John Matthews

I'd say yes as long as you put NR and sharpness at -5. Otherwise, it looks like a bad 1080p image blown up to 4k. I know that iDynamic on many of the Panasonic camera didn't yield great results, but have you actually tried it on the GX80?

Just an experiment. I filmed my 4-year old daughter on a head-shot. I wanted to see if the IBIS would still be picked up with the Zoom. I realise placing the mic close to the subject is ideal. I learned that one 8 years ago when I first started.

I guess my main point is that they seem inconsistent in their review comparing it to other cameras out there- a double standard. Apparently, Panasonic needs not only to give excellent features like zebras, 5 axis IBIS, reliability, no overheating, no max filming limits, a GH5 sensor (because it's the same), a smaller form-factor better suited for MFT, an excellent 4k image, a great touch interface, peaking, a large, sharp image for manual focus, and many more video related features that other manufacturers can't seem to offer, but also all the features of a higher priced GH5 (like the ones you mentioned above). In fact, the features you mentioned like bigger battery and a swivel screen might require a bigger body. I think its unreasonable to expect a sub-$1000 dollar camera to do everything perfectly- just because it's Panasonic. Meanwhile, other manufacturers get a free pass for not having 4k (and many of the other features I mentioned above). Concerning the handling of the camera, it's much better than one might think: notably, the fact you can easily change ALL aspects of your shot with it up next to your eye- something that the Fuji and Sony cannot do (not sure about the Olympus they talked about). The A6300 doesn't even have two dials on it and it's much more expensive. Finally, the one thing that I simply love about this camera is its minimalistic nature- why should a camera be a fashion statement? It's a tool that you WANT to disappear. Anyway, I conclude by saying I think they didn't do their homework and they got some stuff simply wrong in the review and didn't really promote some of the features that are rather unique at the price point.

I didn't know about the extra pin. That's interesting though. Maybe some accessories are coming in the future? I guess if there's some sort of mic that can pass through the hotshoe, it would give it much better onboard audio. I would like to note that I did try simply putting a Zoom H1, needless to say, I could still hear the IBIS. Moving the setup off camera (closer to the subject) yielded great results though.

Not to descend into Jordan-bashing here, but think he might have forgotten why the channel became popular in the first place. He seems more concerned about his FS5 review, which I'm sure is really cool, but many of us will never really see. I think the best word to describe their review of the GX80/85 is "superficial" at best. I think they spent more time on scouting their location, learning about their location, running the FS5, and driving to the location than they did on learning more about the camera... possibly only reading confusing marketing literature from Panasonic. Sorry for the rant, but it seemed the only thing they had to say was: "It doesn't have a mic-input. It's got crappy sound." Meanwhile, they'll love the dual-pixel AF in the 80d- what a great cinematic tool that is! I'm not going to watch anymore review channels and I'm just going to do my best with the camera I've got now. Besides, I'm getting the impression most of the channels out there are primarily considering the clicks they can get from listing the "great" product in their "show notes below." By the way, I specifically asked Jordan to look at the HDMI. He didn't. Doubt he ever read my question. Log files sound great, but I think, from listening to many people on this site, they represent major challenges in post for the non-pro. Often, I look at the final product and simply can't help thinking: "why bother?" It looks almost the same. Sure, the highlights tend to blow out, just be more careful. You mention 14-bit raw... that's cool, but if it screws up or slows anything else down, I'd rather not have it. For me, the problem of having a great camera for photography was solved about 5 years ago. With a GX80/85, you can have huge prints and have amazing latitude in post. Yes, even from 16 megapixels and "only" 12-bit files. If you print, I think most people would see little to no difference between the $3000 A7R ii and a GX80/85 on a A3-size print... possibly A2 or even A1, with viewing distance taken into consideration. For a major improvement in quality, consider medium format as everything else is simply a single-digit percentage point difference with current MFT offerings. Sure, there are aesthetic differences, but can you get shallow DOF with MFT? Of course, you can.

Saw it. I feel like they were very dismissive of the video capabilities due to its lack of a microphone... (jackitis- look above) and I think they didn't really know how to use it (they must have used only default settings and cranked up the electronic IS). They misrepresented its 5 axis IBIS by calling it 3 axis IBIS + 2 axis IS in lens. They left out the fact it doesn't overheat and that the GX85 model doesn't have a max recording time. Finally, they said a 1" sony sensor has more dynamic range. The conclusion was simply that it's more of a still camera... whatever. I wonder what the GH5 review will look like for these guys... or maybe they'll learn how to use the camera first. I like their show though.

In this case, I really don't like the magenta (very noticeable on the wall)... I'd prefer the GH4 image because I prefer a warmer image... but it also has a problem in that it seems to pull to orange... again, with my viewing experience. And what about you?

I've decided to coin a new word: jackitis [mass noun] filmmaker condition in which a camera cannot be used due to the absence of a microphone jack.

