SteveV4D

I sometimes feel that I'm having a weird dream with 2020.  Aside from most of my work being postponed or cancelled due to a flu virus, we have Canon giving us an 8K camera and Panasonic giving us a crippled 4K camera. 
Frankly I'm waiting now to see if I wake up and experience a 2020 that makes more sense.

You really are a clown, or are you trolling... hard to tell with the amount of crap you constantly come out with

I don't even understand why they would send this camera out to people to preview / review. I haven't seen one positive video. 

Maybe you could help a basement dweller out and reply to the grading questions I asked about the GH5 image not holding up?
It was a genuine question and however basement-y you think I am, a gracious individual would realise that for every person who comments, there are dozens more who follow along silently, and we could all do with learning more.
It would help us to understand your perspective as well.
Lots of people blow through these forums and when they have a different perspective or different requirements or standards then it's easy to get riled up, but it's worth it if they manage to explain their perspective and then the rest of us can understand why they have particular requirements or opinions.
Sometimes it even happens that when they share theirs, we can share ours and very very occasionally, we all learn something.

Absolutely.  
One thing I really like about MFT is that I can use my f0.95 primes to stop-down to f1.4 and get a bump in sharpness, I get an exposure about T1.4, and a DoF equivalent to a FF f2.8.  Of course, FF has the advantage with lower ISO noise, but getting a higher FF equivalent T-stop while keeping a FF equivalent F-stop makes up for the difference in many ways.
I am also a bit in love with a shallower DoF, I'll admit it.  However, it's part of a larger creative context, which I'll elaborate on a bit.
There are a number of things that make an image look 'cinematic', or if you don't like that word (some don't), make an image have a higher level of production value.  These include things like lighting the talent brighter than the background (or the other way around), creating colour contrast with things like orange/teal grades that provide more subject/background contrast, fog to make distant objects less contrasted and also create rays if desired, using out-of-focus backgrounds, using subject and camera movement which outline the varying planes in the scene, etc.  One thing that all of these things has in common is that they all emphasise depth in the image.
I think that creating depth in the image is a fundamental goal of the medium due to the fact that photography and videography is the attempt to replicate a 3D world on a 2D medium.  
To this end, Deakin and I operate in very different worlds.  Deakin will use all of the above and more to create depth, whereas I operate in completely uncontrolled conditions, with available light, and often without the ability to even move the camera around that much to manage subject to background distance.  So I am interested in having a slightly shallower DoF in my images in order to partly compensate for the less ideal other factors, and also in situations where I have a greater subject distance (or a higher ratio of camera/subject distance : subject/background distance than Deakin would choose) I want a lens that goes faster so that I can get the same amount of background defocus under the more challenging situation.
This is kind of like when we've talked in other threads about shutter angle and someone said that they like having a >180 shutter angle in order to compensate for other areas where their image is a bit lacking.
I bang on about tech on these forums probably more than the average member, but I do so in the context of the creative output.  I do it so I can get nice images, and my learning journey has been one where I work out what matters more, what matters less, and what doesn't matter at all, to me at least.
I'm aware of smartphones getting better in low light and also in the folded camera modules with longer focal lengths.  I had a few long conversations with my dad about the Light L16 as had it lived up to its claims of being a DSLR replacement (it didn't) he would have bought one.  His primary interest was using it in very high dust environments which due to it being completely sealed would have been a great fit.  He's killed a number of cameras and has now basically given up due to this.  We talked about those P&S 'tough' cameras that have a standard zoom but are completely waterproof, but the image never stacked up.
The A7 series are definitely quite small, and I was considering an A7iii + 24-105/4 setup against the GH5 back when I bought the GH5.  From memory it was the 10-bit and better IBIS that sealed the deal for me.  I was interested in the better low-light of the A7iii, but in the end the GH5 with fast primes sees slightly better in the dark than I do, and that's good enough for me.  If I can't see it, I won't miss shooting it.
I've said above that I think that a mid-sized sensor will hang on.  I don't know if it will be MFT or 1inch but considering there aren't a lot of ILC 1" cameras, I think MFT has the edge in that situation, although the RX series sure seems to have made a lot of sales.  The advancements in smartphone low light and performance will trickle into the mid-sized sensor format, so in that sense it will benefit from the tiny smartphone sensor market, and the mum and dad taking photos of junior running around in normal indoor lighting, which places very high but completely practical requirements on low-light performance.

