ...

Canon actually does both. As do Sony, Nikon and Panasonic and other Japanese manufacturers. All The high end pro cameras are the ones that have very hard margins and are sold in thousands, if not hundreds. However, do they want 60% margins or 25%? And, if 60% slips down to 25%, do they move into territory where 60% is achievable. The best analogy here come from the computers or the automobiles. Their respective industry giants could still make a 50 HP/1Ghz affordable models but choose to make 250 HP/iCore7 lines instead. IIRC, the first 911 had a 90 HP engine and now you can't find one under 350HP and that's because the 90HP segment is no longer upscale and Porsche is not in the business of making the entry level product. Likewise, the pixel race in photo-video gear keeps moving to the higher specs, with - as Jim Martin just wrote in the Sony Industry News thread - the top gear of today becoming the low gear of tomorrow (or something like that). MFT, in my opinion, is rapidly becoming that "gear of yesterday".

Which doesn't mean that an MFT camera of tomorrow won't beat the pants of the MFT camera of today, sort of like the lower quarter of the car industry such as Honda Civic now comes with a ~ 130-150HP engine rather than a 65 HP engine from 30 years ago.

Completely different markets. Neither of these Sony cameras are competitors to the Panasonic Varicam 35 camera. ( just like they don't compete with RED or the ALEXA )

But that's not the point. The ultimate high end, i.e., something that can be called the best camera in the industry for the general purpose image acquisition - is ARRI Alexa 65. Red Weapon is smaller but is also Full Frame/Vista Vision. That's the direction. Obviously, Sony is going to upgrade their F-5/55/65 line pretty soon, what with it being about four years old in the fall of 2015.

Currently Sony has one FF camera that can't record 4K internal ( A7S ) and another FF camera that overheats when recording 4K internal.( A7R II ) So the Panasonic GH4 still holds it's own....

GH4 only holds its own because Panasonic decided to cripple GX8 in terms of features and usability. The GX8 sensor is superior and, when this mythical Sony APS-C piece comes out, GH4 just won't match on specs.

I really don't see this at all. Perhaps a multi-aspect sensor like the GH2 had, but the Micro 4/3 sensor has a number of unique advantages over the FF sensor, and I don't see this format going away anytime soon.

I didn't say the format is going to be abandoned. I expect it to last for a long time. But --- the pro gear will advance to the next level, while the MFT will be the staple of the affordable consumer lines, both in stills and camcorders, replacing the smartphone size sensors for those interested in a step-up product.

Again, I disagree on this. I'm not using the Micro 4/3 format because it's cheaper, and if I upgrade it's going to be something more along the lines of a "AF200" or an affordable "C300 Mk2"....

JVC LS-300 is that "affordable" C300 MK II of today (technically not an MFT sensor but an MFT mount). The problem is that, when you drop the price further, you drift into the fixed lens camcorder market while the pro ILC camcorders will want to stay a bit higher.

Regardless of the above, one can make a big budget feature quality image with a sub-$1,000 camera already. The camera ceased being the weakest link in the video/cinema production chain. From a pure image quality, almost everything is good enough.

 

[TheDingo]

The ultimate high end, i.e., something that can be called the best camera in the industry for the general purpose image acquisition - is ARRI Alexa 65. Red Weapon is smaller but is also Full Frame/Vista Vision. That's the direction. Obviously, Sony is going to upgrade their F-5/55/65 line pretty soon, what with it being about four years old in the fall of 2015.

...I really don't see FF cine cameras replacing Super35 any time soon. Just like IMAX has not become the Hollywood standard for most projects. I am curious to see what the adoption rate is going to be for the RED Weapon FF format, as this might turn out to be a niche market.

 

[OldCorpse]

[...]Regardless of the above, one can make a big budget feature quality image with a sub-$1,000 camera already. The camera ceased being the weakest link in the video/cinema production chain. From a pure image quality, almost everything is good enough.

At which point, it's a fair question as to what is the size of the market for consumer, semi-pro and pro video cameras. The biggest market, as always will be the consumer market, but what of the still substantial demographic of aspiring or even actual indie filmmakers - that's probably the next biggest market, and a market that until now was covered by products like the AF100, FS100, C100, LS300, plus the various Black Magic cams, and of course the plethora of DSLRs... that's a ton of cameras. Once you reach the point you describe "good enough for a big budget feature", what's left for that market I just described? Nothing - we are within a couple of years of completely satisfying that market on technical grounds... when you have 15 real stops of DR, nobody in that market is going to clamor for 18 stops, or for more 'see in the dark' ISO performance than the a7s delivers already etc. I disagree that we are already there - we still don't have a camera that ticks off all the boxes including IBIS etc. in one package, but we're close - I'd say no more than about a couple of years. And after that what? Prices will come down, which will continue to satisfy that market, but at that point the market will have been fully addressed. So who at that point will be buying the next iterations of $80K Alexas and high end Sony cams? Well, you can say high end filmmakers like Lucas, Cameron, Jackson etc., but that's a mere handful; perhaps shooting commercials, and other specialty uses - but really how big is that market going to be, and how will all these companies make a living addressing this tiny market? I think what will happen is that the biggest part of the market, the consumer and semi-pro (majority of filmmakers) will be happy with what's on offer for $2K and under in 2018, and the market for $20K and above cameras will collapse into a tiny space where few will be able to make a living (almost reminds me of how back in the day of 35mm film you had Panavision and maybe Arriflex and that was pretty much it). This was the reason why I kept repeating that unless Panasonic comes up with an AF200 for about $1700, they may as well give up on that market, because the market has bifurcated into the 95% of sub $2K and the 5% of the higher end... where does Panasonic see itself? Since there really has been no AF200, I think we have the answer.

