Towd

go ahead... tell me how stupid i look in this thumbnail. 
 

It is interesting that the top three spots on Andrew's list of the most popular cameras on EOSHD are all M43 cameras.  Yet every day we have new posts bemoaning the impending death of the format.  And here we are posting on a GH6 "rumors" thread that is 27 pages long and has been active for over a year.
 
It really feels like the death of M43 if it comes, will be due to a self fulfilling prophecy in the minds of its users and not based in any rational assessment of its adoption or the interest of its userbase.  
If Panasonic does decide to abandon a market that they lead and tries to cram the L-mount down our throat it will be one of the silliest decisions a corporation could make.  But I wont try to predict the future as it wouldn't be the first time corporate heads made a bad call.
For the last year or so now Panasonic has been pushing adoption of their new full frame camera line and they probably want to give it as much room to breath and grow as possible.  I think with the new release of the S5, they'll also want to give it some time for new adopters to buy in before they release any news about a GH5 replacement.   At least that is what makes the most sense to me, but I do agree the lack of guidance from them and full support of the format a bit worrisome.  For example, the EVA1 really should have been M43 with maybe a bundled EF adapter or an interchangeable mount-- that alone may have given their user base more confidence in its future.  It is also too bad that the L-mount and M43 have such similar flange distances that an adapter between the two is probably not in the cards.
That said M43 is still my favorite ecosystem and format and none of the full frame cameras have really pulled me away due to some combination of rolling shutter, cropped video, heat issues, or just the size of the bodies and lenses.  The A7S III looks the most promising to me, but I'm still not entirely sold on the need to move to full frame due to weight/size of the lenses and the shallow depth of field that I mostly consider a negative for video.
Anyway, It would be sad to see Panasonic walk away from a mount that arguably has one of the most diverse ecosystems of lenses and adapters on the market.  Hopefully, we'll get some good news soon from Panasonic after they have given the S5 some time to sell through.

It is interesting that the top three spots on Andrew's list of the most popular cameras on EOSHD are all M43 cameras.  Yet every day we have new posts bemoaning the impending death of the format.  And here we are posting on a GH6 "rumors" thread that is 27 pages long and has been active for over a year.
 
It really feels like the death of M43 if it comes, will be due to a self fulfilling prophecy in the minds of its users and not based in any rational assessment of its adoption or the interest of its userbase.  
If Panasonic does decide to abandon a market that they lead and tries to cram the L-mount down our throat it will be one of the silliest decisions a corporation could make.  But I wont try to predict the future as it wouldn't be the first time corporate heads made a bad call.
For the last year or so now Panasonic has been pushing adoption of their new full frame camera line and they probably want to give it as much room to breath and grow as possible.  I think with the new release of the S5, they'll also want to give it some time for new adopters to buy in before they release any news about a GH5 replacement.   At least that is what makes the most sense to me, but I do agree the lack of guidance from them and full support of the format a bit worrisome.  For example, the EVA1 really should have been M43 with maybe a bundled EF adapter or an interchangeable mount-- that alone may have given their user base more confidence in its future.  It is also too bad that the L-mount and M43 have such similar flange distances that an adapter between the two is probably not in the cards.
That said M43 is still my favorite ecosystem and format and none of the full frame cameras have really pulled me away due to some combination of rolling shutter, cropped video, heat issues, or just the size of the bodies and lenses.  The A7S III looks the most promising to me, but I'm still not entirely sold on the need to move to full frame due to weight/size of the lenses and the shallow depth of field that I mostly consider a negative for video.
Anyway, It would be sad to see Panasonic walk away from a mount that arguably has one of the most diverse ecosystems of lenses and adapters on the market.  Hopefully, we'll get some good news soon from Panasonic after they have given the S5 some time to sell through.

It is interesting that the top three spots on Andrew's list of the most popular cameras on EOSHD are all M43 cameras.  Yet every day we have new posts bemoaning the impending death of the format.  And here we are posting on a GH6 "rumors" thread that is 27 pages long and has been active for over a year.
 
