estarkey7

I own the GH4 and just rented the GX85 to have a B cam for a wedding. I used to love the image the GH4 produced, until I used the GX85!!! It is sooooooo much cleaner, and the IBIS is a lifesaver.
Let's put it this way: When I went through the 180GB worth of video for the deliverable, 95% of the content I shipped was recorded with the GX85, as at the high ISO (1600-3200) the GH4 was undeliverable.  If the G85 is anything like the GX85, 4K delivery will be awesome.

I own the GH4 and just rented the GX85 to have a B cam for a wedding. I used to love the image the GH4 produced, until I used the GX85!!! It is sooooooo much cleaner, and the IBIS is a lifesaver.
Let's put it this way: When I went through the 180GB worth of video for the deliverable, 95% of the content I shipped was recorded with the GX85, as at the high ISO (1600-3200) the GH4 was undeliverable.  If the G85 is anything like the GX85, 4K delivery will be awesome.

I just shot a wedding with the Panasonic 42.5 f/1.7 and the 20mm f/1.7 with a GH4 and a GX85. Let me say a few things about these lenses:
The speed saved my life! The electronic focus ruined my life! The weight savings saved my life! If you are going to do narrative work where there is no focus pulling, these lenses are hard to beat. The 20mm f/1.7 is waaaaay sharper than the sharp 42.5 f/1.7. Even if the camera was capable of autofocus worth a damn, you can't do it with the 20mm, the camera simply won't let you use CAF in video or photos. So if the GH5 comes out with Sony A6500 like video autofocus, the 20mm would not cut it. 
I've used the Sigma 18-35 speedbooster combo, and I simply love it for shots on sticks or a slider. But when used as a shoulder mount, that rig weight makes a long day indeed.

I just shot a wedding with the Panasonic 42.5 f/1.7 and the 20mm f/1.7 with a GH4 and a GX85. Let me say a few things about these lenses:
The speed saved my life! The electronic focus ruined my life! The weight savings saved my life! If you are going to do narrative work where there is no focus pulling, these lenses are hard to beat. The 20mm f/1.7 is waaaaay sharper than the sharp 42.5 f/1.7. Even if the camera was capable of autofocus worth a damn, you can't do it with the 20mm, the camera simply won't let you use CAF in video or photos. So if the GH5 comes out with Sony A6500 like video autofocus, the 20mm would not cut it. 
I've used the Sigma 18-35 speedbooster combo, and I simply love it for shots on sticks or a slider. But when used as a shoulder mount, that rig weight makes a long day indeed.

Call it what it is. 4K autofocus is shit!

I just shot a wedding with the Panasonic 42.5 f/1.7 and the 20mm f/1.7 with a GH4 and a GX85. Let me say a few things about these lenses:
The speed saved my life! The electronic focus ruined my life! The weight savings saved my life! If you are going to do narrative work where there is no focus pulling, these lenses are hard to beat. The 20mm f/1.7 is waaaaay sharper than the sharp 42.5 f/1.7. Even if the camera was capable of autofocus worth a damn, you can't do it with the 20mm, the camera simply won't let you use CAF in video or photos. So if the GH5 comes out with Sony A6500 like video autofocus, the 20mm would not cut it. 
I've used the Sigma 18-35 speedbooster combo, and I simply love it for shots on sticks or a slider. But when used as a shoulder mount, that rig weight makes a long day indeed.

Saw that too and WOW I want this on the GH5 ;-)

interesting,  I wonder how the HDR in video works. 
 

Just like the previous post from Ben said. Do you have any idea how much time was spent developing your product?

If you feel it's unethical to differentiate products solely based on software, then that means you feel that software has no value. Software is intellectual property that breathes life into the silicon your camera is made up of.

Also look at it this way, do you have any idea how expensive it would be to bring a product to market without the substantial leveraging of previous hardware? The price of the F55 was set at is based off of the quantity of F5 units they hope to sell so they can leverage quantity buying power (+20 points of cream for their troubles).

In other words, if they couldn't make the low end camera off of the high end one, they would have never made the high end one, because there's just not enough buyers to get an ROI.

Companies do this all the time, they just aren't stupid enough to leave the workaround accessible in cleartext!

