Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Panasonic GH5 - all is revealed!

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
On 23-3-2017 at 1:55 AM, Cinegain said:

The 95MB/s* seems to classify as V30 (so max. sustained 30MB/s, 150Mbit/s should be a little less than 20MB/s, so I imagine that's fine; *read, 90MB/s write). More about speed classes, as you've probably seen, here: https://www.sdcard.org/consumers/choices/speed_class/index.html . Haven't seen any official V60 cards yet (required for GH5 w/ firmware update; 400MBit/s - 50MB/s, so V60), but I have V90 and those would roughly be the ones with spec: R280/W250. The Panasonic and Delkin ones, don't come cheap though. If 90 equals 30 and 250 equals 90, you're looking at about a factor 3x. So, 60x3=180 (also 90+30=120/2=60 and 250+90=340/2=170). That's the exact writespeed of the 'Transcend Ultimate SDXC 64GB, UHS-II U3/Class 10'. With all that said, draw your own conclusions and then check cards availlable and pricing right here.

Btw, on the backside of the SanDisk Extreme Pro SDXC UHS-II U3 280MB/s packaging it gives you a little table for '64GB recording time' with the notion '4K @ 500 Mbps - 16 minutes'. So you'd think, regardless of the Vx0-classification that's missing, they've kept in mind that you'd actually use this for 'cinema-quality 4K' (also on the packaging) with high bitrates. It's much cheaper than the V90 badge ones. No guarantees of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2017 at 0:05 PM, Ken Ross said:

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.

 

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 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.

 

Screenshot_2017-04-06_19_58_41.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.  

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Davey said:

 

Screenshot_2017-04-06_19_58_41.jpg

When I saw Max read and then explain this answer I thought he did not understand what the manual tried to explain, because he oversimplified the above into: "so it's normal to not have good autofocus in 4k". I believe there maybe a flawed translation in the manual. Because to me 'Highly accurate focus' sounds like a description of 'very responsive' in the 'responsiveness' setting. The 'reduced Auto Focus speed' is about the focus speed setting. The way that I read this answer is that is you crank up the responsiveness setting to the highest and focus speed to the lowest, the AF will appear not to work. What I believe may be happening in the processing is that the focus change is below a minimal change given the short measuring interval time the 'very responsive' setting allows for. When the camera measures the second time, there is no (too little) focus change, so the camera does something else (stop focussing/ move back to previous focus?) instead of keep on moving the focus.

I think unravelling this new AF system is going to be a great job for forums like this. I wish Panasonic would explain to us how the AF algorithm works in more detail. The quirks Peter Gregg explains, like 60p, pre focussing (grid and white + sign on the main subject to tell the camera what the main and preferred subject is) and then pressing record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Borbarad Both of these videos are using the 60p mode and the second one even explicitly says you have to use 60p for improved autofocus performance. That mean you can't shoot 24p like most people want and it's not possible to record in 10bit. I don't see these videos as good news. Also what good are so damn many autofocus settings and options if most are subpar? 

 

On the other hand a lot of people love the A7s II and that definitely has really bad autofocus, cinema cameras typically have none at all, so who really cares. We made it work before, it's just that the latest Canon and Sony cameras spark desires.

Wish there was another fast (f/1.2-1.4) option in the 17-20mm range for m43 than the Voigtländer. Also wondering if image quality is better with the Voigtländer 17.5mm or with the SpeedBooster XL + Canon/Nikkor 28mm f/1.8 . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jonpais said:

Hate to open up old wounds, but wasn't it you who started the thread GH5 Noise Reduction @high ISOs simply sucks... ?

Yes, and I'd have opened it again. I still post there as much as when pops up new stuff worthy to be posted, as it is possible to check in my most recent posting in the same thread ; )

Merit of those samples (#1).

As written then, still samples but yet... The way they apply NR -- deteriorating the natural grain high ISOs obviously introduce (only because Sony is there with their superior full frame technology as far as low light capabilities concerns), is outrageous IMO.

I stand it. Despite the Tony Northrup findings now (actually, I was going to post that same link in the same notorious thread when Hanriverprod posted it here in the meantime) and I see now someone else has done it on my behalf.

They need to let the operator decide to apply or not whatever setting(s) he/she feels like, instead. Denoising doesn't escape to the rule. Leave it to post is not anything bad either. Automatic modes in photography can variably bring to low quality results. And imponderability at such level can happen to be dangerous. Pity that people want the magical button instead by default.

But, we're now discussing AF performance which has made a lot of people to have canceled their GH5 purchase. Based on what? Incomplete/defective method on testing? Misinformation? Lack of knowing the craft? That's the whole point.

So, in a line: both points match in coherence.

