Leaderboard

"GH5 beats a7S, a7R II, GH4, E-M1 II, X-T2 & X-T20 (Low-light High ISO Video Quality Review Test)"

Man, read the last pages: this is previous week news. Sorry, but you know how news run fast these days... ;-) This kind of reports on bad AF performance reminds me when people want to mimic Hollywood from default settings on their Walmart camera :-D

Or if one's too lazy for that, you can just live with the look in the A6500 that makes the guy look like he has Jaundice...

You can stop hunting, locking AF when focused to begin with. As simple as that. Set up the focus peaking and keep the distance to the area in focus, monitoring it in order to not put the focus off over your subject. Depending on the camera movement (RS has never been quite of a trouble when people understand the way a camera should move not exactly spinning around, except when motivated by the subject, that is, formulas like soap operas never much helped the aesthetics of film), it is rather possible to smoothly and quickly move the focus box in the touch screen even with the camera on gimbal. I even bet that an extra IBIS will help you out to keep the stabilizer steady : D Techie pleonasm apart and yes, these things require solid training but, like the bikes, once you get it... ; ) Not yet? As eltorrete has just posted, mobile app will be easy going and your friend. Let's not forget touch to focus is part of AF system and if has worked in a 5-years now GF5, count on it shooting with their last and improved toy. This 'GH5 AF sucks' is pure BS. Only shooters do suck if/when that happens. Moreover, AF performance is not all the same, neither all the Panasonic/Olympus lens models, focal lengths, etc, with several versions included, better to test it before going to shoot without mention the infinite range of settings combination, various speed, sensitivity on responsiveness (Max Yuryev only tested +3 and -3... c'mon *Phew* see Tommy Callaway's test and his different settings, for example) and so on (again, no free lunch), isn't it? :-) Here's another test, not mine, but gives a scope that even the most lazy AF varies on the results in the very end: And why not to take a look on the comments too? ;-)

So far, soo awesome. Sure there's a learning curve, but it really is no big deal once you get used to the workflow. Here's a screengrab from my very first shot with it...

No problem marty, will do. Uploading to Youtube now. It's hard to believe that the lens could make all the difference I'm seeing between Max's video and mine. Zmarty, here ya go. Give it a bit of time to upgrade to 4K. It's now a low rez, but you should still see the focus.

How is that different than every other camera manufacturer's manual that talks about AF effectiveness and then proceeds to list 10-15 things that might compromise AF? I shoot exclusively in 4K and have had no such issues. The AF subject is becoming tedious since some, apperently non-owners, just won't believe any evidence to the contrary. I firmly believe someone could duplicate Max's video in every phase of his testing, achieve perfect AF, and it would be ignored. After all, I've duplicated a couple of his tests and those same folks ignore that too. After I posted a couple of videos showing the AF was fine, someone asked me to duplicate the test of his failure when he brought a lens in front of his camera and it failed to focus. His failed every time. I did the test and it focused every single time. The same folks seem to have ignored that too, fascinating. I'm beginning to think it's an utter waste of time for anyone to post evidence to the contrary. Believe what you wish guys. B, they'll all be ignored by a few. I just checked my original video. It absolutely, positively does not show up in the original 4K video. It is apparently a product of YouTube compression. The roof is 100% clean and devoid of moire in the original. dbp, thanks, you beat me to it. Over the years I've seen countless times where an artifact is blamed on the camera as opposed to YouTube compression artifacts or, watching a 4K YouTube video on an HD monitor. Even that can introduce artifacts that were never there in the original video.

Max's camera is on par? Really? With what, another broken camera? Despite other videos which show something quite different, including the ones I've posted? There appear to be a couple of folks here that would rather pick one video as representative of the AF and all other videos be damned. It's an interesting thing to watch people ignore what is clearly contradictory evidence.

Yeah, it's stupid, but, my goodness, these things are all moderately comparable, aren't they? I'd willingly take any of those cameras and shoot stuff.

When I saw Max read and then explain this answer I thought he did not understand what the manual tried to explain, because he oversimplified the above into: "so it's normal to not have good autofocus in 4k". I believe there maybe a flawed translation in the manual. Because to me 'Highly accurate focus' sounds like a description of 'very responsive' in the 'responsiveness' setting. The 'reduced Auto Focus speed' is about the focus speed setting. The way that I read this answer is that is you crank up the responsiveness setting to the highest and focus speed to the lowest, the AF will appear not to work. What I believe may be happening in the processing is that the focus change is below a minimal change given the short measuring interval time the 'very responsive' setting allows for. When the camera measures the second time, there is no (too little) focus change, so the camera does something else (stop focussing/ move back to previous focus?) instead of keep on moving the focus. I think unravelling this new AF system is going to be a great job for forums like this. I wish Panasonic would explain to us how the AF algorithm works in more detail. The quirks Peter Gregg explains, like 60p, pre focussing (grid and white + sign on the main subject to tell the camera what the main and preferred subject is) and then pressing record.

