Bob Goldberg

If you're referring to the Digidirect video, then we clearly disagree. The effects of rolling shutter look worse the faster the camera moves and the closer you are to an object. In that video, the camera was moving so fast that virtually everything was indistinguishable. Cameras aren't usually moved that rapidly in rolling shutter tests. Usually, you like to see more controlled tests with two cameras side by side, because it's hard to judge it accurately without a comparison camera. But, the truth is, that actually looked pretty good to me. I'm not convinced the E-M1 II is any better than this. Also, there are other things that affect the appearance of rolling shutter including the sensor area used for video. I know rolling shutter in stills is worse the higher the bit depth is. That's why some MFT cameras reduce the bit depth in stills from 12 to 10 bits when e-shutter is used, to reduce the jello appearance. I'm not sure in what way this applies to video though.

I don't think the video released yet is an indication of all of the possible IQ advantages this camera will give. If you need 4k/60p for fast action, you can't really do that with the GH4 or any other camera. Also, the IBIS may be a difference maker to some, and some would say this will make a difference in video quality. The oversampled 4K (full sensor) will likely yield the sharpest video yet out of MFT. Not to mention the grading advantages of 4:2:2 video. It's tough to argue that wouldn't make a difference in IQ. Also, as previously mentioned, you can do 5K video (using the 6K photo mode) with 1:1 pixels, which will likely yield sharper video than the GH4 can produce, with minimal moire or other artifacts. And it's also full sensor. This is entirely independent of the 6K anamorphic mode that's coming in the future. So, there are definitely two ways to shoot beyond 4k, and either of those modes would give you an additional capability to add further stabilization in post, and still output 4k video.

I just wanted to chime in with a more detailed explanation of the 6K photo mode, which can also be used for 5K video (with 1:1 pixels). There is unequivocally no upscaling or downscaling in this mode. And if you shoot 5K video in this mode, you have extra pixels on the vertical to allow you to decide precisely where you want to crop out the 5K video. And you can also use the extra pixels to do some image stabilization in post, and still retain 5K video quality. https://***URL removed***/forums/post/58907335 https://***URL removed***/forums/post/58907720 https://***URL removed***/forums/post/58644769 https://***URL removed***/forums/post/58646338 https://***URL removed***/forums/post/58646032 https://***URL removed***/forums/post/58650895 https://***URL removed***/forums/post/58817553

​Yeah, I was referring to the AX33, which is the 4K successor to the CX730. It does have about 1/9 the sensor area of the E-M5 II (assuming a 20% crop, which I don't know). One advantage of the AX33 is that it does 4K with exactly 3840x2160 pixels, so it should be very sharp and nearly artifact free. The small size of the sensor also helps reduce rolling shutter. Even though the sensor is 1/9 the size, it's a more efficient sensor than current MFT sensors, so it should perform well in low light. Not as well as MFT, but decent. For the average consumer looking for great video quality with great stabilization (when walking), I'd recommend the AX33. The reason I use MFT (Panasonic specifically) is because I want to maintain top notch video quality at focal lengths other than wide angle. I'm just not convinced that the zoom lenses on these compacts and camcorders are all that great, except at the widest angle. For instance, with the GH4, I can maintain the same quality at 300mm eq. as I can at 30mm eq. I don't think that's possible with a compact or camcorder. My GH2 (with good lenses) maintains MUCH better detail at longer focal lengths than camcorders and compacts. Also, I still think that MFT cameras, like the GH series, maintain an edge in terms of fine detail and sharpness over camcorders (even at their best focal lengths). And the difference in low light performance should not be underestimated either, especially at longer focal lengths. None of the reasons I choose MFT have anything to do with shallow DoF or artistic effects (or stabilization). It' purely IQ considerations, and that's the reason I don't use camcorders. But, again, not to sound like a broken record, if the IQ wasn't there, then the next logical option would be camcorders (not an MFT camera without top notch IQ).

​The E-M10 also uses digital stabilization. And looking through the VF is hardly a comprehensive test. But any testing is helpful.

