kye

It's all about the quality of the isolation.  it can be tough to get, say, a clean skintone isolation even with a really strong codec at times.  If the colour data is thin you either end up with areas of skin that just won't key, or parts of the background that just wont separate.  I've had to just abandon secondaries at times.

Totally agree about Canon.  They seem to have some compression fairy dust.  The C200 8-bit was remarkable.

I did consider that but didn't think that you'd be doing anything as radical as a green screen or background replacement etc.
What kinds of secondary adjustments would you really notice a poor quality codec?  Genuinely curious.
It all depends on what you're doing and the application of the format.  
Really this thread is relevant for people who aren't really sure of why Prores is a good feature, and often they're satisfied with h264 or h265 because they're "better", but if you're going to be doing work where you're really seeing the differences between these codecs then you're not the one who needs convincing!  Sadly, lots of people start with the position that 'newer is better' and 'more is better' without actually applying those statements to the entire pipeline, to the implications on set or in post.
I'd say that the quality of the encoder is probably more relevant in this case.  As an example, the C100 provided an image that compared favourably to other cameras with double the bitrate, so obviously Canon had really made the encoder work hard and really get a good result.  Cheap cameras can produce horrific results with heaps of bitrate.
The difference that 8-generations of compression made was far far smaller than the difference between a C100 image and most other cameras, even those downsampling 1080p from a 4K sensor, so that's why I didn't consider it to be particularly relevant.
I'm super happy the GH6 has prores and think it's one of the (many) great upgrades over the GH5, so I'm definitely with you on this one!

That's not good enough for me.  An 8-bit file from the same camera will generally 'look the same' (absent any banding) as a 10-bit file from the same source.  That doesn't mean its going to perform as well in post.

I think what people miss out here is secondary grading isolation, which also benefits from a rich data environment. 

I don't consider this specialised at all.  Its a part of a well-rounded grading workflow.  I don't end up using it for every single project, but if anybody is not using secondaries at all, well... they probably should be in my opinion.

The GH5 is relatively unique in that it offers a good selection of ALL-I codecs, which I use and are just wonderful in post. I guess other cameras would benefit from this though, as not many other models/manufacturers seem to have this included.
Interestingly, I thought for the test I would encode and re-encode each codec over and over again until one of them started breaking down, but I setup ffmpeg to do that on a 1080p version (to save processing time) and after 8 generations on h264 IPB at the same bitrate as Prores HQ I had to pause because the file looked the same.  At first I thought that ffmpeg was being too clever for me and just copying the stream instead of re-encoding it, but when I zoomed in crazily (something like 800%) there were subtle differences.  So really, all else being equal and when given enough bitrate, they all do a great job, so it's really the other factors that I highlighted in my post that are the deciding factors.
I suspect you are talking about this video?
This is probably the part you're referring to?

I found it hard to tell TBH, even with it moving, but that is a comparison between Prores on the Shogun, which is either HQ at 700Mbps or Prores 422 at 471Mbps vs the GH5 codec which is 400Mbps, so there's not much difference in the bitrate there.
The 400Mbps is on the high side compared to most cameras bitrates, and with the GH6 in 5.7K they'd be looking at 1500Mbps or 1000Mbps, which are significantly more again, so the bitrates really are pretty serious.
TBH, there's a point in diminishing returns with bitrate, not just because of accuracy vs bitrate, but also that if you multiply the resolution and bitrate by 9x (1920 x 3 is 5.7K) you're not increasing the size of the screen that the viewer will view the image on, so actually, once there is sufficient bitrate to render the screen to a certain optical quality it doesn't really require much more if you increase the resolution on the same display, or at least, it doesn't need to increase by a factor of 9.
Of course, if you're doing green-screen or other hard-edged keying, cropping in post, stabilising significantly, compositing and other VFX operations then that's a different story, but those are specialist applications and not general ones.
 