Watch it full screen, it's not there. An artifact of a youtube embed.

I tend to like more muted colors, but for the people who prefer some saturation, here is one of my first versions of the video with more saturation. On my computer and phone this looks decent, but on my TV it is nuclear... so YMMV...

So much about awful the GH5 AF......... Well, its seems their is a nice learning curve in howto.... and then the GH5 does AF B

Trust me, I am not YT user 'Real World Endo' in disguise... :-D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9P4MAqPj78

On previous GH cameras the centre top position of the control dial would act as a play button when in playback mode, still awaiting Gh5's arrival here to be sure

Check out this LUT I just put together. It should work great with ML footage that's pretending to be Arri Log C https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=19338.msg182487;topicseen#msg182487

You're vids are super cool you are a natural performer, with gear knowledge - better than most - just keep going and tweak. The existential camera gear geek is still an open slot imo. You're mistake was thinking the court of public opinion is ruly/ rational. Politicians make money for a reason... Trust your gut. Go make money. I approve. Be happy

Here's a test I did 3 years ago with ML and the 5D3 w/ 24-105 F4L (1080p). Handheld using a simple rig and Kamerar QV-1 viewfinder. Wanted to see how well I could crash zoom and manual focus while walking around. Processed in AE and ACR (some color shifts, but looked OK to me overall). There's something special about the 5D3. I might do a test comparing to 1DX II to see if there's something with the color.

So here's the video I promised. I tried to duplicate Max's AF scenario as best I could. None of these clips have been edited and none that I shot were left out. Everything you see is everything I shot. Very different results. What can I say? As I've said before, these results are extremely typical for everything I've shot thus far. I've never shot a single clip that even remotely resembles what Max got.

Obviously that "everyday life vlogging" is really big and to be honest, like most of you, I can't really understand the appeal. My girlfriend watches Jamie&Nikki a lot and I just can't get over how that's basically just watching two random people do their every day blah. They have a million followers who care about what boring, regular things they do. I mean, I can kinda get why people watch Jon Olson, he's at least a ka-razy semi-celebrity, blowing money and living the life, so you watch him do stuff most of us will never do (still working on saving up for that lambo). You'd also think there's only so many ways you could go about contouring but make-up how-to channels are such a huge thing. At the same time you can see that usually production value is of no real interest to a lot of people. Same with Instagram, there's a lot of people with hundreds of thousands of followers with just the same composition of iPhone pictures over and over and over again. It's more about people's voyeuristic needs and identifying with the content creator than with the actual content. When it comes to technology, I kinda get why less might be more. I wanted to see how the GH5 fares by looking at what gets uploaded to Vimeo and YouTube and by god, if I have to see another video that is 100% slow motion flowers / dogs / people shopping I will scream! It's approaching "cooking video with ukulele background sound" territory. It seems that a lot of people who care about "filmic, cinematic videos" exclusively produce camera test videos. Gear is the purpose in itself, there will never be any output. That's actually also fine as a hobby but there's the tendency that these people only criticize and never create/contribute. I'm actually really re-evaluating what I want in a camera. Maybe I can do with "worse" image if it actually means I'll shoot more due to better usability?

Used the XC10 on a corporate film shoot the Netherlands. The opening shot is XC10 shot handheld from the back of a van. The rest of the shots in the piece are Canon C300ii. It matches pretty much perfectly in that scenario.

Fritz, superb idea!!! This is done on other forums to keep the trolls out. I like it! Orangenz, it's amazing isn't? I watch these guys adjusting speed to +5 and responsiveness to -5 and then 20 settings in-between to achieve the 'perfect balance', and all I did was use central area focusing at the default settings. Done. I think some guys are making this more complicated than it needs to be in many instances. Sure, it might not be perfect for every situation, but hell, I've used it in a variety of environments and it's worked every time.

That is true but it does get really annoying in a dark pub or club at a gig to even see someone using even a small light with the tiniest video camera. It also annoys me when someone uses flash endlessly for stills too (and it often annoys the bands no end). A few times I have shot alongside other photographers using flash almost every shot and sometimes the band would tell them to stop. One has since upgraded his kit and now shoots without flash a lot more. He also does video now too and (thankfully) without lights. If I remember, next time I see someone with a video light at a gig, I will take a photo.

