Emanuel

As Jon said, the man is stuck on the brand rep almost as much as that board where his lesson on the word confidance makes me feel much more confiante in my mother language as non-native English speaker :-D Last week... a fellow countryman of mine had published this comparison test shot almost side by side my Lisbon office BTW (no idea if already posted here):

You've guessed it first! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX6wQTf1oQA&lc=z12wfhqx3qvbutgmw23xcdhyepztjprsi

Jingles is back... AF Sensitivity reduced to -3 in order to prevent hunting over the background. Speed is up trying to not become slow... With those so many Christmas lights in that tree will be hard to match those settings. That is, if you'll have the patience I don't have to follow 45 minutes of this soup of this and that to arrive to the same conclusion on tap to focus. Either way, still without clue if slower or the slowest settings will avoid hunting on that semi-auto focus mode as he names it, actually part of AF system with a range of settings which will vary the performance, I bet.

Here's another one pretty interesting to my book:

1) I like this one here -- no other camera does this at this resolution (4K/60p) for the price: @Neumann Films, Good one, Luke! 2) Can't have access.

Interesting night footage:

@andrgl, thanks for the heads up! LOL You made my Saturday night a way bit more funny, Lintelfilm! :-)

Now changing subject, here's some marvelous imagerie from this piece of work: Shot on 12-60mm f2.8-4 and 100-400mm f4-6.3 -- only two zoom lenses and here we all can go very light ;-)

Well, this is internet, a discussion forum... ; ) Your point has its merit, though. I've already left the plea to MY and some other guy who's testing the bitch. Let's see if they'll add anything on topic. To be sincere, I am more focused on accuracy about tap to focus than actually full autofocus. If you're looking for sports, as for instance, your scope and needs can go further beyond, of course. I hope the settings may concur anyway. In any case, I'd suggest the mobile app route which can really help gimbal work if not for much fast stuff.

Typo according to Nicholas, it is the MK I version. Shot on about 22mm focal length. The other one on 35mm focal. He says the combination results are much better on 35mm as due.

From minute 13:23 on: I guess, once more, this also answers for both sides (I've always loved to stay midway : D) -- the title couldn't be better! For those wondering about gimbal work, as already posted before here, take a look on the comments (mobile app suggestion) before to praise the need for automatic-autofocus. Yet on a pre-production unit (low light! -- from minute 0:37):

One of my fav lens setups... With 12-35mm f/2.8-4 mk II here:

Funny description for the Sony toys ;-)

Pity the reviewer didn't use the same lens setup side-by-side... In any case for those used to shoot with G85, this can give an idea on expectations to fulfill regarding the new toy:

Posted in another forum (Password: test123): settings: 15mm f1.7 4K60p 1/125th shutter Speed +3 Sensitivity +2

Yes, indeed... : D Without mention it seems to offer better AF when recorded externally.

Indeed. Never tested one. So, supporting the failure is simply childish, besides to be unprofessional, ethically improper of a full-grown adult individual if applies. From my experience of almost 3 decades with cameras, the first 5 years aside for full manual, I'd say there are settings enough to make it suitable. We just need to find a set of sweet spots varying under distinct setups.

@kinvermark, do you know that one of Niels Bohr? "The opposite of a trivial truth is false, the opposite of a great truth is also true." :-) It depends on settings and the patience and skills you have in order to make them work for you and under certain circumstances. No free lunch. GH5 can be worse than the most recent Sonys and Canons or that can become unnoticed by the audience. Straight out of the box, GH5 competitors take advantage. With work and know-how, hope not. It will vary on the shooter, set of conditions, settings, so I bet, mainly from the choices and experience made in-camera plus coupled lens, both combined. The proof is in the pudding. Meant AF (not MF).

One of the most interesting low light GH5 samples seen these days was shot through a 20 bucks 'plastic lens': Reason why I had the need to open this protest here:

Go on Atomos and you'll finally have a P-R-O-F-E-S-S-I-O-N-A-L (whatever this means ; ) 4K/60p camera at your disposal.

LOL Another Portuguese speaker, Jon! : ) BTW, Pais is another Portuguese surname too! (E :-)

Well, maybe we need to save the grace going on with some filter in the front of the camera in order to put it soft, I guess. Apart, work @post.

Interesting opinion. I had found it more or less the same IQ, except the lack of optical low-pass filter, yes, which can introduce some artifacts, hope not though. 4:2:2 10-bit for tight bit rate doesn't help either. As same as 4K/60p for more or less the same data used with 24p. But, we have the external recording option, isn't it?