The GH5 is relatively unique in that it offers a good selection of ALL-I codecs, which I use and are just wonderful in post. I guess other cameras would benefit from this though, as not many other models/manufacturers seem to have this included.
Interestingly, I thought for the test I would encode and re-encode each codec over and over again until one of them started breaking down, but I setup ffmpeg to do that on a 1080p version (to save processing time) and after 8 generations on h264 IPB at the same bitrate as Prores HQ I had to pause because the file looked the same.  At first I thought that ffmpeg was being too clever for me and just copying the stream instead of re-encoding it, but when I zoomed in crazily (something like 800%) there were subtle differences.  So really, all else being equal and when given enough bitrate, they all do a great job, so it's really the other factors that I highlighted in my post that are the deciding factors.
I suspect you are talking about this video?
This is probably the part you're referring to?

I found it hard to tell TBH, even with it moving, but that is a comparison between Prores on the Shogun, which is either HQ at 700Mbps or Prores 422 at 471Mbps vs the GH5 codec which is 400Mbps, so there's not much difference in the bitrate there.
The 400Mbps is on the high side compared to most cameras bitrates, and with the GH6 in 5.7K they'd be looking at 1500Mbps or 1000Mbps, which are significantly more again, so the bitrates really are pretty serious.
TBH, there's a point in diminishing returns with bitrate, not just because of accuracy vs bitrate, but also that if you multiply the resolution and bitrate by 9x (1920 x 3 is 5.7K) you're not increasing the size of the screen that the viewer will view the image on, so actually, once there is sufficient bitrate to render the screen to a certain optical quality it doesn't really require much more if you increase the resolution on the same display, or at least, it doesn't need to increase by a factor of 9.
Of course, if you're doing green-screen or other hard-edged keying, cropping in post, stabilising significantly, compositing and other VFX operations then that's a different story, but those are specialist applications and not general ones.
 

Yeah ENG lens servos are pretty unbelievable to use and you can set the speed to slow or fast on them so the harder you push the faster they go and vice versa. Super smooth operation once you get used to using them. I usually used a 12x or 15x, but we had up to 20x ones for the sports guys.  
I meant to say Power IOS lenses versus the older Mega IOS lenses. I used the later 14-140mm Power IOS and the 12-60mm Power IOS on my GH5. You could try and shake the camera and it would still seem to be locked on the subject, it was just amazing how well they worked together, and the GH6 is supposed to be even better!
 

Yes, that was the one.
I don't think I would notice ANY difference between the all-i internal codecs and prores external unless I was keying, which i freaking HATE to do (I mean, I hate even trying to light a green screen so you can imagine what I am like at 4:00am trying to key around hair, but then again, I am using the 150Mbps 10-bit 4:2:2 Long GOP from the S1 or S5).

I don't have any experience with those power zoom lenses, but one feature that I think would be of huge benefit from them is the ability to hold down the zoom rocker just a bit and do a smooth zoom during a shot.
The more serious MFT lenses are nice, but I'm not sure that the manual zoom ring is damped and smooth enough to really pull off a flawless zoom during a shot, certainly my second-hand 12-35mm and kit 14-42mm zooms aren't.
That was a thing that those ENG lenses were really good at weren't they?
Definitely agree there.
In terms of firmware updates, do we even know when the camera will be shipping?  I haven't seen anything about it so am curious.  No point having firmware updates if no-one has the camera!!
I'll be curious to see what the math is like for shooting at, say, f0.95 in bright sun, at ISO2000 for high DR mode, and what that equates to in an exposure time.
I did note that they improved the shortest shutter time of the camera, so maybe that is why.  Not much good having a camera that can't expose properly in aperture priority mode while wide open at noon - that would be seriously embarrassing I'd imagine!
In terms of ISO2000 compared to 800 (wasn't 800 the native ISO for Vlog on the GH5?) isn't it only slightly more than a stop more exposed?  If so, you only need to add a single-stop of ND to your setup and it's the same.  Or am I missing something?