It really feels like the death of M43 if it comes, will be due to a self fulfilling prophecy in the minds of its users and not based in any rational assessment of its adoption or the interest of its userbase.  
If Panasonic does decide to abandon a market that they lead and tries to cram the L-mount down our throat it will be one of the silliest decisions a corporation could make.  But I wont try to predict the future as it wouldn't be the first time corporate heads made a bad call.
For the last year or so now Panasonic has been pushing adoption of their new full frame camera line and they probably want to give it as much room to breath and grow as possible.  I think with the new release of the S5, they'll also want to give it some time for new adopters to buy in before they release any news about a GH5 replacement.   At least that is what makes the most sense to me, but I do agree the lack of guidance from them and full support of the format a bit worrisome.  For example, the EVA1 really should have been M43 with maybe a bundled EF adapter or an interchangeable mount-- that alone may have given their user base more confidence in its future.  It is also too bad that the L-mount and M43 have such similar flange distances that an adapter between the two is probably not in the cards.
That said M43 is still my favorite ecosystem and format and none of the full frame cameras have really pulled me away due to some combination of rolling shutter, cropped video, heat issues, or just the size of the bodies and lenses.  The A7S III looks the most promising to me, but I'm still not entirely sold on the need to move to full frame due to weight/size of the lenses and the shallow depth of field that I mostly consider a negative for video.
Anyway, It would be sad to see Panasonic walk away from a mount that arguably has one of the most diverse ecosystems of lenses and adapters on the market.  Hopefully, we'll get some good news soon from Panasonic after they have given the S5 some time to sell through.

Some tests and a review from Brandon Li.
Chris
 

It is interesting that the top three spots on Andrew's list of the most popular cameras on EOSHD are all M43 cameras.  Yet every day we have new posts bemoaning the impending death of the format.  And here we are posting on a GH6 "rumors" thread that is 27 pages long and has been active for over a year.
 
It really feels like the death of M43 if it comes, will be due to a self fulfilling prophecy in the minds of its users and not based in any rational assessment of its adoption or the interest of its userbase.  
If Panasonic does decide to abandon a market that they lead and tries to cram the L-mount down our throat it will be one of the silliest decisions a corporation could make.  But I wont try to predict the future as it wouldn't be the first time corporate heads made a bad call.
For the last year or so now Panasonic has been pushing adoption of their new full frame camera line and they probably want to give it as much room to breath and grow as possible.  I think with the new release of the S5, they'll also want to give it some time for new adopters to buy in before they release any news about a GH5 replacement.   At least that is what makes the most sense to me, but I do agree the lack of guidance from them and full support of the format a bit worrisome.  For example, the EVA1 really should have been M43 with maybe a bundled EF adapter or an interchangeable mount-- that alone may have given their user base more confidence in its future.  It is also too bad that the L-mount and M43 have such similar flange distances that an adapter between the two is probably not in the cards.
That said M43 is still my favorite ecosystem and format and none of the full frame cameras have really pulled me away due to some combination of rolling shutter, cropped video, heat issues, or just the size of the bodies and lenses.  The A7S III looks the most promising to me, but I'm still not entirely sold on the need to move to full frame due to weight/size of the lenses and the shallow depth of field that I mostly consider a negative for video.
Anyway, It would be sad to see Panasonic walk away from a mount that arguably has one of the most diverse ecosystems of lenses and adapters on the market.  Hopefully, we'll get some good news soon from Panasonic after they have given the S5 some time to sell through.

Skin tones look good to me. Even at iso 50,000 they look natural whereas previously there would be a strong yellow or green shift. Also that rolling shutter performance is incredible

Wait for the Sony FX6 as well. 
Exactly!
Heck, even the internal 10bit for some cameras is better than the same camera's raw output. (am looking at you Sony FS7!)
The Canon C70 as an A Cam is aimed at low (perhaps mid) budget professional work (ultra low budget work uses mirrorless/DSLRs for their A Cam). They don't need or want raw in 95% of the shoots. 
Doesn't matter when Anamorphic AF lenses don't exist!
They differentiate by being the best (or at least, thought of as that) when it comes to image quality. 

And by being incredibly good when it comes to overall workflow/ecosystem for the productions they're aimed at.
 