I'm going to go ahead and say that the average consumer actually doesn't really care. They buy based on numbers because in their mind higher megapixel = better. They have no understanding of why, or how - but that's the thought process.
If you showed an average consumer a picture taken with a $100 kit lens, next to the same picture taken on the same body at the same focal length with a $1200 lens - they may or may not see much difference.
But they're unlikely to go out and spend an extra $1100 on a lens. Most consumers are baffled when you tell them a single lens can cost $100,000. 
Professionals buy expensive lenses because they appreciate and understand the very reason they're expensive. Professionals (and even enthusiasts, I guess) care about the quality of all the components, because they know the difference it makes to the picture.
Consumers don't get it. Realistically, someone who's just picked up a camera is unlikely to take amazing photos even if they have a $1200 lens on it.  

I'm sorry to say, but i think it's a terrible idea. We know how the consumer operates, people would then only look at the this megapixel count, as they already do with cameras. It's already not a good thing with cameras but it can make sense i guess sometimes, because it can be important. A lens is sooooo much more than its  megapixel resolving power. Besides, most people actually don't care enough to really mind if it has a high resolving power or not. Like you said, a lot use the kit lens and they're very happy with it, it's good enough for them and the may not want to spend any more money on it. The few others who know enough about lenses, optic, and photography in general to really be interested in this matter, also know enough to go look for reviews, test, advice, photos on flickr etc...
Plus, people would always ask "how many megapixels does that lens resolve" without know anything else about the lens, only focalizing on this, when everything else about a lens is so interesting and important. And to conclude, i guess MTF charts are there solely for that purpose.

Could not disagree more. It would be the second coming of the Megapixel race in pocket cameras for dumb consumers.
I give you an example as to why. Say you have a lens thats listed it as 40 mp on it. Yea it may resolve that, but hows the image? Bokeh? Chromatic Aberration? When sharpness becomes the main concern for manufacturers (more than it is now) then we all suffer creatively for it. 
As someone that uses Cinema glass on his GH4 you know that resolution is not the most important aspect of an image :)

​MTF charts published by lens producers are already greatly reduced in complexity, in that in general they only show contrast for two spatial frequencies (usually 10 and 40 lp/mm) and two aperture values (usually wide open and f/8) and two image plane orientations (sagital and tangential). The "full" MTF is a four dimensional quantity which is difficult to represent in 2 dimensions. I put "full" in quotes because it also depends on focal length for a zoom lens, and, to an extent, on the focus distance thus it can be a six-dimensional object.
I hope you can appreciate why it's impossible to boil a six-dimensional function down to a single number. You could simplify it further and measure the MTF at a few distances from the image centre (centre, top/bottom edge, left/right edge and extreme corner), but it's been heavily simplified already and that would cut a lot out.
You could try averaging the figures but the range you average over would be fairly arbitrary and subject to differences between manufacturers. And the idea that manufacturers attach a resolution figure to the lens in order to sell them would just open the flood gates to clever ways to inflate the score by carefully choosing what to include/exclude.

Nikon has golden rings, canon has L letters, sigma has the art series...
I would prefer instead for the average user to use their brain a bit better than have a company find better ways to "advertise" their products.

No they really shouldn't. A lens does not "resolve 6MP".
A lens renders a certain spatial frequency at a certain contrast ratio. It might take detail at 20 line pairs per millimeter and produce 70% contrast, detail at 50 line pairs per millimeter results in 30% contrast etc. This relationship is captured by the modulation transfer function (MTF), a quantity which varies according to the distance from the image centre, and the direction you measure in (sagital vs tangential). Manufacturers already publish MTF charts for their lenses, which is the equivalent of what you're suggesting, only much more meaningful. There are some differences in how these charts are computed (e.g. whether diffraction is included or not) so they're not always directly comparable, but they aren't anywhere near as misleading as trying to attach a single "megapixel" rating to lenses.
The other reason stating "this lens resolves 6MP" is meaningless is that the important thing in determining how you images will look is not the lens MTF itself, but the system MTF. The system MTF is the product of MTFs of each part, the lens the filter stack and the sensor (and image processing to an extent). Because it's a mathematical product (a lens delivering 80% contrast combined with an AA filter that delivers 95% contrast results in 76% contrast (0.8 x 0.95 x 100)) you can improve the system MTF by improving the MTF of any component in the system. Hence you "6MP" lens will give you more resolution on a 24MP body than on a 6MP body.
 