I think it was the combination of the screen and the fan.  
I'm super happy with it as it's not too much larger and it's not larger from the front, which is what matters from the perspective of shooting in public and not gathering too much attention.  By the time you put a lens on a camera, then depth of it is huge so a few extra mm isn't a big deal.
My suggestion is to start with how and where you shoot and work backwards.  For events you'll probably be valuing flexibility over other performance, so you're probably talking about zooms.
Then the question comes of how much you care about having a long zoom range vs having a faster aperture.  At one extreme you've got the 12-35mm F2.8 which is the fastest but shortest zoom, then things like the 12-60mm F2.8-4, then all the way to 12-100mm F4 and even the 12-200mm F3.5-6.3.
I don't shoot events but my understanding is that mostly there is decent light, and many here have commented that the longer zooms work best because you're always just a zoom adjustment away from the shot.  Especially with the improved low-light from the GH6.

DO NOT EVER THROW AWAY A WELL REGARDED LENS WITH GOOD GLASS IN IT!!!
Seriously, I'm on the VLFV Facebook group and there are people constantly on the lookout for vintage lenses to re-house, and if it's a classic zoom then that may include those models too.
Even if the front element is scrap there's probably another copy somewhere else where the rear element is scrap and together they'd made a great finished lens.
These things aren't being made any more and are only going to get rarer.  As the price of Leica R and CZ sets go through the roof people are talking about other lens lines more and more, eventually they'll get around to EF and zooms I'd imagine.
Cool test - thanks for posting.
If acting ability was critical for lens tests then I'd be sitting at my desk looking worried and compulsively drinking coffee too!!
Especially considering that it looked like espresso shots with every sip being a bottoms-up situation!

Depends on what you prefer, zooms or primes? If you're looking to get the best stabilization you'll probably want to stick with Panasonic lenses, though I prefer Olympus lenses myself (even though I only own 1.)
The 12-35mm f2.8 and the 35-100mm f2.8 are both decent. Their Olympus counterparts are better, but you lose dual IS with them. They're not that different, they just feel better built, are a bit sharper, and have the manual focus clutch. I own the 7-14mm f2.8 since the Panasonic equivalent is only an f4. It is such a nice, premium feeling lens. But I own 2 of the 12-35mm and 1 of the 35-100mm Panasonic and I'm happy with them. 
For primes the 25mm f1.7 is a great value, the 42.5mm f1.7 is an excellent portrait/interview lens, and the 15mm f1.7 is also excellent. I have almost all the primes myself, but those are arguably the best bang for your buck as far as Panny is concerned. They have some really nice f1.2 and 1.4 but they're quite pricey. I've heard great things about the Sigma primes too. 

You did great considering how many cups of Coffee you drank! Thanks for the work you put in.

not sure if anyone gives a shit, but since there's a new MFT camera out, i thought this could be useful for some people. a little 1 minute field of view comparison test from the same camera position using some of the nicest cine lenses for the money, the meikes, with only available light:
 
 
excuse my lack of acting abilities and general laziness, but i think they look nice, and they match really well. 

I think with the prices of the FD 20-35 3.5 L for about the same or maybe less, can get the later EF 20-35 2.8 L and while I am a fan of FD L lenses in particular, and I am not a huge fan of zooms, there is just something about the old EF 20-35 2.8 L that i hang onto mine (the alternative is throw it in the trash since it is very battered and the MF/AF switch cover is gone and I use a piece of coloured electrical tape in its place).

I'm not sure what it is on the GH5. On the S1 / S5, V-LOG native ISO is 640.
But your point is well made. It is technically only a stop and 1/3rd (or 2/3rds) more.
Normally I shoot with a three-stop ND filter on the S5 during the daytime, but I am usually shooting at around f/8 to f/11. So I think mostly for my shooting I would end up around f/4 on m43. 
So maybe around five or six stops of ND would be what I am used to.