It is strange, until I remember a key lesson from economics:
"People have unlimited wants". 
And that people will blur the line between "wants" and "needs".
(this is one of the key reasons why socialism will always fail. Because even if you can give everything that people want/need right now, that won't be enough! As people will have expectations inflation, and will have a new higher level of demands. Thus you always need a way to allocate scarce resource efficiently, which is exactly what price signals to. You abolish price signals, and you abolish the ability to effectively allocate resources to get the most out of them)
 

I used to have a 55mm Canon FD f1.2 on a speed booster for my M43 cams... I mean, that's kinda in the ball park.  On M43 that would render DOF shallowness like a f1.8 on FF.  So that narrow focal plane capability was there if I wanted it.
(turns out I really didn't that much)
Also had the Voight 42.5mm f.095.  Which is a 85mm f1.9 FF equivalent on M43.  All decent lens stuff and kinda neat to own.  
And I'll be honest, having the extra bit of "oomph" that FF gives is nice sometimes, not going to deny it.  (I mean, I still have a 5D)  But, in my world it's not worth the trade off of exceptional IBIS and some really crazy compact gear...and the shooting flexibility that offers.  
That small gear flexibility is often overlooked by a lot of videographers, I think.  I love going on shoots with modest stuff;  a single small satchel camera bag and a tiny camera --then knocking out ridiculous handheld shots that look like they rolled off a jib or camera dolly tracks.  I'll take that capability as long as it's available.
Other people like piling on a bunch of outboard stuff so much that even a modest DSLR ends up looking like some Panavision rig on a major studio movie production set.  That's fine if that's what you want, just not my tempo.

At 8:50 of this video posted today the GH5 successor is specifically mentioned to be in development.  
 
 

That was a great lens comparison.
Now that we know the Meike lenses use the same formula as the Veydras, it's worth taking a second look at just how well the Veydra lenses performed in the LensRentals MTF optical bench tests.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/03/veydra-cine-mini-prime-mtf-optical-bench-tests/
The comparisons to Zeiss CP.2 lenses is particularly interesting as seen in the attached sample.
 

That was a great lens comparison.
Now that we know the Meike lenses use the same formula as the Veydras, it's worth taking a second look at just how well the Veydra lenses performed in the LensRentals MTF optical bench tests.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/03/veydra-cine-mini-prime-mtf-optical-bench-tests/
The comparisons to Zeiss CP.2 lenses is particularly interesting as seen in the attached sample.
 

Great test of (almost) all the Meike MFT lenses:
 

Yes, this is a big claim.
Allow me to explain how I came to this conclusion, and prove it to you.
First off, the evidence.  This is a video containing 5 compositions that were each shot with either 2K, 2K (and processed in post), or 4K.
It should be easy to tell the difference - so see if you can tell!
Not so obvious is it....
In the video I encourage you to download the video and pixel peep, please do.  
I have pixel peeped the shots directly on the timeline in Resolve, in the output file I uploaded and the YouTube file I downloaded.  It took me zooming in to 200% and finding the place in the video with the finest details, to be able to see the differences, and I know which is which!
Now, the details, to show that the test is valid.
I shot each scene with the GH5 and 42.5mm Voigtlander (stopped down several stops) in either:
4K 422 10-bit ALL-I 400Mbps mode 2K 422 10-bit ALL-I 200Mbps mode (with Resolves Super Scale) 2K 422 10-bit ALL-I 200Mbps mode (with no processing) I exported the timeline to an RGB Uncompressed 10-bit file (65GB - 6,500Mbps!!) and compressed that file using ffmpeg to a 4K 10-bit 422 IPB 225Mbps h265 file, which was then uploaded.  I tried uploading an 10-bit 422 ALL-I file but YT only interpreted that as 1080p.
YouTube then compressed that 225Mbps file to the pathetic 10.42Mbps file you see if you watch the above YT video in 4K.
As far as I can tell, there's nothing I could have done differently to get a higher quality result out of YouTube.
But what about other platforms or delivery methods?
This is just YT.  If you pay for Vimeo, or deliver via any other mechanism that has a higher bitrate than YT this thread should make you feel better about that!
But 4K is useful for things like cropping in post!
Yes, and this test doesn't apply to doing that.  I've tested how much you can upscale an image without it being visible in another thread / test (spoiler, it's something like 150%) but let's leave that aside for now.
But YouTube supports 6K and 8K and ......
Sure, and when people start watching YouTube with their 6K and 8K TVs then they'll start to benefit from that.  Until then, they're getting the 10Mbps file above.
Are you saying that a 4K camera is not required?
There are advantages to having a >1080p sensor.  Downscaled video is much nicer, and there are times when shooting in 4K or higher can have advantages.....
So, when IS it useful to shoot in >1080p?
Lots of times:
Cropping (significantly) in post Overcapture for things like stabilisation If your cameras 1080p isn't that great (which is most cameras TBH) etc. I have nothing against 4K or higher resolutions except that I think most people are making their life harder than it should be thinking that they're somehow getting better results when for many people it simply doesn't matter if they shoot in 4K or not.  This was me.  I fell for the hype, and have gradually been doing tests like this to actually see for myself what is true and what matters - rather than just believing the marketing hype from the camera industry.
Ultimately, the lesson here is that what matters is that you publish in 4K, not that you shoot in it.
Let the questions and comments (and flame wars from resolution fanboys and fangirls) begin...