It's exactly this thinking that leads people to declare that there's no reason to have a 50MP sensor as there are no 50MP lenses in existence. Even the kit lens in your example produces some contrast in the centre of the image at 50MP.

Hello everyone!
With the new ability to shoot a 4K 1.33:1 image with the GH4, I immediately remembered of my film days (as an AC of course) where you had head and floor room on the viewfinder to shoot... and thought that I could use 16mm lenses on the GH4 with a decent crop...  meaning, that one would be able to shoot with 16mm and s16mm lenses, crop out the heavy vignette and still get nice 3K sized footage.
Here's a little proof test I shot:
 
 
 

Sounds like no internal recording.

Ed is experiencing the dangers of the countryside ^^. In NY you can blame the noise,the cost of living, the dirt,etc... On the country you will encounter your self, and it takes some time to digest.

​Welcome Daven, very much appreciated!
Did you by any chance make some comparisons with CineD vs V-LOG?

I don't want to come across as being self-serving with this, but I work at one of the retailers that received pre-release firmware to test on the GH4. There are "reasons" V-LOG-L is not part of the v2.2 update, but I can assure you, Panasonic would not have let us release the footage we shot with it if they weren't planning on actually bringing it to the GH4. We tested it in some fairly low-light conditions and, yes, it is noisy, but the footage was still a dream to work with in post compared to CineD.
Here is a link to a basic before/after color grade test I did (sorry if the colors are "dodgy" ;-) ): https://youtu.be/AhPK56Ii5sw
And our full presentation: https://youtu.be/_aEMUDQlRFE
Lens used was a Cooke 40mm t/2.3 2x anamorphic.
Again, really not trying to come across as self-serving or spammy here, just wanting to contribute to the conversation.

I feel your pain - I'm in the same boat - but I'm sure those will come soon.

Honestly I think some people need to either cough up more cash or quit whining so much and learn the benefits of patience.  VLOG will come out or they wouldn't be beta testing it now with these guys.  Panasonic knows how important it is.  If they didn't they will know it when they look at the Ursa Mini.  The price difference between an entry-level Mini and introductory price GH4 is so low that they have to be worried.
If you think that VLOG is mandatory you either have the wrong camera for the job or you haven't learned how to expose properly.   The most impressive VLOG demo in that video is the side to side comparison outdoor with a bright background sky that's blown out.  Go get yourself an ND grad.  Jesus.   You have to learn how to work within your limitations no matter what camera you bought.
I bought a GH4 for personal projects because for the most part it's easy to use, has 4k and looks pretty damn good out of the box.   For my high-end projects I do the same as everyone else - work out the budget and part of that is renting high end lenses and cameras.   When your looking at a multi-million dollar budget, the cost of renting your cameras comes to practically zero.

Now stop whining and go create some awesome stuff with your GH4, A7S, Pocket Camera or whatever.  It's all good.   Remember that the Wachowski's could have made millions even if the only version of the Matrix they had was an iPhone video.
 

The comparison between Cinelike D and V-log was pretty cool, bad skin tones and highlights were really tricky and it really seems that V-log addresses that beautifully.
Will that come to the FZ1000 or even the LX100 - which doesn't even have Cinelke profiles?

That video is helpful:
No de-squeeze on camera
V-Log looks much much better than Cine D!
 

Dynamic range does look impressive on that video, shadows don't look very noisy either. Come one Panasonic, give it to us!
Anamorphic mode is cool, but will it de-squeeze the image on the screen and viewfinder? I hope so, but I'm afraid not... it kinda sounds like it's just the 4K Photo mode copied to video mode with 24 fps.
Also more aspect ratio's would be welcome... 4:3 gives a nice 2,66:1 image with 2x anamorphics, but what about 1,33x and 1,5x anamorphics? Sure you can use them in the normal 16:9 mode, but would be cool to have the image de-squeezed on the camera screen.