Ken Ross

28 minutes ago, Nodnarb said:

Your autofocus test were helpful, but they were a little different from Max's weren't they? He was using the 12-35 2.8, and he did a significant amount of indoor testing with his assistant walking toward and away from the camera. I could have missed it if you did the same test, this thread is 86 pages long already.

No, absolutely, not, they weren't 'very different' from Max's test for the portion that I did. I did 2 tests that mirrored 2 of his tests (the outdoor test and the 'lens in front of the camera' test. Both of my tests were 100% successful and 100% repeatable and both of his were utter failures. How can you possibly ignore this even if I didn't conduct every single test he did? I never contended that I duplicated every test he did. And I also made it clear I was using the 14-140 lens. I won't go out and buy the lens he used so I can duplicate that aspect too. Folks will ignore those results too if it doesn't fit their preconceived notions. 

I did do an indoor test in a dark house during a stormy day that I posted. Granted I didn't have a subject moving toward and away from me, but I did walk through the house seeing if the CAF would focus as I walked. It did.

FWIW, I don't believe the 14-140 lens is astronomically better than the 12-35 for AF. It would take that astronomical difference in lenses to explain my results vs his. Much easier to believe a defective camera or something else. 

Now I'm not saying this is you, but as I've seen for many years, when a new piece of equipment is introduced (and this could be cameras, TVs, audio equipment etc.), there are many that try to denigrate that equipment because they don't want to invest in new equipment and have a need to defend what they own. It's human nature for many of us.

40 minutes ago, Nodnarb said:

Even after dialing in settings that he said worked "quite well", the camera still loses focus almost 10 times in less than a minute and a half (12:17-13:30). And this was while conveniently using an external recorder not recording internally, after Max found that the GH5 autofocus worked much better when not recording internally. Joseph now says in the comments he didn't realize this and that he wasn't trying to deceive viewers. So he bashes reviewers like Max for supposedly not taking the time to understand the camera, at the same time that he supposedly doesn't know as much as Max about the camera.

Actually he never 'bashed' Max. That's a bit of hyperbole. What he did poke fun at, justifiably IMO, was one of Max's favorite tests, having his subject pop up from below and disappear. Personally I think it's a silly test that's representative of nothing in real shooting.

The reason he used an external recorder was to prove where his settings were so that we could all see them while he was recording, something that was missing from Max's video. I personally thought it was a nice touch. To be perfectly honest, I too was unaware until I watched that video that there was an AF performance difference between internal & external recording. I'd bet most owners are unaware of that.

7 hours ago, Phil A said:

 

Have to love that video at 10m32s where they look at the GH5 Extended Manual online and it actually says that the camera will probably struggle when autofocusing in UHD video but that's for accuracy, not a malfunction. Seems like sugar coating a lacking function.

Also interesting that the part above that warns of overheating messages. Makes me curious if people will run into these or it's more hypothetical.

Nevertheless, I'm really looking forward to seeing what people do with the camera once the autofocus arguments die down.

How is that different than every other camera manufacturer's manual that talks about AF effectiveness and then proceeds to list 10-15 things that might compromise AF? I shoot exclusively in 4K and have had no such issues.

The AF subject is becoming tedious since some, apperently non-owners, just won't believe any evidence to the contrary. I firmly believe someone could duplicate Max's video in every phase of his testing, achieve perfect AF, and it would be ignored. After all, I've duplicated a couple of his tests and those same folks ignore that too.

After I posted a couple of videos showing the AF was fine, someone asked me to duplicate the test of his failure when he brought a lens in front of his camera and it failed to focus. His failed every time. I did the test and it focused every single time. The same folks seem to have ignored that too, fascinating. I'm beginning to think it's an utter waste of time for anyone to post evidence to the contrary.

Believe what you wish guys.

4 hours ago, Borbarad said:

Another one....

B, they'll all be ignored by a few.

3 hours ago, ozmorphasis said:

Are we seeing the downside of the lack of an OLPF in the GH5 in the roof of those buildings.  As a GH4 owner, I've never had to be anxious about Moire.  It just hasn't been common enough to fret about it.  Your shots of the roof on that building, however, is totally unusable for any of my paid work.  

 

Of course, native lenses with their oversharpened look tend to exacerbate the issue, but still.  That shot looks worrisome to me.  

I just checked my original video. It absolutely, positively does not show up in the original 4K video. It is apparently a product of YouTube compression. The roof is 100% clean and devoid of moire in the original.