Boy, all those great films shot on Super35 suddenly look like shit when FF DSLRs came out.
That Zombie movie, 28 Days later, I liked it until I learned some of it was shot on a Canon DV1. WTF! They should have used an ARRI for that most iconic bridge shot. Ruined it for me.
Most of the new blade runner 2049 was shot with a Zeiss T1 lenses but was stopped down to f2.8, 4, and 5.6. Deakins must be an idiot.
This obsession, and yes it’s an obsession, with FF and max aperture shallow DoF lust is missing the forest for the trees. Very little of that shit matters in cinema.
You can slap a Vintage FF lens on a GH5 and hand it to Deakins and he would shoot a Hollywood movie with it and the audience wouldn’t give a shit what it was shot on if the story, lighting, acting, and production are good. The camera is peanuts.
Only people that care are the sensor gear obsessives and the industry snobs.
I’m also still waiting for that FF 24-200 f4 that fits in a cargo pants pocket....who will make it first?
And before you bandwagon the notion that I think MFT is somehow inherently better than some other format (like a lot of FF zealots do for whatever reason) I like MFT because it’s a CHOICE. I get a choice of format to shoot in with unique advantages. But instead we have this pervasive FF “green-blue algae bloom” sucking all the oxygen out of the discussion.
I can also guarantee you when the first smartphone puts a MFT sized sensor on the back suddenly MFT will be the bees-knees again...funny how they works. 

What case study have you got to say i am wrong?
OF course if something is made in smaller numbers it will cost more.    R&D costs to the companies are not going to get cheaper (unless they cut back) and the cost per unit will have to be more expensive to pay for it.     Same with the equipment to make it, it has to pay its way.   Olympus has been selling plenty of cameras but they have not made a profit very often in the last decade.
As to the market shrinking, ten percent was just a figure for argument stake.    Nobody knows what it will shrink to but the trend is down, nothing but down and as phones get better and people who grew up with real cameras gets older and weaker, demand will diminish further.
I just went to a major store that includes cameras as part of its range to get a SD card and they are still selling the RX100 FIRST version new and for silly money with a version iii also for more than it is worth and a recent model for more than many DSLRs. 
For most people a phone will do as good a job at photos and video now for what they want as well as a lot more things and for less money.
 

I can adapt pretty much every lens ever made onto my GH5; I've never felt like I had to settle in that regard, outside of budget or availability.
I find it easy to get the color I want, with minimal tweaking unless I'm looking for something more stylized. Getting the kind of DOF that I want also has never been a problem for me. 
Ultimately it all comes down to personal preference. I've never been happier with a camera. I've never felt limited by it, at least not to the extent that there wasn't anything I could to get around it. I originally got it for event shooting, and have started to dabble in more narrative style stuff and I credit the GH5 for that. 