 

[DLD]

...I really don't see FF cine cameras replacing Super35 any time soon. Just like IMAX has not become the Hollywood standard for most projects. I am curious to see what the adoption rate is going to be for the RED Weapon FF format, as this might turn out to be a niche market.

For 8K, s35/APS-C isn't enough and everything seems to be pointing toward 8K for the high end pro market. Plus, there are a lot of FF sensors around that can be tweaked for the 4K/6K/8K cameras. This doesn't mean Weapon will be a hit but a lot there depends on its alternatives. I am surprised that Panasonic does not have a $10,000-$20,000-$40,000 series of pro cameras out but you have to think, at some point, they will.

At which point, it's a fair question as to what is the size of the market for consumer, semi-pro and pro video cameras. The biggest market, as always will be the consumer market, but what of the still substantial demographic of aspiring or even actual indie filmmakers - that's probably the next biggest market, and a market that until now was covered by products like the AF100, FS100, C100, LS300, plus the various Black Magic cams, and of course the plethora of DSLRs... that's a ton of cameras. Once you reach the point you describe "good enough for a big budget feature", what's left for that market I just described? Nothing - we are within a couple of years of completely satisfying that market on technical grounds... when you have 15 real stops of DR, nobody in that market is going to clamor for 18 stops, or for more 'see in the dark' ISO performance than the a7s delivers already etc. I disagree that we are already there - we still don't have a camera that ticks off all the boxes including IBIS etc. in one package, but we're close - I'd say no more than about a couple of years. And after that what? Prices will come down, which will continue to satisfy that market, but at that point the market will have been fully addressed. So who at that point will be buying the next iterations of $80K Alexas and high end Sony cams? Well, you can say high end filmmakers like Lucas, Cameron, Jackson etc., but that's a mere handful; perhaps shooting commercials, and other specialty uses - but really how big is that market going to be, and how will all these companies make a living addressing this tiny market? I think what will happen is that the biggest part of the market, the consumer and semi-pro (majority of filmmakers) will be happy with what's on offer for $2K and under in 2018, and the market for $20K and above cameras will collapse into a tiny space where few will be able to make a living (almost reminds me of how back in the day of 35mm film you had Panavision and maybe Arriflex and that was pretty much it). This was the reason why I kept repeating that unless Panasonic comes up with an AF200 for about $1700, they may as well give up on that market, because the market has bifurcated into the 95% of sub $2K and the 5% of the higher end... where does Panasonic see itself? Since there really has been no AF200, I think we have the answer.

IMO, an MFT AF200 @ $5000, even if Panasonic had the superior technology, would have been an overkill for the entire 2-3 year product cycle. It may have sold well upfront but competitors would have caught up to it quickly. Just look at A7RII - a great stills product and can do an oversampled 4K for $3,200. With Sony making the sensors, Panny can only compete on features and value but, at ~ $5,000, a typical shooter will prefer a performance of an FF sensor over an extra button or two.

And, IMO, the digital camera market will soon be much like the old 35mm stills market -- it'll soon reach the level where $500 will do the job (once again, G7 is ~ $650 and FZ300 bridge camera is $600, meaning that cost wise, APS-C and MFT sensors can't be that far more expensive than 1/2.3" to manufacture).

This is G7 (if you excuse these guys from setting the piano player against a bright window). It's pretty much good enough now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niUVUt31lvk

 

[DLD]

So, DVX200 is coming out late fall at $4,200 street price, which is somewhat lower than the previously expected $4,700-$5,000. It's packed with features and should become a jack-of-all-trades for a lot of folks. If so, how long will Panasonic let it recoup its investment without risking cannibalization? I'd expect at least half a year without any major announcements.

 

[maranfilms]

Panasonic will not be releasing a GH5 anytime soon, I've not heard any credible info on a upgrade to the gh4.The GH-4 is the last M 4/3RDS Cam I will e buying. I'm done with anything smaller than s35 mm.

 

[stoneinapond]

I'm done with anything smaller than s35 mm.

Panasonic is sad :crybaby:

Why, oh why…...