Thanks for this. It needed to be done. I'm not sure for the color-shift upon uploading. However, you might want to try the Standard Profile instead. I've had good luck with that... but in the end, it's just a matter of personal preference. I'm finding your GX85 sample too pink in the skintone, but then again, I don't have a perfectly calibrated monitor and, as you mentioned, Youtube might be doing something to your file. Personally, I've just decided to use Standard (-3,-5,-5,-3), with shadows at +2... It seems good to me. I think the most important is to turn off all sharpening and noise reduction- you can tweek the rest in post. Also, I just leave it at something that suits the project to keep the look consistent. Finally, I've been choosing only from sunny and incandescent WB and just letting the colors do what they want- again, consistency being the goal.

On another photography-related note, the GX80 says in its specs that it has a max flash sync speed of 1/160, but I and others have found 1/250; so, that's good news!

Couldn't help noticing that when I import converted DNG files and apply VSCO Kodak Porta 160 NC - (one of my favorite looks), it hardly changes the original RAW file's skin colors... just increasing the highlights, but the overall saturation and skin color seems very similar. Other cameras that I've used over the years had a much bigger change when I applied the same Preset. Interesting.

I really don't understand why people even care about having a mic jack and headphone jack. Knowing you have poor audio REQUIRES you to pay attention to it, get the mic closer to the subject and just sync it. I'm OK for having the jacks, but rarely do manufactures include good preamps... yeah the GH4 and G7 have the mic jack, but it won't beat a zoom H1 ($100), correctly positioned, and perhaps hooked up to an even better mic. What's the big deal?

Are Panasonic lenses and Olympus lenses corrected in-camera, even the RW2 files? No need to correct with Lightroom? I know that's what happened with my Sony Rx100, but I didn't know that's what happened with Panasonic and Olympus cameras.

Good question. Did they have them before? I've been using Lightroom 5, not CC... simply because I don't trust Adobe with any of my personal information. In Lightroom 5, I've never had that option even with the GX7 I used. To use this software, I simply converted the rw2 files into DNG's so that LR would read them properly. This might need more investigation.

Adobe Camera RAW update... GX80/85 is now supported. I started looking at it and I'm impressed so far. Go here: mac: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=6067&sdid=952G4XMS&skim19445X767302Xf77773524ac4c51fd9957afb28a66c8e windows: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=6068&sdid=952G4XMS&skim19445X767302X5f9888bb3155db5bc04227b1a3892c8c

So, I'm watching some of the prices of the limitedly available GX80 and I've come to the conclusion that I think Panasonic has made a poor business decision. I'm almost certain they could have sold it for at least 100 Euros more...and it would still sell like hotcakes.

Do we still not have any news about the HDMI output on the GX80? Many people are interested! I just asked Jordan at the CameraStoreTV...

I'm sure he's still interested in posting something about its video quality. There are over 50000 views on the forum pages concerning the gx80. The interest is certainly there.

From what I've learned about white balance in video, AWB is the worst setting because the camera will change it on the fly. I've been told that many directors simply choose "sunny" or "tungsten" depending on the circumstances- that's it. IMO that's the best way to go as these cameras were calibrated this way and it will give consistency across your work as well as making it a super-fast setting to dial in. If you don't like the colors, just adjust them in post. The GX80 offers plenty of room in the 4k files to do this.

Thanks for sharing that and doing the tests. I'm wondering what conclusions one could make from this about the colors on the GX80? Is it more about ridding the camera of pinkish skin tones (I've seen them in LX100 footage, but not in this vid)... or is more about perfecting and getting it closer to reality? Since you were there, which one was closest to reality?

I looked at Canon too before buying the GX80, but quickly found that clearly innovation and progressing their lower-end DSLR's weren't their thing. They've somehow been able to market virtually the same camera ever since the 50D- absolutely brilliant for making massive amounts of money! That's not saying they can't make nice images, because they can... but you hit the nail on the head with the word "soft." They decided that details in video should only be for their higher-end cameras. I look at the GX80 and it screams "2016," newer Canons in this price range scream "2010."

I noticed very high shutter speeds (fountain scene- water was too crisp for 1/50 or 1/60)... I think that would make it look unnatural. Globally, it was some nice footage. On the GX80, people have remarked about some stuttering during a pan, but I haven't seen it that much in my own footage. Neither did I see the correlation between focus modes and jitter. I saw it more with the mixing of IBIS/DUAL IS and Digital stabilization.

You can shoot bad footage on the best camera in the world. Conversely, you can shoot great footage on a "bad" camera. The GX80 shoots stabilized, 4k footage in a very small form-factor... I'm liking mine. As for "filmic," it's subjective. If you like the look of a camera, use that!

I just sent an email to Panasonic France to confirm HDMI output. They need to be clear on this point. Sounds too good to be true if 10bit 4:4:4... or even 10bit 4:2:2. That would be huge for some people on this forum. Personally, I'm not sure to use it in that way, but just knowing I could is really cool.

So was all of that shot on a gx80? Care to share any information?