I'm following along quite nicely, thank you for your screaming condescension, it is really helping this conversation along!  (Although it's not doing much to make me think that you're a serious working professional who can be trusted to make balanced judgments about an entire industry, but you know, you do you.)
I agree that when no-one makes MFT cameras any more then the format will be dead.  The issue here is that people still are making MFT cameras.
The P4K is an MFT camera that pushed what was possible at a given price point when it was released.  The Z CAM E2-M4 was only announced a few months ago (?) and is a MFT cine camera.  The GH5 is still a current model and although it is overdue for a refresh, it's not that much overdue, and there hasn't been any confirmation from Panasonic (that I know of anyway) that their FF line replaces the GH line.
Ok, so assuming you're telling the truth, your experience might be in the part of the industry that is too high-end.  Anyone who has worked on a Marvel production or on the Netflix approved sets that you reference probably hasn't worked in a low budget indy or web production since before the GH5 was released (or the GH4 for that matter!).
Everyone has blind spots in their experience.  One of my blind spots is the entire non-english-speaking world for example.  I'm a knowledgable guy, but not about much of what's going on in Turkmenistan.  Blind spots are inevitable, I fear that you're confusing your (probably large amount of) knowledge with the idea that you have a good overview of the entire camera-buying market.
Thanks - I was beginning to think I knew everything and was becoming omnipotent, but your timely reminder has staved off a bout of madness.
I am familiar with the RED forums, I'm registered there. I'm also familiar with CML, and have registered there too.  I haven't sought out EVA owners, but there's a few on here.
I have sought out GH5 users though, and I didn't find any significant concentrations of them, except here.  Which might be why so many people are disagreeing with you and down voting your posts.
But back to you telling me I don't know anything....
They're both done with cameras right?
It's great that we've finally gotten to the point in the conversation where you ask about my background.
I'm a guy who makes home videos.  I shoot, edit, colour grade, and then publish my own work.  You might then conclude that I wouldn't have the faintest idea about anything, but this would be untrue, because you see, I have been teaching myself to do everything, including colour grade, which leads me to why I might think I know something about this.
You see, I hang out on the colour grading forums with professional colourists.  So while you might be off making things and only being exposed to one tier of the industry, colourists (who aren't in the upper echelons of feature films) are seeing a wide spectrum of professional work done.  and when I got my GH5 and started speaking to them about how to colour grade it, I learned they regularly see footage from cameras like the GH5 on the low-budget productions that can only just afford a colourist.
You reference American Pickers, but that's precisely the kind of production that might use a GH5.  That and documentaries where owning the camera would be an advantage instead of having to rent an Alexa or C300 on and off over months, maybe with short notice if events unfold and they need to get to location ASAP.
I guess this is where we start to question what your definition of a professional DP is, and if it includes professional indy film-makers or you tubers or vloggers, but it actually doesn't matter.
We're not talking about if the GH5 is currently a major force in blockbuster Hollywood productions.  We're not even talking about if MFT has ever put an image on Netflix.  We're talking about if MFT is dead, and to talk about that we only have to talk about who is buying it.
This means that we're talking about customers.
Which means that it does include all the professional indy film-makers and you tubers and vloggers and even little old me shooting little Suzy blowing out the candles on her 3rd birthday cake.
MFT was never sold as a high-end cine system.  Even when it came out it was for the size of production that couldn't afford to rent equipment or didn't suit the type of shooting schedule involved.
This is where you've gotten me wrong.  I do see the signs.  MFT is a terrible investment.  So is EF.  If someone was asking on here if they should buy into the MFT system I would tell them to carefully evaluate their options.
My take on the industry is that:
Photography always had a FF superiority complex and smaller sensors are basically being eaten by smartphones, and now a Medium Format fetish is starting to emerge Cinematography had standardised on S35 but has recently started shifting to larger sensors The industry is in decline due to smartphones and less players means there will be attrition (which this thread is about) and considering the above going S35 or FF might be the 'safer' option MFT might be a good recommendation if the person asking had a specific requirement, such as a size/weight limitation, a cost limitation, or some combination of things (the way I do) I would also suggest that cameras and lenses are an investment, but you pay for them in $$$ and you get a return in images, not resale value.
This seems to me like a relatively balanced and nuanced view.  Indicative of pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses, and context playing an important part in any decision.
On the other hand, there's you saying things like "MFT is dead because companies will stop making the bodies and sensors."  Not particularly nuanced.

Oh man, with all of what you said about the GH5, I hope nobody has ever used something older and worse..... like the GH4!

https://web.archive.org/web/20180907094729/https://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/news-features/better-call-saul-formats-framing-and-film-noir-influences-series-608600
Oops, did a Panasonic GH4 get used heaps on the hit show "Better Call Saul"??

Yes. Yes it did. 
 

Is that not screened on Broadcast TV too? Are the people who work on that not professionals?