Wait a minute. Panasonic has no idea who you are. Dries tears and marches on. :happy:

 

[OldCorpse]

The GH-4 is the last M 4/3RDS Cam I will e buying. I'm done with anything smaller than s35 mm.

I'm slow, can someone please help me? Because I thought technology is marching forward, and the quality=size advantage in sensors should be becoming irrelevant; I mean, you can get better resolution from smaller sensors today than you could from FF sensors of 5 years ago; same goes for light sensitivity, DR and so on. Think about how improved are the tiny sensors in cellphone cameras. I can see the day when a m4/3 sensor will have all the DR, low-light capability, resolution etc. that anyone would want in a camera (unless you're talking special use cameras, like ultra-high speed etc.). At that point, there is literally no advantage to the sensor being bigger, because nobody is going to be demanding more than 15 or 18 usable stops etc., so who cares if it's FF or m4/3? At that point, all that would matter is FOV and lenses. When I'm doing still photography, I actually prefer the APS-C size to FF, because I can use smaller size lenses with reach. Anyhow, once sensors achieve qualitative levels where you don't worry about FF vs m4/3, all that you will be left with is other considerations like FOV and lens choices, and many people will prefer the advantages of a broader choice of lenses (with adapters) that can be fitted for the m4/3 mount. I mean, how many more years of sensor development, where you will get the low light performance of an A7S, big resolution, 15 stop DR etc., all in a m4/3 mount? Not many, I'd think - 5 years? So if you can live for the next 5 years on a GH4, GH5 etc., at some point, maybe GH8, there will be little point to getting a FF, so you can safely stay with m4/3, assuming sensor development continues and the format is supported. No?

 

[Greg_E]

But you will never be able to get that razor thin depth of field that a full frame camera can offer, if that's important to you.

 

[Bruce Foreman]

But you will never be able to get that razor thin depth of field that a full frame camera can offer, if that's important to you.

I've been able to get it more than "razor thin" enough to really complicate keeping something in focus with m4/3 and the right lenses. Depth Of Field is dependent on several factors, sensor size being only one of them. Lens focal length, aperture, camera to subject distance, and subject to background elements distance.

I've been able to get the same "look" with m4/3 gear that I used to get with 35mm film gear, and 120 rollfilm format gear. It may take "managing" some of the other factors more than lens aperture to do it.

Shallow DOF (shallow zone of acceptable sharpness) is much overdone these days by many who are "new" to the concept. Not accusing you of this, just pointing out something that has become very obvious these days.

 

[Greg_E]

Oh, I'm certainly not a fan of having a single eyeball in focus and the rest of the face unrecognizable like some people think they must have, but it is the single redeeming feature that full frame retains. If we start getting f1.2 lenses for medium format cameras, the FF will lose that place.

That said, if you stick to number of pixels being equal, the larger the sensor, the larger the photo sites, the better they gather light.

 

[GrahamH]

One possibility ... 5 years from now the market has divided into a high-quality M4/3-oriented segment that prizes light-weight compact kit, and ultra-high quality full-frame camera systems with larger lenses, connectors for external monitors and recorders, etc etc. in other words, it could be that APS comes to be seen as an awkward middle ground whose days are numbered.

 

[maranfilms]

Panasonic is sad :crybaby:

Why, oh why…...

Wait a minute. Panasonic has no idea who you are. Dries tears and marches on. :happy:

LMAO,That made my day.

 

[maranfilms]

I'm slow, can someone please help me? Because I thought technology is marching forward, and the quality=size advantage in sensors should be becoming irrelevant; I mean, you can get better resolution from smaller sensors today than you could from FF sensors of 5 years ago; same goes for light sensitivity, DR and so on. Think about how improved are the tiny sensors in cellphone cameras. I can see the day when a m4/3 sensor will have all the DR, low-light capability, resolution etc. that anyone would want in a camera (unless you're talking special use cameras, like ultra-high speed etc.). At that point, there is literally no advantage to the sensor being bigger, because nobody is going to be demanding more than 15 or 18 usable stops etc., so who cares if it's FF or m4/3? At that point, all that would matter is FOV and lenses. When I'm doing still photography, I actually prefer the APS-C size to FF, because I can use smaller size lenses with reach. Anyhow, once sensors achieve qualitative levels where you don't worry about FF vs m4/3, all that you will be left with is other considerations like FOV and lens choices, and many people will prefer the advantages of a broader choice of lenses (with adapters) that can be fitted for the m4/3 mount. I mean, how many more years of sensor development, where you will get the low light performance of an A7S, big resolution, 15 stop DR etc., all in a m4/3 mount? Not many, I'd think - 5 years? So if you can live for the next 5 years on a GH4, GH5 etc., at some point, maybe GH8, there will be little point to getting a FF, so you can safely stay with m4/3, assuming sensor development continues and the format is supported. No?

It's just aesthetic for me. I just prefer the s35mm fov over M/4rds. I'm kind of tired of dealing with adapters as well