Mmmbeats

No, my point is, the actual advantages to visual quality that come directly from FF. A lot of those qualities are not inherent to FF or caused by it.

I'm really interested to know why people think there is an inherent advantage to FF. I enjoyed Adam Wilt's investigation of this: https://www.provideocoalition.com/bigger-is-better-ok-but-why/

It differs from territory to territory. i believe the GH4 sold for the EU market has the limitation, other models do not. I also believe (from memory) that the GH5 is unrestricted in all territories.

I haven't used the camera yet, but almost certainly the only issue with it will be sensor resolution. Apart from that it will likely perform as well or better (with it's increased RAW bit depth) than the other GH series cameras - that is to say, very well indeed (but perhaps not quite as good as other offerings in it's price range). So then you just have to decide whether the resolution is good enough for the purposes you have in mind. For web publishing the answer is almost certainly yes; but for making prints and posters you'll be limited to somewhere around the 8.5 x 13 inches mark.

Why so?

If the bottom codec is an 8-bit codec that admittedly looks great, but by it's very nature is going to struggle under heavy creative grading, and the top codec is a RAW workflow that is gorgeous, but slow and cumbersome, then yes, you need a middle codec for robust 10-bit goodness, when speed and creative flexibility are both of the essence. I happen to take mellanmjölk with my cereal too.

Well, as much as I admire your photography, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with a lot of what you've said there. Everybody prefers the quality of primes. I shoot almost exclusively on them. But that's not the only consideration. When you're filming actuality that's changing fast in front of you, you just can't afford to faff around changing lenses. That's where a good quality (and yes, that does mean pricey) zoom wins out. Every time. This comes down to the shot. DoF is a storytelling tool like all others. It works best when it is used with an awareness of contrast. Shallow depth of field, after shallow depth of field, just starts to lose it's impact and meaning. Mix it up a bit in keeping with the flow of the storytelling, is my preference as both a viewer and a shooter. One thing I feel strongly is that super shallow DoF is destroying the relationship between the subject and their surroundings in a lot of short films I see online. The main thing is that you should be able to make the choice based on your own creative interpretation, not just because you've run out of exposure options. It's pretty easily demonstrable that most lenses are indeed sharper slightly stopped down (regardless of cost). Having said that, I'm generally happy to shoot wide open on most lenses despite the slight difference. Erm... that's exactly the thinking that's driving me towards the GH5s - it opens up more creative choices. His comments apply to just about any LED panel or hard light out there (apart from the massive new 4 x 4 flexlights, or the really high output lights like the 300D or whatever). Getting them to look nice and soft *and* retain a decent level of brightness is often a struggle. I actually think this will be one of the biggest benefits of the system.

Is there any reliable info on whether the GH5s uses dual circuitry like the Varicam range, or if it's dual ISO is a different effect produced by the new sensor tech?

I don't know if it's proper etiquette to post stuff from other forums here, so please forgive / delete as appropriate if it's not the done thing. I thought this was a really good comment by a user on DVXuser (Thomas Smet) : I'm particularly excited about points 1 and 5. I've mentioned lenses before, but I'm constantly wishing I could add more diffusion to LED lights, but until now there's been too much of a loss of output.

Here something that Sean Robinson (Panasonic) said on Facebook, if it helps:

I guess for me, with the whole IBIS vs low light thing - stabilisation is not a *problem* at the moment, whereas sensitivity often is. IBIS would give me an improvement in an area that I'm currently comfortable with, whereas the improved ISO performance will remove the biggest problematic limitation I currently have with my setup (and in fact, only serious drawback to using the system IMO).

Can you re-link to the file please?

My requirement is no focus-by-wire. My current target is the Canon 24-70 L II f/2.8. Would be great for events, workshops, etc. I currently tend to flip between the Sigma 18-35 and a longer lens (often a Samyang 85mm). I'm eager to ditch the lens changes. Monopod is all the stabilisation I need - has been working just fine up till now (not to say that IBIS wouldn't have opened up other options mind you).

Which is *exactly* what I've been wishing for.

Seems to contradict what others have stated (and I'm in no position to contribute) but this is a Samuel Bilodeau (Mystery Box) reply on that blog page:

I agree that people are going totally overboard, but one thing I'd highlight is that IBIS is not really a replacement for external stabilisation, but what it does really well is eliminate micro-judder, and thereby make hand-held footage a far more viable option. There's no doubt it's a useful facility, but nothing that can't be lived without.

Hmmm... looks like it has a particularly cumbersome workflow. Also uses audio in to your camera - does that negate both channels?

This is worth discussing. I remember seeing this technology touted a few years back. If it works it might be a good pairing with the GH5s. It's potentially a much better solution than using Warp Stabiliser on its own. Any views?