Your arguments all appear to be circular, or simply saying that things that are MFT or are old are somehow inferior by default.  I guess the Alexa is screwed then, it's really old, the image is soft as hell and it's not FF either!
The S1H might well make a nicer image than the GH5, I didn't say that no camera produced a nicer image.  In fact the S1H sure better make a nicer image - is it twice or three times the current cost of a GH5?  I haven't kept tabs.  It's also large and heavy in comparison.
You can't say that the GH5 is irrelevant because there's a camera with a nicer image that costs way more and is larger and heavier.  If so, the S1H is irrelevant because the Sony Venice exists.
You may not like it, but the 10-bit is still 10-bit.  I know because I shoot in available light high DR situations and grade heavily, and even after attempts to break the image, it has held up.  Someone even made a comment on these forums in the last month or so lamenting the lack of 4k60 in the current lineup of camera bodies.  You can't really argue that its 60p isn't 60p.
Of course there are cameras that make a nicer image.
It sounds like you're living in the internet / vlog / YT / camera reviewer / forums / photographer-as-videographer bubble and don't really know what is happening in the industry.  The reality of working DOPs is that most of them aren't online talking about their equipment, they're out in the world shooting and their images are only available on Netflix / Amazon / Hulu / etc, or non-camera YT channels.
You have absolutely no idea what most of the content you watch in a given day is shot on.  If a camera produces a good enough image then when it's on TV you'll have no idea you're watching that camera.  The GH5 is out there being used by working pros and it's completely invisible to us.  The entire industry is in upheaval with far less money to go around in some areas, in such times people who are interested in feeding their families will put off upgrades and just keep working.
I'm not saying that the GH5 is the best camera in the world, but you're acting like it's no longer being used by anyone making content, which simply isn't true.

I think your argument is based around the idea that lenses are an investment, but they're not, they're a consumable.
I understand why you might think that, because it's a myth that seems to be on endless repeat in photography circles.
To understand why I don't believe that lenses are an investment, have a look at the Camera-Wiki Lens Mounts page, or the Wikipedia Flange focal distance page, and see how many of the mounts are still in-use on a current model camera.  There are things like PL, and EF (although its days are numbered), but the vast vast majority of them are essentially dead.  Even if you take very good care of them (the best way by never using them!) they will still age and the rubber and lubricants will dry out, with plastics becoming brittle, and coatings changing over time (yellowing, for example).  A second hand market does exist for some of the exotic lenses of yester-year, but unless you're talking about the pinnacle of the range, then they're worth very little.
MFT is a dead mount in the same way that EF is a dead mount - it is supported by current flagship cameras with specs that remain desirable, but is likely to decline in the future.
I would hesitate to call PL mount a dead mount, but anything else probably has the writing on the wall, it's just a matter of time.
I invested in MFT glass considering it a purchase that I would use for a period of time, get value out of, and then at some point it would be worth nothing to me and likely to other people as well.  Just like the shiny new camera bodies that everyone loves to salivate over.  I have some of the most desirable MFT lenses around, but the total cost was still in the same league as buying a single camera body.
In terms of the GH5 having been left behind, do a count of how many current model cameras can match the 4K60, or the 400Mbps All-I 4K 10-bit internal, or the 5K 10-bit open gate h.265.  Odds are whatever it is you're using can't do that.  There are some cameras that can, but odds are that I can't get them into a museum or historical monument without security asking me if I'm a professional, which wouldn't matter because my arm would probably fall off having to carry it around all day.
All technology goes down in value over time.  Relying on the resale value of any piece of equipment to justify its ROI is a recipe for losing your money.
I don't understand why people think of equipment in terms of resale value - it's purpose is to be used, not traded.

Tom posted a follow-up to the above, with the results, and also the under/over exposure tests.
I did it blind and picked the P6K first, with the UMP second.  Interestingly, I chose based upon the colours, and the strange green tint from the Alexa and the awful strange everything colours of the RED made them get third and last places, respectively.  The more I grade, the more I care about good colour and the associated art department choices (which obviously aren't a factor here) and less about the resolution or whatever else of the camera.  The sharpness of the P6K doesn't phase me as I know I could soften it in post, or on set with lenses and filters.
Considering that the Alexa has been used by other people to get good colours once or twice before we know it's possible and the camera isn't fundamentally flawed...  yes, I'm kidding of course.   I don't even think he botched the WB.  It's very odd how the colours were rendered, and strange that the RED also shared some of the bad colours from the Alexa.
Regardless, seems the image from the P6K holds up pretty well, and the over exposure highlight rolloff didn't look too much worse than the Alexa, of course with the under-exposure shadows being much superior due to lower noise levels.