2 hours ago, dbp said:

Watch it full screen, it's not there. An artifact of a youtube embed. 

dbp, thanks, you beat me to it. Over the years I've seen countless times where an artifact is blamed on the camera as opposed to YouTube compression artifacts or, watching a 4K YouTube video on an HD monitor. Even that can introduce artifacts that were never there in the original video.

7 hours ago, Hanriverprod said:

From all the footage I've seen so far Max's camera with af looks on par. I wish there was more footage of composed, graded 10bit stuff. I think we are all getting a good picture of what the af is like, it's time to move on.

Max's camera is on par? Really? With what, another broken camera? Despite other videos which show something quite different, including the ones I've posted? There appear to be a couple of folks here that would rather pick one video as representative of the AF and all other videos be damned. It's an interesting thing to watch people ignore what is clearly contradictory evidence.

8 hours ago, Hanriverprod said:

GH5 vs A6500 Autofocus Comparison - 4K & 1080P

Max is going for broke with these af tests.

Last few times I shot on a 80D I turned it on and the af just worked without digging into the menu. Did Panasonic try a shock and awe tactic with all their confusing af settings to hide outdated technology?

And yet all I did in all my AF tests that simulated Max's test, was to use central area focusing at default settings (never even touched sensitivity & speed). I contend that for many situations, there's no need to make it more complicated than it needs to be. Such a bad rap for this camera due to Max's testing. I see more and more owners scratching their heads over his video.

7 hours ago, eltorrete said:

I will not say that my GH5 is better than the 6500 because I do not have it. What I say 100% is that my GH5 is much better than Max's.

And as more and more people get their GH5 and post their results, I see more and more comments just like this. Yet Max doubles down despite this. I've posted a few of my comments (very polite) regarding my testing resulting in totally different results, along with links to the videos, yet he never responded once. It just gets stranger and stranger.

7 hours ago, wolf33d said:

Are you speaking about the video of focusing in the street on the car, then on something else then on the car again? If yes this is totally different than the focus tracking of his face. If not which video please?

If you watched his video straight through, he conducted tests that were virtually identical to two I posted. He too went from a car to something else and back to the car. His camera refused to focus, mine was fine in the same tests. Sorry, but my testing mirrored his testing for that piece of the video. As for focus tracking, I would never use it since I don't think it's effective in any camera I've used. Never worked right in any Sony I've used.

11 hours ago, wolf33d said:

Gh5 AF is terrible 

look from 12:50

 

I guess you didn't see all the tests I conducted with my GH5 and posted on these pages. I believe he has a defective body since I couldn't begin to duplicate the horrible performance he posted. My GH5's AF is absolutely fine and comparable to what I experienced with my A6300...maybe better.

2 hours ago, Borbarad said:

Lok finally has a GH5 

B

 

Seems like Lok's works pretty much like mine and certainly nothing like Max's. As I've said before, it's really a shame the GH5 is getting an unjustifiably bad rap from Max's unit.

Fritz, the 12-60 kit lens is definitely worth it in the bundle. It's a capable little lens and one of the better kit lenses you'll find.

24 minutes ago, Fritz Pierre said:

Agreed Ken....but because of the lower contrast indoors to my eye the GH5 pulled focus rather seamlessly...speaking of pulling focus...wont have my GH5 for a couple of months but already have the Leica 12-60 because of this capability in the GH5...for narrative work, whether commercial product shots, or feature or television, just one of the examples of how ahead of the curve they are with the GH5!

PS is that the Panny 12-60 in the AF demo?...and do you like it?

Fritz, the 12-60 is the only the kit lens that came with my G85.

4 minutes ago, Fritz Pierre said:

Thanks much for the test Ken!...never use AF but clearly with the GH5 I'll be able to chase my 5 year old around with it!...absolutely respectable result on AF and the examples you used would certainly challenge a system...comes in smoothly and at a respectable pace...even better performance than in your house...though in your house you don't see it finding focus as clearly as in daylight

Thanks Fritz. The indoor video I shot was taken during heavy rain with no lights on. It was pretty dark in the house. As is the case with almost any video camera, indoors shots under those conditions won't have quite the resolution of brighter, outdoor shots. What I'm also seeing, for the most part, is that the AF doesn't tend to overshoot. 

22 minutes ago, zmarty said:

Can you please try to replicate his shots where he was showing a lens to the camera? I think those examples are the worst.

No problem marty, will do.

Uploading to Youtube now.

17 minutes ago, SuperSet said:

FWIW, the autofocus performed better on my GH4 with the 14-140mm than my 12-35mm.

It's hard to believe that the lens could make all the difference I'm seeing between Max's video and mine.