​There's no contradiction. Testimony implies someone's opinion. Since when have I ever listened to ANYONE about anything. Even you will agree that I don't care what anyone else thinks. Cameras don't give testimony and they don't lie. Their output (unedited) doesn't lie. ​There's no such thing as a (seriously) handicapped OOC (i.e. unedited) comparison IMO. If you have a trained eye, you can make do with any settings. Most camera manufacturers do not allow the settings to go low enough to negatively impact actual fine detail. The only way you can handicap a comparison is by compressing or editing it. And I've never said otherwise. Certain in camera settings do look much worse when compressed, but as long as you avoid any editing, it's all good. And most of my comments to Inquisitive were just to get him to post the OOC footage. I simply guessed that the in camera settings he used on the GH2 looked worse when compressed on YT. But I was probably wrong about that on review of his footage. The GH2 was so markedly better in the OOC comparison that I believe he did something wrong at the editing step before uploading that severely degraded the GH2. ​The full stabilization set includes digital, which isn't any real technological advantage of Olympus cameras or IBIS. Digital stabilization can be included on future Panasonic cameras and done in post. If you want to really know the advantages of IBIS, then use IBIS only. Regarding Sony's "drift", have you compared the balanced steadyshot to IBIS only (without digital). Somehow I doubt you've actually tried it seriously, but I doubt that Sony's Balanced Steadyshot drifts more or performs worse than 5-axis IBIS only. Not from the examples I've seen and my own usage. BTW, feel free to respond as often as you want. No need to do it right away. I'm not going anywhere.

​You're wrong. Where did I ever "admit" that I'm forming an opinion based on internet testimony. I think OOC internet examples are a perfectly valid way to form an opinion, especially when they're shooting the same thing. But, not to toot my own horn, I really do have a pretty good eye for spotting quality, even without a direct comparison, especially if the difference is massive. But it always helps to have a comparison. I'm probably one of the biggest "showroomers" out there. And that's pretty much the only way that a typical person will get to try out everything under the sun. Go to the stores, feign interest, and spend a half an hour trying it out. Have you tried Sony's balanced OIS? Do you know what it is? Have you compared this to Oly's 5-axis IBIS without digital stabilization. I'll bet you that the balanced OIS creates not only more stable video but also much better quality video. Have you personally compared your 100-300 on the E-M5 II at 300mm with digital stabilizer turned off? I'd be interested to see this comparison. And it should also be noted that this was one of Panasonic's earliest tele lenses (which is known to have worse stabilization than their newer lenses) and it's also their inferior mega OIS. For instance, their 45-175 with power OIS, which I have, has substantially better stabilization than the 100-300. And, as soon as I can go to a store to test it out, I'm going to take my 45-175 with me and compare the OIS to IBIS (without digital) at 175mm. I've already been to a local camera store twice BTW to try out the E-M5 II, but they had none to try out. It was too early for them to have store displays, and they weren't willing to open a new one for me to try out. And, again I'll say, IQ is the most important thing in an interchangeable lens camera, not stabilization.

​I didn't say it wasn't made for filmographers. I simply said the vast majority reading it aren't film makers. There is a difference. I think it should be at least recognized that this is the case. And my point was that people in the market for a higher end camera (which any ILC is) are doing so because they want better image quality than a phone or a compact can give them. They're not doing it for stabilization. Great stabilization (as good or better than 5-axis IBIS) has been available in the compact and camcorder market for quite a while. What's been lacking in a big way is GH4-like video quality.

I also wanted to add that I believe the stabilization in third party lenses (such as Canon) does work on MFT. I haven't confirmed this myself but this is what I've been told. So, I believe there's really a whole host of stabilized lenses out there for this system.

​I don't believe this is correct. While I don't own the E-M1 either, I've seen the OOC video that it produces, and it was still way off the mark. But it was a little better than the E-M5 II.