Little Photoshop size comparison between this and the S1H. Quite smaller !

About Super35/Aps-c sensor - I would vote for that or at least they could make 2 GH6 modifications with normal m43 and enhanced S35 sensor. I'd probably buy a whole set of Sigma primes for m43 (16, 30, 56) and they would all work as S35 glass. There is plenty of other 0.95 manual glass that was designed for APS-C, I want that too. 
Also there is an army of GH5 fans who love Panasonic for their features and ergo and waiting for GH6 to be announced to make their decesisions. 

The more I think about it the more I really like the idea of the GH6 going to some kind of multi-aspect sensor format like the JVC LS300 .  It would silence the haters who think m43 is going to die, and would open up opportunities to shoot super 35 with adapted lenses.  They could also expand the m43 spec to cover the s35 sensor area with a tweak to the name like "Micro Four Thirds Plus" or "Cinema", etc.  So some lenses are m43 and some are labelled m43+.
In regards to Kye's concern about a reduced resolution for people who just want to shoot m43, I ran some numbers using a 3.33 µm pixel pitch which is the GH5's pixel size and came up with the following at various image sizes:
Super 35 (24.89 x 18.66mm):   7474 x 5603 or 42 mpix APS-C (23.6 x 15.7mm):             7,087 x 4715  or 33 mpix Academy 35: (21.95 x 16mm):  6592 x 4804 or 32 mpix DCI m43 like GH5s (19.26 x 10.2mm): 5784 x 3063 or 18 mpix standard m43 (17.3 x 13mm):   5196 x 3907 or 20 mpix m43 square (17.3 x 17.3mm):    5196 x 5196 or 27 mpix If Panasonic were to reduce the pixel pitch just a hair to 3.24 µm they could actually hit 8k in super 35 while slightly increasing all the other resolutions:
Super 35 (24.89 x 18.66mm):   7682 x 5759 or 44 mpix standard m43 (17.3 x 13mm):  5340 x 4012 or 21 mpix I could also see them not going all the way up to true Super 35 and just topping out at the APS-C size for cost or heat reasons.  But, with a slightly greater reduction in pixel pitch, they could offer 8k in APSC and ~6k in m43.
If they had an easy way to swap between the various sensor sizes and could deliver 10 bit 24fps in 8k Super 35 and 120 fps in 4k m43  with a variety of frame rates in between in the way Red camera's work, they'd have a very interesting camera.
This would also give them a good reason to charge $2000 for the camera on release as I can't see Panasonic interested in launching a GH6 for less than they launched the GH5.