I am able to adopt brand loyalty but I am brand agnostic. My loyalty to accuracy and fairness is much higher ;-)

And as you see, I am not alone on this one (I doubt they had read this thread and my protest here or my message to Max Yuryev there but they've surely seen his tests):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyTggg5NcIk

AF_III.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Borbarad said:

So much about awful the GH5 AF.........

 

 

Well, its seems their is a nice learning curve in howto.... and then the GH5 does AF

B

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Yes, and I'd have opened it again. I still post there as much as when pops up new stuff worthy to be posted, as it is possible to check in my most recent posting in the same thread ; )

Merit of those samples (#1).

As written then, still samples but yet... The way they apply NR -- deteriorating the natural grain high ISOs obviously introduce (only because Sony is there with their superior full frame technology as far as low light capabilities concerns), is outrageous IMO.

I stand it. Despite the Tony Northrup findings now (actually, I was going to post that same link in the same notorious thread when Hanriverprod posted it here in the meantime) and I see now someone else has done it on my behalf.

They need to let the operator decide to apply or not whatever setting(s) he/she feels like, instead. Denoising doesn't escape to the rule. Leave it to post is not anything bad either. Automatic modes in photography can variably bring to low quality results. And imponderability at such level can happen to be dangerous. Pity that people want the magical button instead by default.

But, we're now discussing AF performance which has made a lot of people to have canceled their GH5 purchase. Based on what? Incomplete/defective method on testing? Misinformation? Lack of knowing the craft? That's the whole point.

So, in a line: both points match in coherence.

I am able to adopt brand loyalty but I am brand agnostic. My loyalty to accuracy and fairness is much higher ;-)

And as you see, I am not alone on this one here and now (I doubt they had read this thread and my protest here or my message to Max Yuryev there but they've surely seen his tests):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyTggg5NcIk

AF_III.png

You're missing the point. You see one comparison over at imaging resource, an unreliable site to begin with, they only publish sugar-coated reviews, then you condemn the camera without even holding one in your hands. You began a new thread saying the NR sucks, but many other reviews have found otherwise. Sounds a bit, well... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ken Ross said:

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Phil A said:

@Borbarad Both of these videos are using the 60p mode and the second one even explicitly says you have to use 60p for improved autofocus performance. That mean you can't shoot 24p like most people want and it's not possible to record in 10bit. I don't see these videos as good news. Also what good are so damn many autofocus settings and options if most are subpar? 

 

On the other hand a lot of people love the A7s II and that definitely has really bad autofocus, cinema cameras typically have none at all, so who really cares. We made it work before, it's just that the latest Canon and Sony cameras spark desires.

Wish there was another fast (f/1.2-1.4) option in the 17-20mm range for m43 than the Voigtländer. Also wondering if image quality is better with the Voigtländer 17.5mm or with the SpeedBooster XL + Canon/Nikkor 28mm f/1.8 . 

Well I think if you want to optimize autofocus, then shoot in 60P...that's what studio cameras do....and if you want to shoot sports or run & gun news footage...use it...but 24p was intended as a frame rate to mirror motion blur of S35 or 16 or 70 cinema film cameras, in which case you would pull focus manually like it's always been done, or get thrown of the set after your first couple of hours of your first day's shoot...anyway, there are a lot of people (trolls)? focussing (pun intended) more on autofocus than the image in the camera itself!...kind of like Trump going on about Obama wiretapping him, instead of what happened with Russia and the US election...LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ken Ross said:

If you watched his video straight through, he conducted tests that were virtually identical to the one 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.

What are you talking about? There is no car in his video, he his filming his face moving forward and away from the camera, so this has nothing to do with your video of the car. Again, I am talking about this video from 12:50. No car, just filming his face. And we can see the AF is awful. Since then he posted a comparison of his face tracking with the A6500 and as you can see it does a 10000000 times better job. 

Now the fact that you say focus tracking does not work, you must have never used a Canon DPAF enabled camera, or the A6500, or do not know how to use them properly. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ken Ross said:

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.

Yes Ken...I tend to agree....and the weird thing is that a couple of negative GH5 threads have already been opened by the AF crowd...but as they don't get enough traffic I guess, they've now spilled over into the thread that was intended for people who actually want this camera...are excited to learn about and discuss it...perhaps time for a separate"only people who are excited about the GH5 and DON'T CARE about AF" thread....where those who've waited patiently since  2014! (me) can enjoy discussing and sharing in things re this camera instead of defending yet another level of outstanding features in the newest GH release.

 

PS: Things must be way too quiet in the canon or sony threads...all those owners seem to be over here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ken Ross said:

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.

I tried it your way (one area) and the AF is fast as. So that's it guys, use ONE AREA AF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...