​One thing you should keep in mind is that I'm not a pro. The vast majority of people that read Mr. Reid's blog are not pros. They buy one camera and that's pretty much it. For these people, the E-M5 II is simply not the answer IMO because the average consumer doesn't buy an ILC for stabilization. They buy it for great image quality. Again, if money was no issue and I could have multiple cameras, I'd buy the E-M5 II. For taking videos of the important things in my life and without the resources to buy every camera under the sun, I'm sticking with Panasonic. Plain and simple. Olympus isn't even in the game for me. If stabilization was the deciding factor and I wanted great IQ, as a typical consumer, I'd probably buy a Sony camcorder with balanced OIS. A Panasonic camcorder would also be an excellent choice. I understand that some pros can use this type of camera on certain shots, but I think I speak more for the typical person. And I think it should be recognized that the vast majority of people reading this blog are not filmographers, aren't going to spend a great deal of time in post, and have absolutely no artistic interests. They just want the best camera to record the events in their lives. And, again, that ain't Olympus. My hope is that this blog doesn't become exclusively tailored to pros at the exclusion of the typical person. And regarding stabilization, I'm going to say it again. Panasonic has some very nice stabilized lenses out there. And they're beginning to take the stabilized prime market seriously. Unfortunately, 3 of their 4 stabilized primes are in the 42.5mm to 45mm range, but it's a start. I think they're starting to take it seriously, having just released 2 new ones. And, honestly, in the telephoto focal length range, I'm not sure IBIS (when excluding the DIS) gives you much of an advantage (if any) over OIS. I recognize the advantage when walking and running, but I don't believe this advantage is still there once you extend the zoom and once you exclude Olympus' digital stabilizer. I've always maintained that as the focal length increases, OIS actually becomes better. I'm not sure where that focal length is at though.

​Same old, same old, boss. I wouldn't be happy unless at least a few people hated me.

Something tells me that I would have been tarred and feathered long ago if my position wasn't in agreement with the admin. Oh well, maybe in the next thread I can be in disagreement with the admin AND everyone else, and, then, I can become universally agreed to be the most hated man on the forum.

​Something you may not know about me is that everyone loves me. Those who know me love me and those who don't know me also love me (from afar). Those who I praise love me and those who I insult also love me (while wishing for my praise). Who doesn't love the big Jew on DPReview? I simply meant that if he did return it already, he might consider buying another one, testing it, then returning it again. Just a thought.

Inquisitive, it would be great if you could do a GH2 720p vs E-M5 II 1080p test before you return the E-M5 II. It doesn't have to be as long as the last one. Just one or two high detail areas (less than a minute) would be great. It wasn't close at 1080p, but I think the 720p test might be more interesting.

​Inquisitive, with all due respect, I think everything you've mentioned in the negative column is simply secondary to the lack of detail and softness in the image. I'm really not sure if you're being obtuse or you honestly can't see it. I honestly can't rule out that some people are completely incapable of seeing this or are completely insensitive to the difference between a sharp camera and a soft camera. The fact of the matter is that you don't even need to use the 1080p mode on your GH2 to better the E-M5 II. You could use the 720p mode and get better fine detail. If you're one of those people that honestly doesn't see the difference between DVD (480p) and Blu-ray (1080p), then I can accept that. But you should understand that's a failing of your perception. I understand there are genuinely people that can't see the difference. There are some like that in my family. They're very perceptive of color differences but can't tell the difference easily between a DVD and a Blu-ray. If you're that type of person, you should understand that I'm honestly not making up the difference in detail between these two cameras. Have you tried displaying the frame grabs I took of your two videos, opening them up at 100% on the same thing and alternating between them to actually see the massive difference. Do you want me to take smaller crops of the two and post them here so it's more clear to you? It may not be that you're not capable of seeing it but just a total lack of experience on your part. And regarding the Sanity patch, look at the size difference between the Olympus and Panasonic files you uploaded. Have you noticed that the Panasonic is 1/3 the size of the Olympus. That means it's about 1/3 the bitrate. And there's this truly awesome program called Mediainfo that just gives you the bitrate of the video. Maybe you should try it. Your video was at 26.9Mbps. I'm not ruling out that this is a hack (as I'm not familiar with all of them), but, again, it's the lowest bitrate hack I've ever seen. The standard unhacked bitrate is 24Mbps (I believe) on the GH2. For reference, I'm running Moon T7, which does 77Mbps at 24L and 136Mbps at 24H. For all intents and purposes, your camera is unhacked. It doesn't really matter if you've actually applied one or not. Running at 26.9Mbps is too low to see any benefit from a hack.