I don't have any experience with those power zoom lenses, but one feature that I think would be of huge benefit from them is the ability to hold down the zoom rocker just a bit and do a smooth zoom during a shot.
The more serious MFT lenses are nice, but I'm not sure that the manual zoom ring is damped and smooth enough to really pull off a flawless zoom during a shot, certainly my second-hand 12-35mm and kit 14-42mm zooms aren't.
That was a thing that those ENG lenses were really good at weren't they?
Definitely agree there.
In terms of firmware updates, do we even know when the camera will be shipping?  I haven't seen anything about it so am curious.  No point having firmware updates if no-one has the camera!!
I'll be curious to see what the math is like for shooting at, say, f0.95 in bright sun, at ISO2000 for high DR mode, and what that equates to in an exposure time.
I did note that they improved the shortest shutter time of the camera, so maybe that is why.  Not much good having a camera that can't expose properly in aperture priority mode while wide open at noon - that would be seriously embarrassing I'd imagine!
In terms of ISO2000 compared to 800 (wasn't 800 the native ISO for Vlog on the GH5?) isn't it only slightly more than a stop more exposed?  If so, you only need to add a single-stop of ND to your setup and it's the same.  Or am I missing something?

I saw a video a while back comparing the all-i codecs on the GH5 with prores recorded on a Ninja and it seemed like the prores was better at avoiding macroblocking in motion. So I guess in theory it allows better keying in post. I thought the video was by Andy Dax, but apparently it was by another group of filmmakers (in Norway)? I can't seem to find it on the Andy Dax channel.

I was always amazed that Blackmagic was able to make money on their early cameras having to pay Apple for ProRes and Adobe for CinemaDNG. Now That is a Codec I Really like.

The main advantages of ProRes over H.264 and H.265 are smoother playback and better facility for bouncing down to further generations.  Its designed to work really well in a post production environment, which it does superbly in my experience.

Its no surprise at all that the codecs look similar at the same data rates, in fact it is H.265 that you would expect to look the best as it is the most efficient encoder.

Of course H.264 looks good at reasonable data rates.  If it didn't it wouldn't have been utilised as an acquisition codec by just about every manufacturer under the sun at some point.

The point is that IPB codecs are horrendous in a post environment.  People are excited by ProRes 422HQ in the GH6 because, unlike the other two codecs, it is *guaranteed* to have high data rates (1.9 Gbps is what they are saying), and it will fit straight into our post workflows.

I will be the first to admit that it does seem to be just about everything other than really reliable AF everything a person really needs. With all the super-fast cheaper lenses out now even the DOF low light thing is off the table.
I still wish they would set in stone what and when the firmware updates are coming. They did a good job on it no doubt, but I think they had to do it to be honest. If you can't shoot decent video with this camera you need to give it up.

Something I forgot to add was the latest Power Zoom lenses are just killer on OIS with the GH5 and I am sure for the GH6. You really don't even need a Monopod to get great stuff, it works that good handheld. It is the best on the market. Scary steady.

Good point.
Also, good on Panasonic for allowing the ability to punch in while recording. Really wish my S1 and S5 had that ability.

I think it was the combination of the screen and the fan.  
I'm super happy with it as it's not too much larger and it's not larger from the front, which is what matters from the perspective of shooting in public and not gathering too much attention.  By the time you put a lens on a camera, then depth of it is huge so a few extra mm isn't a big deal.
My suggestion is to start with how and where you shoot and work backwards.  For events you'll probably be valuing flexibility over other performance, so you're probably talking about zooms.
Then the question comes of how much you care about having a long zoom range vs having a faster aperture.  At one extreme you've got the 12-35mm F2.8 which is the fastest but shortest zoom, then things like the 12-60mm F2.8-4, then all the way to 12-100mm F4 and even the 12-200mm F3.5-6.3.
I don't shoot events but my understanding is that mostly there is decent light, and many here have commented that the longer zooms work best because you're always just a zoom adjustment away from the shot.  Especially with the improved low-light from the GH6.

I guess it's official in Europe. OMDS is no longer accepting pre-orders for the OM-1 due to high demand. It's funny because some people thought it wasn't worth the price tag, but the evidence shows otherwise.