The more I think about it the more I really like the idea of the GH6 going to some kind of multi-aspect sensor format like the JVC LS300 .  It would silence the haters who think m43 is going to die, and would open up opportunities to shoot super 35 with adapted lenses.  They could also expand the m43 spec to cover the s35 sensor area with a tweak to the name like "Micro Four Thirds Plus" or "Cinema", etc.  So some lenses are m43 and some are labelled m43+.
In regards to Kye's concern about a reduced resolution for people who just want to shoot m43, I ran some numbers using a 3.33 µm pixel pitch which is the GH5's pixel size and came up with the following at various image sizes:
Super 35 (24.89 x 18.66mm):   7474 x 5603 or 42 mpix APS-C (23.6 x 15.7mm):             7,087 x 4715  or 33 mpix Academy 35: (21.95 x 16mm):  6592 x 4804 or 32 mpix DCI m43 like GH5s (19.26 x 10.2mm): 5784 x 3063 or 18 mpix standard m43 (17.3 x 13mm):   5196 x 3907 or 20 mpix m43 square (17.3 x 17.3mm):    5196 x 5196 or 27 mpix If Panasonic were to reduce the pixel pitch just a hair to 3.24 µm they could actually hit 8k in super 35 while slightly increasing all the other resolutions:
Super 35 (24.89 x 18.66mm):   7682 x 5759 or 44 mpix standard m43 (17.3 x 13mm):  5340 x 4012 or 21 mpix I could also see them not going all the way up to true Super 35 and just topping out at the APS-C size for cost or heat reasons.  But, with a slightly greater reduction in pixel pitch, they could offer 8k in APSC and ~6k in m43.
If they had an easy way to swap between the various sensor sizes and could deliver 10 bit 24fps in 8k Super 35 and 120 fps in 4k m43  with a variety of frame rates in between in the way Red camera's work, they'd have a very interesting camera.
This would also give them a good reason to charge $2000 for the camera on release as I can't see Panasonic interested in launching a GH6 for less than they launched the GH5.

Ok, here's the second attempt.....

and graphed:

So, it looks like:
UHD Prores 422 HQ from Resolve can be matched in quality by ffmpeg h264 422 10-bit ALL-I at around 170Mbps and a similar bitrate for h265 which is about a 4X reduction in file size UHD Prores 4444 and 4444 XQ from Resolve can be matched in quality by ffmpeg h264 422 10-bit ALL-I at around 300Mbps and around 250Mbps for h265 which is about a 3-4X reduction in file size There doesn't appear to be a huge difference between h264 and h265 all-i efficiencies, maybe only 10-15% reduction Happy to answer any questions and to have the results challenged.  Let's hope I didn't stuff anything up this time 🙂

A7SIII is the closet FF camera that has come to pulling me out of MFT land as a primary camera. The 12MP sensor kinda kills it for me. I wish it was closer to 20MP for photography. 15MP might have been doable...
MFT still has steam in it for at least one more round of GH and GX cameras. I honestly think they are waiting for a more compelling MFT sensor from Sony. That, or they are experimenting with doing something funky with S35 or preparing a FF S L-mount camera that will replace the MFT GH cameras.
So I wait for news on GH6 camera while still happily enjoying my 5S.
BTW, since this thread hasn’t been derailed enough already. Here is a shot from my first outing out with the 7Artisans 60mm macro. I sipped coffee with my hand on the shutter for about 45 mins off and on until one lucky bee came along.
 

You articulated it precisely.  FF cameras have to be huge, to be able to manage reliability issues. The 5D's all the way upto Mark iv only has like 30 mins of recording time, and half or less of that with higher frame rates. And the 1Dx is HUGE, even compared to something like the S1H (though, to be fair, it has a hugh attached battery grip).
 
 
I agree. People say full frame all the time, like camera sensors larger and smaller than it, are somehow greatly inferior. Which is not even remotely the case. Overheating during video seems to still be a huge issue with many ILCs, and that includes FF and APS-C cameras, that try and cram larger sensors into proportionally smaller bodies and also have lousy heat sinks.
Panasonic has to make a precise effort to only improve everything that the GH5 and GH5s have, and use these cameras to attract the M43 camera audience of BMCC4k and ZCam. While it can never replace RAW (with anything except perhaps RAW), it can offer advantages that actual cinema cameras will never have like weather sealing, IBIS, the ability to be used for photography with ease, ease of use, extremely ergonomics design, great battery life and usable almost right out of the box etc. 
The FF depth of field is almost like a joke. I noticed that a lot of TV episodes shot on the 5D have such terrible focus issues, and because the DoF is so thin, its almost impossible to get it right at higher apertures, without superb autofocus. Also, for wildlife too, at higher apertures, opened wide, it would blur the background and perhaps parts of a subject's face too much. 
 
