Emanuel

LOL Sorry mate, I only try my best to break down that can be deconstructed into harmless information in a different way round the ring ;-)

Yeah, Ken. You're right! At this point of the route, trolling is the fair word to call it ;-)

@jonpais, I'm sorry pal but I see the thing upside down and I'm afraid we will only be going to merry-go-round on this one here. First off and I beg your apologize for my tone here now but that's coming by default LOL : ) from my law school background (before film school on par with camera work for more than two decades and a half now): 1) Where are the facts you may name Imaging Resource as an unreliable site? Because of "sugar-coated reviews", as you say? Listen, I am not even placing in doubt the fairness or not of your judgement on them, just wondering. 2) There were finest samples on their (Panasonic) method of applying NR techniques, very controversial approach BTW. To my book, a crime against IQ, posterior usage and so on. Without mention the most part here seemed to concur; you included I believe, from your posts there. 3) Ah, but the sensor performance (and some cooking) is so good that we've been concluding that mercenary method (I guess we can call it like that) won't play a major role in the further combination after all (so, the proof is in the pudding, once again, my first motto throughout all my posting along the last decade in these and other boards, mainly dvxuser and reduser). 4) Moreover, the thread was all about samples from stills not video frames as very early stated as disclaimer. 5) My thread was produced during the pre-production period -- no camera available, but the samples were ; ) motivating high concern from my side on the methodology applied (as thread's subject), so presented as a worry, presage, warning, a (bad) sign, foreshadow, threat... so, something that could/can even be corrected if they would be reading (I'm afraid not, though) such lines. 6) The detractors of GH5 AF have been coming to successively post a few disinformation based on their production (!) units because they simply have no clue how to overcome eventual limitations of the system, they don't even care how to properly use it in order to extend all the potentiality of features like touch to focus, as for instance. 7) We do mention here of professional reviewing, that is, the reviewers are paid by affiliate sales, so I guess that's a consensual statement which automatically implies some responsibilities associated -- as craft, for the crafts and professionals targeted, for the brand(s) with its (their) name and interests involved; and, of course, susceptible (both sides, not only the manufacturers) to public criticism, mainly by the readers and in behalf of the facts. 8) They're hurting GH5 sales from their unskilled perspective. You are an intelligent mod here, so it is your duty to not feed up this mistake as much as mine proud to be a serious player to post good news from low light performance whenever this camera is able to. Once more, that's what the historic of my posting in that thread fairly concurs. E :-)

Yes, and I'd have opened it again. I still post there as much as when pops up new stuff worthy to be posted, as it is possible to check in my most recent posting in the same thread ; ) Merit of those samples (#1). As written then, still samples but yet... The way they apply NR -- deteriorating the natural grain high ISOs obviously introduce (only because Sony is there with their superior full frame technology as far as low light capabilities concerns), is outrageous IMO. I stand it. Despite the Tony Northrup findings now (actually, I was going to post that same link in the same notorious thread when Hanriverprod posted it here in the meantime) and I see now someone else has done it on my behalf. They need to let the operator decide to apply or not whatever setting(s) he/she feels like, instead. Denoising doesn't escape to the rule. Leave it to post is not anything bad either. Automatic modes in photography can variably bring to low quality results. And imponderability at such level can happen to be dangerous. Pity that people want the magical button instead by default. But, we're now discussing AF performance which has made a lot of people to have canceled their GH5 purchase. Based on what? Incomplete/defective method on testing? Misinformation? Lack of knowing the craft? That's the whole point. So, in a line: both points match in coherence. I am able to adopt brand loyalty but I am brand agnostic. My loyalty to accuracy and fairness is much higher ;-) And as you see, I am not alone on this one (I doubt they had read this thread and my protest here or my message to Max Yuryev there but they've surely seen his tests): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyTggg5NcIk

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? ;-)

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

To each its own. Faith matters ain't able to be certified by scientific eulogy. Or vice versa. So...

Who? Max Yuryev? Seems legit. Barry Green is a notable Panasonic man. He's incredibly skilled to find workarounds for (t)his brand flaws. Well, more focused on his dames inside there, the Panasonic professional cameras. Because the infamous DSLRs, mirrorless nowadays or the new terminology DC used by GH5 BTW, are almost some other playground : D less today than yesterday. More biased than his approach is hard to find. His input is invariably outstanding, though.

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

Bias is present in everything in life and in the world as we all know, even though, we tend to forget, ignore or deny. We are all biased. We take position, so there we are. You, for example, you defend your perspective on this topic. Bias : ) That said, I don't think he is dishonest, I found him pretty committed to give to his audience the best he can. Paid reviews have another tone. Competent as reviewer? Well, we'll have a distinct matter to discuss then. A malfunctioning unit can't serve as excuse for professionals when AF is presented as used by soccer moms. To barely call it scientific is unscientific. AF use is beyond the usage he recalls in his video. Frankly, I wouldn't hire such shooter, I'm sorry to write it because I appreciate some of his effort indeed. 30 minutes of test would demand much more, though. Barry Green standard, I guess, my bad. To fulfill the whole cup is variably hard to succeed. But, when we approach some intricate subject, we must try it or we risk to fail. Voilà (if I put the accent in a different language of French, I won't reach to properly write the idiom ; ) E :-)

I meant the 0.64x version... 0.71x is free of it. As well, cropped GH4 coupled to XL. Absence of crop on GH5 must theoretically grant the infamous vignette -- TBC. Well, EF mount version has electronics associated, not yours though...