I think a lot of you are not really thinking this through. Sure they use lighting in movies. But hell guess what, the movies we go see have lighting rigs that that a f ing semi truck to get them there. 6,000 watt lights that take a generator to run them. You are not going to light up half a city block with little piss ass LCD lights from Amazon we can afford! Get real.

There is SO much wrong with that video. He really handicaps the larger sensor cameras by not using primes (he prefers to use zooms) and only one particular zoom (he could have used the other 1.8 zoom I guess too). The ONLY way the GH5 "wins" is IF you use the 1.8 Sigma zoom and a Speedbooster and you don't use a similar fast zoom (Sigma 24-35 f2) with or without a focal reducer OR a fast prime on the larger sensor cameras. On top of that I don't see the Gh5 "winning" there in many instances at all even as it is. What happens if you need deeper DOF at high ISOs or if you are at ISO 25600 and up and are using a fast prime as well? GH5 looks very nice and that combination (GH5, Speed Booster and Sigma 1.8 zoom) will be usable in lower lighting than a FF camera and slower lens in many cases but that does not make the GH5 a better low light camera than the others "tested" there. I will still gratefully accept any GH5 that isn't wanted by the buyer. Would love to use one as a decent daytime/good light/controlled light camera.

Some very nice shots in there.

I meant "flat"/neutral headphones not flat frequency response, that's why I said, they shouldn't change sounds from input to output, but yeah, my bad. Won't "flat" headphones have flat frequency in an anechoic chamber measured at the microphone, anyway ? Then you add a person and it's not flat anymore, gets complicated and confusing because people are different with different ears and bodies. The goal was to point Dan to where he can read more about it without much pain. It's not clear for audio engineers how to properly measure this stuff anyway. Innerfidelity has quite a bit information on how to read their graphs if he wants to know what they mean.

Looks great! I prefer the desaturated/natural look, more cinematic if less immediately attention-grabbing.

Well I am sort of a big fan of the A7s because I don't see a lot of situations where you can use f .9 and get anything in focus. I know on a m4/3 camera that is really f 1.8, but that is still some narrow ass DoF to play with. So I think using a A7s in dark portions of a shoot IS a damn good option to have. Would I have it as my main camera all the time. Well, if I had enough money to have it as a "B", camera well no. But as your Only camera, I can think of a hell of a lot worse ones to have. Now trying to cut it into a movie with a Gh4, GH5, well that would not be easy as hell I would admit. With a A6300, A6500 now that works.

Love the sound! Did you make those recordings?

Sorry for a slight off topic, but bear with me. As some may have read, I recently purchased a 5D3 to shoot ML Raw. I am nowhere near proficient enough with it to start testing the new 4K builds, but I am enjoying the camera immensely and since the new ML achievements may see an increase of 5D3 sales, I thought I would share my very first ML test video, so newcomers, like me, can see what they can expect if they decide to shoot Raw on the 5D3. This video was shot in 2:35, so it is technically not even Full HD at 1920x810. I also processed the files with the most basic conversion using ML Raw Viewer. They were transferred to ProRes as Log-C. I then brought the files into FCPX for a cut, color and render to Vimeo. I have found that the 16bit color is insane and I had to re upload the video a couple times because it was so saturated with a gradient of colors just not possible with the 8bit cameras I've been used to. Anyway, here it is... As most probably know, I am not the greatest colorist, I am practicing but it does not come naturally to me, so I am sure some of you guys would do a much better job correcting/grading this footage. Also, I really wish all TVs, computers and phones were standardized and the saturation couldn't be changed... but oh well, we do our best.

Btw, on the backside of the SanDisk Extreme Pro SDXC UHS-II U3 280MB/s packaging it gives you a little table for '64GB recording time' with the notion '4K @ 500 Mbps - 16 minutes'. So you'd think, regardless of the Vx0-classification that's missing, they've kept in mind that you'd actually use this for 'cinema-quality 4K' (also on the packaging) with high bitrates. It's much cheaper than the V90 badge ones. No guarantees of course.