​Exactly right. The major discussion on this forum is about moire. I would consider this a distant number 2 concern to the total lack of detail in the image. Forget the "lowly" LX100, look at the frame grabs I posted comparing the unhacked GH2 (a 2010 camera) to this camera. The whole moire issue seems to be a distraction. Olympus is way further off than just correcting the moire. And, BTW, what's so lowly about the LX100? It seems like a great, ground-breaking camera to me. I just hope it doesn't eat into MFT sales.

Quick question. When I was looking at the mediainfo details for the E-M5 II video, I noticed this. It's been a long time since I've read up on this, but isn't BT.601 the color space for standard def and BT.709 for HD. I seem to recall some issue a while back about Canon DSLRs using this same color space and how you would have to take care when editing. What I'm wondering is if it's possible that my TV and VLC player are showing me the incorrect colors because they assume it's Rec. 709 when in actuality it's Rec. 601. I'm no expert in this, but I'm just wondering if I've been seeing the wrong colors.

​Whatever you did to the YT video seriously degraded the detail rendering of the GH2 (but not the E-M5 II). My strong suggestion to you would be to take a frame grab from any future YT video and compare it to a frame grab from the original to see if you've degraded the fine detail so dramatically as you did in your past tests. If so, might I suggest that you figure out why and how to correct it. It's not the colors that are the primary issue, although you somehow managed to degrade those with your "corrections" of the GH2 as well. It's the fine detail and resolution that are at issue. The GH2 footage just looks so blurred compared to the OOC footage that it's clear you made some sort of mistake. I don't think YT alone is to blame for such a dramatic difference.

​In case you missed it, I think that video you posted is one of the most blatant misrepresentations I've ever seen. It's not at the top of the list, but it's close. How on Earth anyone could innocently make the GH2 footage look worse than the E-M5 II footage from the OOC clips that I saw is beyond my comprehension. That footage was near perfect already OOC, with perhaps a touch of brightening needed. To be clear, I'm calling you either visually impaired or an out and out liar. Perhaps you should see an eye doctor before I go to calling you a definite liar. ​You ain't seen nothing yet. Blame it on my Jewish temper. And, certainly, if Andrew Reid or one of the mods disagree with my analysis of the situation, they should feel free to ban me. If they don't disagree, well, let's continue...

​Was the PixPro also marketed as a professional level video camera? To tell you the truth, for my own good, I need to stop reading or watching any more YT comparisons from Inquisitive. I wasn't having any emotions before, but that hatchet job does piss me off. When I saw how good that UNHACKED GH2 footage looked on my 50" plasma and how poor he made it look on YT....

​Inquisitive, I don't know how else to say this. How can you feel anything other than shame after your comparison. I've watched these two videos, and I literally cannot believe that someone with normally functioning eyes could do what you did. In all seriousness, what was going through your mind when doing this? How did you make the GH2 look that bad in your YouTube comparison? Did you apply a blurring filter in post? For one, I don't see any evidence of a hack on the GH2. Mediainfo tells me 26.9Mbps. If that's a hack, that's the lowest bitrate hack I've ever seen. Second, the unedited GH2 footage is gorgeous on my 50" TV. The E-M5 II footage looks like sh1t. It looks as bad as my Iphone. There's simply no comparison in the fine detail department. The Panasonic blows it away. There's simply no comparison in the colors department. The GH2, again, is, gorgeous. The E-M5 II's colors are as terrible as the fine details. They're like water colors. Here's some snaps from the unedited videos: Panasonic 1: Olympus 1: Panasonic 2: Olympus 2: Panasonic 3: Olympus 3: Inquisitive, you may be a genuinely nice guy, but I've met trolls that have done less of a hatchet job than you. If this wasn't intentional, then I don't know what's wrong with you. The E-M5 II footage is simply indescribably poor. There are quite a few phones that would do a more competent job than this. This camera is simply a disgrace to MFT, IMO.