To be fair, the main advantages of the BRAW codec isn't in the pixel peeping.  Film anything well and its gonna look good with modern cameras these days.
For me, the advantage of BRAW is
A) Altering ISO and white balance in post production.  Not for every shot, but for some, its quick, simple and for some shots, can place less stress on filming.  For some shots last year, it was a life saver.
B) Its so much smoother to edit than H264 and H265 in Resolve.  Thumbnails load quicker.  Less quirks or crashes.  Plays back well.  
Factor in, I prefer the colour science, at least to that seen in my GH5 and this is why I favour the Pocket over the more functional GH5.
 

Wedding videographers are not just underpaid for the work they do, but there is less demand for them too!
For every wedding with a photographer, only some will have a wedding videographer too. 
Yet how many weddings with a videographer don't have a photographer? Practically none would ever dream of doing it the other way round!

I'm not sure judging forum posts is the best gauge of popularity.  The Pocket 4K was announced April 2018 and I didn't get mine till December.  Most of those posts were speculating over this very cheap RAW enabled camera for the many months leading g to its release.  Then more posts over the faults and issues with it soon after people got theirs.  Being the first of it's kind will always generate more interest, speculation and debate. 
In contrast, the Pocket 6K was quickly announced and released.  Its cost no doubt put some people off including me, and since many already owned or were still waiting for their 4K version, it was never going to have the same buzz.   Plus in some cases, the Pocket 4K thread was used to discuss the 6K too.  
Frankly there are advantages to each camera.  Now that the cost is down, I am looking to buy one to supplement my Pocket 4K.   For me it's not practical to rent and I prefer to own my gear.  As a sole shooter working on Weddings and Corporate work, I need to work with multiple cameras that are small and can be rigged if needed.
I can see both Pocket cameras working very well for me with their own strengths and weaknesses.  For me, being able to grab stills at 6K resolution would be very useful.  Plus I'm using the Sigma Art EF lens for my Pocket 4K, so no issue with the lens mount  I have loads of 4/3 lenses, but I tend to keep them for my GH5 and GH5s cameras.  
There is no better choice here.  There are of course more Pocket 4Ks out there being used than 6Ks.  But that is no reason to dismiss the camera over the Pocket 4K.  I think the price reduction will tempt many to look at it again, as I have done.
 

Why consider the R6, why not? I do take photos, and their AF is hard to beat, match with good colour science.  The only brand I won't do is Sony.  I own Panasonic and Blackmagic, but would happily get Fuji and Canon with the right camera.
That said, I love Blackmagic Colour Science.  Can't agree with your scathing cristisms at all.  I prefer it to Canon, in many cases. Comparing BM Colour to Sony is 😄 Its so forced an argument, it really undervalues it.
Oh and I've seen Blackmagics Specs..  there are crucial things missing from their Pocket in terms of features, I won't deny it; but then Canon have been guilty of that in the past.  They still have their supporters.
 

I'm not selling my other cameras as I need them all.  I am often filming with 4 or 5 cameras at once.  And I wouldn't mind a 6th for some shoots.  When I get the P6K, it will be my main camera, and my P4K my B camera though.
I could always have afforded the P6K, its price  not that different to a GH5s.  But I had to think long and hard over the merits of filming in 6K.  File sizes, workflow.  Plus there seemed to be more quality control issues with the P6K, perhaps being more rushed released. 
Time has passed, and what with the R5 coming out with 8K, the P6K price reduction, it feels a good time to invest in a 6K camera.  I need a 2nd Pocket for Corporate shoots where I've been using the GH5s as a B camera, but I'm not happy mixing the 2.  It was always a choice between another P4K or a P6K, and BM have helped me make my mind up. 

Earlier you said one camera was worse than the other. 
 
And yet by the time it gets to you as a colourist, it's not RAW.  There was a long discussion on that.  
Example #1 (already mentioned)
We crew I hired shoot with 2 BMP6K's and the footage was delivered in ProRes not RAW, the footage had massive IR pollution. I shot with a third camera that was not the P6K.  This was one example I gave.
 