A friend of mine has both, I think. The K702 is quite good for listening to music, especially EDM etc. however it's open and doesn't fold up so it's inappropriate for field use. Mildly sibilant highs slightly and punchy bass but overall just excellent. The M50 by comparison is relatively a monitor (more accurate, closed back) but it still sounds good, better than the Sonys for music listening. But if everyone else is using 7506 for monitoring, imo it makes sense to do the same imo. The hi fi trend does not necessarily overlap with what are commonly used as monitors. The 7506 is a good monitor as it's the industry standard. I believe the HD600 and HD650 are used, too. But the hi fi stuff might work for monitoring, too. Of course, in theory you want speakers for your final mix. For listening, I switch between Stax, an HD650, and the Koss ESP-950. I find the Koss has the best sound for everything but bass-heavy music. For mixing, I hire someone else to do it.

I think I've seen that film...

I will not say that my GH5 is better than the 6500 because I do not have it. What I say 100% is that my GH5 is much better than Max's.

FWIW, I think I have isolated the cause, and what to do to stop the exposure drift when it occurs. It seems to be something related to the mode dial. Even though it's on M mode and locked, every now and then exposure drift will happen on my NX1. I found now that if I twist the mode dial slightly, or unlock it, turn it away and back to M, the drifting stops. Hope this helps.

I like the feature where you can assign a function to a function button by simply holding down on it for a few seconds and then selecting what you want it to do...much easier than assigning each one through the menu

Oh yeah, that works :O

... and, whatever Gods you think you have offended don't exist. Just a 'web 2.0' forum. Feels real, but dang'ed if it ain't!

The recorded bit rate is the same, 150Mbps, so the files can't be bigger. Some of the editors need an update to work super smooth with the new codecs but that seems a separate issue from 10bit vs 8 bit.

Looks nice. What I like about the footage I have seen from it is that although there is definite canon color mojo there, it also has a hint of Alexa to it. Only because I was stupid and forgot to set the CF card as the recording card, so the raw was being recorded to the sd card instead... constant frame drops. Once I got my head out of my ass, it's been smooth sailing. No issues whatsoever. Also when I was shooting with the 50D, I would get max between 65MB and 70MB but usually closer to 60MB. With the M3, I'm easily getter in the 90s.

Ah we All have a bad day at times. Makes us stronger I think. It was an unfortunate event, but I sure as heck am not going to loose any sleep over it. This is too good of a Forum to have that effect us, even in the short term. I don't see any reason for you to feel responsible. It was what it was. I guess it was a learning experience, and I welcome different opinions and thoughts. But I guess as the old saying goes, Discussing Politics and Religion neatly Always leads to hut feelings. It is Taboo for a reason I guess. I hope we all move on one this because I consider a lot of people on here as friends, and that is something I have never had a lot of in my life.

Same on all the GH cameras. you play back using touch screen.

Thanks Ken...I've been messaging with Jonpais as I was considering getting the G85 for traveling and contemplated getting the Panny 12-60 as the kit...the Leica has to pay for it's hefty price, but I like the 12-60 focal length of this zoom and in kit form the Panny 12-60 seems worth the $100!

"If I offended anyone please accept my sincere apology." You didn't, but it takes a big man to post that. Peace and love.

Some ppl has become too allergic to a noise. Noise is there, if it looks like fine grain then it's ok. If its is like nasty artefacts then remove it. But an ad to that Sony a6300 is quite clean in S-log2 up to ISO 16.000. And in photos, not bad at all. (ISO 8000)

@webrunner5 I am not that weird, as sale figures indicate! I am not big on m4/3 either, I still use GH4 but I never owned one, and I use full frame cameras for video, but again, I never owned one; there are perfectly good cameras for specific jobs that I enjoy more. My sweet spot is S35 and APS-C cameras that are close to S35, and Sony APS-C offerings in both bodies and lenses are not pro material, so a GH5 with a speedbooster is closer to my style than the a7s, plus I know that Panasonic will deliver something that will work as it is advertised, and it is advertised as a video work horse, definitely not a low light freak. Whatever works really, I understand one man band people like the A7s so much, but video productions are team work, and I am trying to change this "lone-wolf" mentality, even in my lowest budget jobss I try to employ 1-2 more persons (DP and/or after effects specialist), even if that means that I am earning silly money in the end.

Yeah but you are wierd lol. Just Kidding. Oh I am sure the new A7s will be amazing! The old one is also, you just didn't realize it. I know the feeling, I just can't get into certin cameras either. I never owned a GH4 and really not too big on even the new GH5. But I do have a Panny G7 for the 4k. The sensor size is just too limiting both DR and low light wise, and limited DoF when you want it. And it is not going to get better. But I don't think the GH5 can be beat for the money, no way. Well maybe a Sony 6800 might??