​I think your biggest mistake is that you shot with too flat of a profile with the GH2 without knowing how to properly handle this. I'm not a pro, but I find Panasonic's standard settings, and even their vibrant settings, to be very good straight OOC. You applied far more contrast to the E-M5 II video than the GH2, and it clearly shows even when watching it at 480p and 360p. This huge difference in contrast makes the more contrasted video appear sharper. As I mentioned before, it's the E-M5 II video that is really overcontrasted and oversaturated OOC, not the GH2. You probably kept the E-M5 II settings too high and the GH2 too low, and then you failed to compensate for this in post. If you're interested in seeing how a difference in contrast can make one camera appear sharper on YT (when the opposite is true), look at comparison videos of the Samsung Galaxy and Sony Xperia (4K). When watching them on YT, it really appears that Samsung put some kind of special sauce in their camera phone. It just looks sharper and more detailed. But when I actually downloaded the originals, the Sony had vastly more fine detail than the Samsung Galaxy. The Sony footage will simply look much better when properly handled. They just simply chose not to overcontrast their footage OOC like Samsung did. Similarly, look at comparisons between the GoPro Hero Black and Sony action cam (early models) in those stabilization tests. Even in 360p and 480p, the Sony just looks sharper. But every real world resolution test I've seen has shown the GoPro to be sharper. The reason it looks that way on YT is because Sony overcontrasted their footage OOC and GoPro used a much flatter profile. Now, Sony's more recent action cams are much sharper and on par with the GoPro, but the early models weren't and they still looked sharper on YT. You simply compounded your first mistake of not properly grading the GH2 footage by then uploading footage not graded at all (but using settings that demanded grading). That type of footage is simply going to look terrible when compressed on YT. I'm not saying you did this on purpose, but, not knowing how to grade footage, you should have just used a much punchier setting from the GH2 OOC, not settings designed for grading. Regarding where to upload, have you tried mediafire.com. From what I've read, they've removed their file size limits on their free accounts. So, it's worth a shot. If not, I can probably give you other suggestions.

​As has been mentioned to you before, no one cares what YOU saw on the screen. Even if for a second anyone believed that you could discern an Alexa from a GoPro (which I'm not sure you can), it's not entirely clear that you're not playing some kind of game. What do you find interesting about my choice? I picked the one you made look better (whether intentionally or not) on YT. It certainly wouldn't be hard to make a toy camera look better than a pro camera if you use a poor choice or settings for the pro camera, poor editing techniques for the pro camera, and, finally, uploading them to YT. Or, better yet, use entirely different cameras and claim they were the cameras you shot. How is anyone to know what you actually did? You refuse to upload the unedited videos, although you clearly aren't lacking for upload bandwidth. What, do you think you're being funny with this? Is it giving you a good chuckle? Something you should keep in mind is that the GH2 is a well-established camera and no one's going to judge it by the sh1t you've chosen to produce with it. There's plenty of YT content (as well as elsewhere) shot with this camera that people will judge. And when they compare it to the crap you've produced, it's clear you've done something wrong. The fact that you refuse to actually upload the originals simply is further indication that you're trying to play some sort of game. Well, good luck to you. I'm not going to play along or feed your ego anymore.

​You're joking? Even most of the YT videos I've seen, including those done by professional review sites, have looked pretty poor. Look at the DPReview and Robin Wong videos shot with this camera. Both truly bad IMO. Inquisitive's E-M5 II video looks terrible as well, except somehow he's managed to drive the GH2 even lower than the E-M5 II, making it look good by comparison. It simply doesn't matter where you post, the GH2 is going to look better than the E-M5 II, unless you've done some intentional sleight of hand or you're so inept as to defy reason. And why does he refuse to post the originals? He only gives us his hack jobs, but won't give us the OOC footage. My guess is that in Inquisitive's zeal to justify the purchase of the E-M5 II, he completely forgot to try to make the GH2 footage look good. Why else would you set the GH2 for grading and then not grade it? He would have simply done better to leave it at default (all "0") and left his magic touch out of it.