Zmarty, here ya go. Give it a bit of time to upgrade to 4K. It's now a low rez, but you should still see the focus.

1 minute ago, webrunner5 said:

Holly crap, that is just awesome. No one could even begin to focus that fast in manual mode. Camera envy on my part. What lens, 12-35mm, 12-60mm??

Thanks webrunner, I agree. It was actually the GH5 and I was trying to duplicate, as close as I could, the terrible failures Max had doing the same shots. I really find it hard to believe the 14-140 lens has that much better AF, if any. 

Thanks webrunner5. Hey, I'm getting new bananas! 

It's just unfortunate the camera is getting such a bad rap when Max's issues are obviously not universal as other GH5 owners have said what I have. Max should have at least acknowledged there may have been something wrong with his camera.

7 minutes ago, AaronChicago said:

Almost as bad as the Alexa's autofocus.

What is? The video I just posted shows quick & largely accurate AF.

5 minutes ago, SuperSet said:

Wonder if it's lens related as I also read Lee Macreaths post about his lackluster autofocus performance, also using the 12-35 lens. 

I've wondered that too. I've only been using the 14-140 lens and have never gotten his results. However I wouldn't rule out a bad body either as other GH5 owners on his website have suggested.

So here's the video I promised. I tried to duplicate Max's AF scenario as best I could. None of these clips have been edited and none that I shot were left out. Everything you see is everything I shot. Very different results. What can I say? As I've said before, these results are extremely typical for everything I've shot thus far. I've never shot a single clip that even remotely resembles what Max got.

2 hours ago, Fritz Pierre said:

Hi Ken...that looks really good!...and Max's test actually looks much worse than AF on the GH4...I would say it's probably his camera body...I won't get mine for about 2 months as it has to be brought to me from the US...I specifically bought  from a small dealer though, and they agreed they would unbox the camera and test the basics like LCD screen, IBS,AF etc. to make sure the camera functions properly before shipping...the option of shipping it back does not exist for me...I did have to authorize opening the box in writing though...with the very large volume of GH5's shipping, and it being a technically and feature wise extremely advanced camera, one can certainly expect some glitches in some bodies...lastly...I'm glad Panasonic ignores the fanboy hate threads and whining and nitpicking that always seem to accompany GH cameras and seem to continue to strive for excellence in the GH cameras they release every few years...

Thanks Fritz. This is the first day we've had some sun in a while and after watching Max's video, I decided I'd go out and shoot some clips that duplicated one of his failed tests. I will put this video together and you'll see how totally different our cameras behave. No comparison whatsoever.

It's such a pity this camera is getting such a bad rap for, what I think, is an obviously defective unit.

Just watched Max's video and to say I'm perplexed is as gross an understatement as I can imagine. I'm going to try that outdoor test he did with focusing on the car and then something in the distance. If you read the comments below the video, you'll see there are other GH5 owners, like myself, who also say theirs are very fast and very reliable and are also confused by his results. I'm almost inclined to go along with a couple of posters who think he has a problem with his body...camera body that is.

In the interim, here's a 4K video I had shot on day one with the GH5 during a stormy day in N.Y. I turned off all the lights in the house and it was actually fairly dark, despite what a few angles show. This was using the relatively slow 14-140 lens (F3.5), so no assist from the lens. As I turn from a closeup of the flowers, to the living room, you'll get a better idea as to what the lighting actually looked like. At the time of this posting, the video was still only in HD on YouTube, so it needs more time to process to 4K.

4 hours ago, Inazuma said:

Max's gh5 or lens may have been buggy. I have seen much better AF by other youtubers

That's what I don't get. His are the absolute worst results I've seen. I wonder if he doesn't overthink the AF. I have it on central area focusing, the default area size (the AF has been so good I'm terrified to touch anything!) and the camera has shown minimal hunting and stays locked on the target. Now granted I don't have people running toward or away from the camera since that's not what I typically shoot. 

However in my tests, I have shot subjects/objects close to the lens and then immediately changed my focus point to something 10-20' away. I've walked around the house while shooting at varying distances. Results have been quick and sure-footed. I'll upload a test I did last night for a friend.

i doubt the AF of my 14-140 is so exceptional so as to explain why I've had no issues. BTW, I didn't even watch his 2nd AF video, but I will later today.

5 hours ago, jonpais said:

Ken - I've been doing a field test this week at the Saigon Central Post office of the Fuji 50mm f/2 with the Fuji X-T2 mounted on the Crane gimbal - practically identical subject matter   - and it looks like some of the handheld shots here have just about the same amount of jitter as mine. Are you seeing it, or is it just me? Sorry to nitpick.