 
M43 is 1/4th the sensor size of FF (actually the proportion is 1/3.6th for non MARs Sensors and the GH5s sensor is even larger). Therefore Full Frame will always offer better exposure latitude, better low light and better dynamic range. Though the XT3/XT4 (and even Nikon APS-C offerings such as the D700 and other after that), have shown, that the returns are diminishing and marginal, as the sensor and pixel size keeps increasing.  Also, 13-14 sops for video as SNR of 1 seems possible and more in the ball park of 12 usable stops at SNR of 2 seems reasonable. So, M43 cameras can be reasonably close to FF in quality, at a much greater price advantage. And way greater reliability. 
 
 
 

Yeah, my point was just that while technically 23.976 is not 24.0 fps... for 99.9% of projects its all the same thing. And only the technicians such as DP and Editor care.  I can't speak for every production in NTSC land but unless you are specifically targeting a DCP delivery, I don't know of anyone who shoots or edits at 24.0.
It is interesting what you bring up regarding Youtube and other streaming platforms being mostly frame rate agnostic and just delivering whatever frame rate.  I know I've watched PAL stuff on Youtube at 25fps.  However, I'll still argue that NTSC 30fps and PAL 25fps are legacy formats from the broadcast days and not something a modern project should be using.  
Totally up to you.  I still don't believe that "motion cadence" in the sense that frames are recorded at slightly variable timings which can be perceived or measured in any meaningful way is real.  I do believe in jitter/strobing effects in high contrast scenes, rolling shutter, and users setting bad shutter angles which in turn lead to "motion cadence" issues.  I think playback devices can contribute, and can also see how the dynamic range of a camera could affect perceived jitter due to clipping or contrast issues.  
That said, I'm still very interested to see if you can find the motion cadence unicorn.  If you do run any kind of measurable test using an oscilloscope, pendulum, or consistently measurable device, I'm happy to run it through SynthEyes if it helps verify results.

Ok, here's the test.
Video tests the best 24p GH5 modes.
Modes:
1080p 422 10-bit ALL-I 200Mbps h264 3.3K 422 10-bit ALL-I 400Mbps h264 (4:3 cropped) C4K 422 10-bit Long-GOP 150Mbps h264 C4K 422 10-bit ALL-I 400Mbps h264 5K 420 10-bit Long-GOP 200Mbps h265 (4:3 cropped) Tests:
Motion stress-test x 2 (beach and tree) Motion cadence test Skintone and colour density test All shots in HLG profile.
The export file (that I uploaded to YT) is here: https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D8480669_08693060_8967657
It's C2K Prores (LT I think) at ~87Mbps and 1.17Gb.  I can export a C4K version if there is enough interest.  I went with C2K as people make feature films in 1080p Prores HQ, so if we can't tell the difference between GH5 modes in Prores LT then what are we even talking about? 🙂
Interesting observations from editing this was that during rendering, the 1080p mode was fastest (at around 30fps), and the 3.3K and 4K ALL-I modes were next at around 18fps, followed by the 4K Long-GOP around 13-15, then the 5K h265 at about 5fps.  I don't have hardware h265 decoding so that probably explains the 5K mode, but why is the Long-GOP codec slower when it's a straight sequential export?  If I was playing the file backwards or seeking then I understand that ALL-I has the advantage, but in a straight export I don't understand why it would be slower.
Regardless, it was something I noticed.
Also, in editing, the 4K Long-GOP files aren't that nice to work with, but the ALL-I files are great, playing forwards and backwards basically without hesitation, on my 2016 Dual-Core MBP laptop.  Something to consider.

Well, it was hardly the biggest mystery in the world but confirmation at least that the Meike lenses are the genuine successors to the Veydras and good to see the co-founder being involved and discussing how they have actually been improved rather than being the low quality rip offs that many were widely opining they were.
The real mystery this video solves for me though is how you actually pronounce Meike.
 

The Canon EOS R5 works in mysterious ways.
Canon chose to implement 8K and 4K/120p on this camera knowing that heat build-up will make for some short recording times. This was a risk, because the perceived hit to reliability can generate a lot of bad publicity. What was Canon thinking and what else does the camera offer for when more reliable recording is needed?
New blog post:
https://www.eoshd.com/8k/a-closer-look-at-the-canon-eos-r5-lower-quality-4k-mode-to-avoid-thermal-cut-off/