Why didn't you tell them to shoot RAW.  You hired them.  

Real shoots with real clients.... wow that's amazing... as opposed to the rest of us who go on unreal shoots with unreal clients...  you're are so in a league above everyone else on this forum... 😂😂
Tell me then, why are you using P4K and P6K.  You don't need RAW as apparently the finished files end up in ProRes.  The S1H sounds a better fit for your needs. Sure AF is poor, but a lot better than the Pockets.  It has IBIS, its fullframe, full VLOG, timecode (useful on Professional shoots), and is Netflix approved when set to it's best codec.  Why suffer a camera that is reducing your workflow by 40%, when there are already cameras out there that would better serve your needs.  
P4K and P6K are for people like me, on a low budget and can't afford the more expensive cameras. 😉 
Though my clients are real too.  I know, I've met them and they weren't imaginary.  Does that mean my working for them counts as a real shoot too...  ??? 🤔🤔

Real shoots with real clients.... wow that's amazing... as opposed to the rest of us who go on unreal shoots with unreal clients...  you're are so in a league above everyone else on this forum... 😂😂
Tell me then, why are you using P4K and P6K.  You don't need RAW as apparently the finished files end up in ProRes.  The S1H sounds a better fit for your needs. Sure AF is poor, but a lot better than the Pockets.  It has IBIS, its fullframe, full VLOG, timecode (useful on Professional shoots), and is Netflix approved when set to it's best codec.  Why suffer a camera that is reducing your workflow by 40%, when there are already cameras out there that would better serve your needs.  
P4K and P6K are for people like me, on a low budget and can't afford the more expensive cameras. 😉 
Though my clients are real too.  I know, I've met them and they weren't imaginary.  Does that mean my working for them counts as a real shoot too...  ??? 🤔🤔

Destroy...  destroy... destroy!!!! 😂😂😂
What you mean is that the R5 may well be a better camera for the work you're doing than the P6K...  that's all.  
It's not what you're saying, it's how you say it that promotes these reactions from others.  You sound like a hobbyist using cameras when you go off on one about one camera destroying another.  What, will the R5 be attacking your P6K with a baseball bat?  Destroy indeed.  😂😂😂

What about price?
It's interesting the P4k seems to be the camera mentioned a few times here being replaced by the R5 - depending on the price you can get 3 maybe 4 of the P4k to one R5. They're not in the same price bracket not even close. Same with P6K. 
I'm not sure when R5 Is due out but I'd imagine it's going to be a long time before film and video production gets back to any kind of normal. Are people really going to be in a position to invest in a camera so much more expensive than what they're currently using? Or is it going to be a time for consolidation and just trying to get by on what you have?  

Editing BRAW in Resolve is a dream compared to my H264 files I work with from my GH5 and GH5s.  Editing H265 from my drone is even worse, but I think RAW on a Mavic Pro drone is a wish I shall be waiting a long time for.   Thankfully I've never edited MJPEG files, not since the early days of video DSLR.  The Nikon D90 I owned, which first introduced me to the idea of shooting video with a photo camera.  That was almost 10 years ago. Video has progressed a lot since then.
I'm almost reluctant to look at any camera now that uses H264 as it's codec.   Though if my GH5(s) is set to all-i, it's workable.  The only issue with ProRes and BRAW recording is power, which is frankly a pain.  

Real shoots with real clients.... wow that's amazing... as opposed to the rest of us who go on unreal shoots with unreal clients...  you're are so in a league above everyone else on this forum... 😂😂
Tell me then, why are you using P4K and P6K.  You don't need RAW as apparently the finished files end up in ProRes.  The S1H sounds a better fit for your needs. Sure AF is poor, but a lot better than the Pockets.  It has IBIS, its fullframe, full VLOG, timecode (useful on Professional shoots), and is Netflix approved when set to it's best codec.  Why suffer a camera that is reducing your workflow by 40%, when there are already cameras out there that would better serve your needs.  
P4K and P6K are for people like me, on a low budget and can't afford the more expensive cameras. 😉 
Though my clients are real too.  I know, I've met them and they weren't imaginary.  Does that mean my working for them counts as a real shoot too...  ??? 🤔🤔