Jon, no, but I should have explained how I shot this to explain what you're seeing. As I moved to different spots in the mall, I was sitting in areas where there were arrays of 6 or so seats and a couch. My seat would generally be 12'-15' (I'm guessing) from my 'subject'.

These were obviously candid shots (technically you're not supposed to shoot in the mall) and I wanted to be as discreet as possible. So I had the camera on my thigh with my legs crossed and the VF swung out so that I could look down, not appearing to be shooting. I was probably 3/4 zoomed in with the 14-140 lens, while I'd make slight adjustments with my leg and camera for relatively consistent framing...a really lousy monopod. That resulted in those slight movements that would not have occurred with the camera to my eye, as I almost always shoot hand-held. 

So that's the long winded answer to the jitter question. I wasn't even careful in adjusting exposure since it was hard to see the zebras in the LCD (I wear reading glasses). I'll look out for it though in my normal shooting style. 

My impression of the GH5 IBIS is that it's a bit more effective than in the G85. I think that's more a function of the size and weight (bigger cams are generally easier to hold steady) than an actual improvement in the IBIS.

Not for me, because that's surely not the results I've gotten. I think if 100 owners posted perfect AF results, some would still fall back on Max's test. I wonder why Max gets the worst results of anyone I've read?

I'm really not sure what profile I'll be using, but it may well be subject dependent. In this case my 'focus' was AF and I figured I'd have 709 along for the ride.

So here's a test of the GH5's AF. I used the 709 Profile, 14-140 lens and center area AF. Focus was set for CAF to see if any hunting occurred and if so, to what degree. I've shot in this same mall with the Sony A6300 & A7Rii with results that weren't as good. At times these other cameras would lock on to areas and objects behind the subject. 

Given all the things I've read on some sites, the AF has been far better than I expected. I've really had excellent success. Yes, if you look closely you'll see a bit of hunting in a couple of clips, but nothing really disturbing. If I wasn't testing the AF, but still wanted to use AF, I would probably have used 'lock on AF'. 

17 minutes ago, Papiskokuji said:

I shot the following video with AF only on the A6300 and a came tv single.

 

Can we, in keeping with the thread title, keep this to information regarding the GH5? This is slowly but steadily evolving into a Sony thread.

It is lossless, it simply crops the sensor. But while we're at, who wouldn't want Clear zoom to be lossless? See how that works?

On 4/2/2017 at 11:56 PM, Emanuel said:

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 :-)

Emanuel, I think at times people are looking for excuses to not buy a given piece of equipment. Others are trying to defend equipment they already own by over-exaggerating flaws of new entries. I see this all the time and not just with cameras. It's human nature.

On 4/2/2017 at 2:52 PM, noone said:

At 1.4x I think that clearzoom is at least as close to lossless as the Pansonic at 1.4x.

It is still very close to lossless at 2x and of course you can go to 1.1x or 1.2x or 1.3x or whatever you want to 2x as well.

You can change the setting from clear image zoom to digital zoom to 4x in which case above 2x you start seeing it though still could have uses in a pinch.

I have it set to clearzoom and the down button set to use to bring it up and then I can use the left and right buttons and use it on the fly. (I sometimes use other things with the down button but mostly it is set to clear zoom).

Those four images I posted above are 2 from the A7s and 2 from the GX7.         Regards the A7s shots, I actually prefer the clearzoom at 25mm with 2x applied over the 50mm image.      those were taken with the cheap little Canon 18-55 IS ii kit lens and I think it might be because being a APSC lens used FF, while it covers the sensor from around 24mm up, there is still vignetting (just not a black edge as there is below about 24mm).     Using the clearzoom has removed the vignetting.     It may also be that the lens is optically better at 25mm than at 50mm.

With the Panasonic shots, the optical image is clearly better than the ETC shot though I would use the ETC one if I had to.       Again, the (same) lens is for a different format, in this case for a larger 1.6x APSC sensor so I don't have the vignetting issue and it may well be now that the lens is also better at 36mm of the optical zoom than it is at 18mm for the ETC shot so this time other factors favour the optical VS other factors favouring the clearzoom for the Sony.

Again, though this was never meant to be a Sony VS Panasonic thing but to suggest that if 1.4x is great with ETC, why on Mars wouldn't you want it variable?

Proving that there are 1/2 glass full people and 1/2 glass empty folks. It is what it and it is lossless. The Sony is not. But you do seem to be doing a good job in actually making this a Sony vs Panasonic thing.