IBIS is really designed for correcting it in order to steady handheld shots. Good question, informative answer, intriguing doubt. I'd dare to wonder if actually Nikon vs Canon EF mount versions have different coverages, once the distinct reports on vignetting trouble.

Indeed!

That's a physical limitation. On zoom freeze, for sure. But vignetting will still be there, obviously, anyway.

Sure, not even doubt it. Regardless bias can always happen even when we don't notice it with ourselves ; ) I just don't buy (to use an expression by jonpais : ) the new "gurus" made by YT, as explained. Not even at the edges (not corners) of the frame? Any softness then? I think you've already answered to your fair doubt on your previous post.

I know some other GHx units in the same condition. Seems some usual in this camera series. Because of the articulated screen, some people say.

What about vignetting? Don't you notice it? IBIS is more designed for welcoming steady shots than for 'walking shots' where a gimbal stands.

Yet on YT and speaking of gear reviewers, for example, I appreciate to pay attention to the Dugdale's reviews. Amongst a few others, I want to believe. Where's Philip's (Bloom) review (not exactly from YT) as for instance? Why not as before? Therefore, such quotes of mine as BS and so on. Maybe 'honest BS' if I am able to call it so LOL but (more on the territoire of lacking something) shit happens to my eyes, unfortunately. Even among us, people discuss the topics with much interesting trade of humble information we had the chance to gather along our modest experience. And some of the posts still praise not so well much informed perspectives at times. It's life, I guess so. To each his/her own, though. It's sad to read misinformation, well, 'often honest', but still lacking depth lots of times. That's just my two cents of rant : ) AF the motto. The dichotomy AF/MF puzzles me. There's no soccer/chess match. Filmmaking is a difficult and lucky combination impossible to make it happen without hard work, know-how and a good portion of every part and intense/obsessive perfectionism... There's no free lunch! E :-)

Sure, there is. But the rules over YT views have sunk reviewers and, by consequence, reviews of quality IMO.

Yes, I've just read that and something else. I don't contest his honesty. Either his naivety ; ) Well, I recall when I was at film school, I remember one instructor (if not some others) to make fun because of our YT age where the standards shall be tremendously low as internet in general actually is. That is, the democratization of knowledge would bring some oddities as to establish some "authorities" as rookies in disguise. Just some pioneers to have found the "magic formula" on new media supplied by new technologies in a new world. I regret to see their words were pretty accurate indeed. The Warhol's 15 minutes of fame don't inevitably mean quality on the outcome checked. Mediocrity rules over our heads, unfortunately. I don't object their effort, just the quality of the massive support these "reviewers" have on a basis of an uninformed audience of thousands when not millions. They could bring some credibility, oh great, of course. My beef is with the poorly dandy results they offer to my eyes. I don't perforce this reviewer, perhaps the review per se. I speak in general. I'd love to see an Adam Wilt or Barry Green (well known Panasonic shill BTW) only because I know their technical standard is likely much higher and reliable, once they put their name in the front of the fullness of their testing. That was the pattern ten years ago. Today, we are under the pop YT domain. A pity.

I did a small edit in my post only to point out I don't necessarily think this "reviewer" has an agenda, as follows his disclaimer in one of his messages BTW. Lots of interests command internet marketing, though. That's for sure! He is one of many others. Even though, his first test was pretty incomplete and very distracted. This 2nd one as a reply to the lack of depth of the other one, has 30 minutes, so another ballpark. But, yes, he has forgotten to test a more complete approach using a more capable full technique any experienced shooter will use. Not by definition mandatory manual focus, as a lot of other users usually infer as dichotomy to AF. There are other AF modes such as tap to focus he simply didn't talk about. Or the way we can lock AF up just in order to prevent hunting, as for instance. All this is part of the labor and these AF tests drive me nuts for their bewildering simplicity. I don't have anything against thousands of YT followers and they surely don't bother me at all, on the contrary, they led me to demand more from their input being one of them.

Moreover, lot of these "reviewers" (dozens of thousands of YT followers won't impede my commas there) when not detractors with a business agenda with other brand(s), they simply forget hybrid focus modes or certain features such as touch to focus (actually, an AF mode too) only in order to make their point. This is sad when people start to cancel their orders based on BS or incomplete information which has become mere misinformation in the meantime, as matter of fact, precisely 'cause of that. That puzzles and irritates me enough as tech and picture lover.

For professional use, this is baffling funny: [from/on FAQ:] "Since these settings were pushed to limit, the risk of corrupted frames is high." Guess if that was written on the new GH5 manual... LOL Sorry, couldn't resist! :-)

I guess I should be the only one to write it here today for the umpteenth time but tap to focus is already present in my 5-years GF5 and works just fine!

But, no IBIS, no 4K/60p, brick size, etc. I think people are freaking out on GH5 flaws, really overestimating them. You can have solid stabilized outcome based on S35/FF look coupled to a Speedbooster bandinglessly on more than adequate color sampling and high bitrate for soon or with a monitor which is a recorder too, after all, for more less than 1,000 bucks. What's the big deal here? To understand the sweet spot on AF settings or use tap to focus when run-n-gun? C'mon pals, pixel peeping can be dangerous if taken overdosed ; ) There's no other similar camera for the price. End of story :-)