Usability - yes it's subjective, but having used both systems I can say that they are streets apart in terms of the ease of use of the menu buttons, function set, and general workflow. This is a general Panasonic advantage over Sony I think (I'm no fanboi, I know full well that Sony have their own advantages - but making their gear easy to use hasn't generally been one of them in my experience). Reliability - I've experienced no reliability problems with either system, but all the overheating stuff I've read about would seriously concern me if I was a potential owner. Also, I'm referencing things like battery life, which I've always found better to manage on the GH5. Portability - Real world use, the a7S is almost always going to be a bigger, heavier package because of the full-frame glass. Adaptability - there's no incentive to adapt down from FF. GH5 users adapt all kinds of lenses, all the time. Again, real world usage, the GH5 is going to be more usefully adaptable by far. a7S wins for low light (obviously). Picture quality I don't think there's much in it. I'm always happy with the results I get, and always see fantastic footage around from both systems. Sensor size is completely meaningless to me, and I don't understand why other shooters are hung up on it (bearing in mind that the GH5 produces stunning images, and can be made to shoot extremely shallow DoF if required).

If it helps I think this is a good mental checklist - 1) Shutter speed - (180 degrees, so no need to worry about that). 2) ISO - (Native ISO, or as low as possible, so no need to worry about that for now) 3) Now select aperture to match your intention for the shot. This is a really key thing, because depth-of-field is a really powerful tool in your storytelling arsenal. In my opinion - use shallow depth of field sparingly - when you really want to heighten the sense of isolation of the subject. Also, remember that contrast within a story is important - so sometimes deep DoF, sometimes shallow, sometimes inbetween. Think about the story relationship between the subject and the surroundings! Back to exposure - So you've selected your shutter speed, provisional ISO, and aperture.... 4) Underexposed? Increase the ISO, or lighting if possible. Your camera will have a maximum usable ISO that you will have to discover for yourself in terms of acceptable noise. 5) Overexposed? Add ND, or reduce lighting if possible. That might seem like a lot to think about, but honestly, I do all of the above in a matter of seconds before I hit record. It just becomes instinctive. Some curve balls - There's a tiny bit of leeway around the 180 degree rule. You can adjust Shutter Speed a little bit here and there and get away with it if you need to. Best to stick to 180 degrees most of the time though. Another exception is if you're doing a shot with literally no movement, like a product shot or a cut-away. Then the 180 degree rule goes out of the window and you can use even very high shutter speeds with no problems. Having said that you should make your aperture the creative decision and then base your other settings on that, sometimes you have to compromise. Especially, you will sometimes not have enough light available for the aperture you desire, and have to shoot more open than you would ideally like, at least that is my experience.

Of course all of the excitement over the camera is contingent on it performing well photographically. I'm encouraged by the skintones we've seen in the few clips so far. Panasonic have always gotten that right so far on the GH series (albeit using more conventional sensor technology), so I think that's the reason you're seeing it taken for granted a little for now.

Yes - think of it as learning a skill that requires muscle-memory, like driving a car or whatever.

If you think the a7S is a better camera than the GH5 then you are using a very selective set of criteria. They are both great systems, but the GH5 also has great picture quality, and wipes the floor with the Sony device in terms of usability, reliability, portability, and adaptability.

Yes, the loss of IBIS is a big blow. *sigh* If we had started with a camera with low-light capability but no IBIS, and moved to the original GH5, we would be complaining about the loss of sensitivity! The truth is that both cameras are each missing a great feature. I find a monopod the best solution for fast-moving situations, but they don't offer perfect stabilisation, so it's a compromise. I'm almost certainly going to get the GH5s - it's basically the answer to my biggest area of need. I'd like to know people's thoughts about the following options: 1) a GX80 (GX85) as a B-cam, and for grab-and-go IBIS action. 2) a GH5 as a tandem cam (using the GH5s when the occasion requires, GH5 as an alternative A-cam and backup). Would this be a ridiculous investment, given that it takes you close to the price of a full cinema camera?

It's all quite subjective, of course. My own experience is that the wide open apertures are still at most distances 'shallow'. I often film two people talking, and only one is in focus. Not only is the viewers gaze drawn away from the, sometimes telling, reaction of the listening figure, but many of the nuances of the interaction are lost in the blur, even if it is slight. Similarly when there is a speaker on stage as part of a panel and I'm picking up shots from the side of the stage (sometimes these events are set up in halls without stage lighting rigs). I get a nice crisp shot of the speaker, but often wish I could simultaneously bring in the facial reactions of the other panellists. It's all about choices really. Of course the ability to isolate the subject is also important, and I think a lot of 'full frame' enthusiasts would be amazed at how good these GH series cameras are at doing that with shallow DoF when required. It's going to be the difference in limited light situations between having one option - 'shallow' (even if you want to label it 'not THAT shallow'), and having a range of depth of field options available to help direct your audience's experience.