Jump to content

Panasonic GH5 - all is revealed!


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, hoodlum said:

Anamorphic squeeze update.

http://www.43rumors.com/panasonic-is-working-on-a-de-squeeze-for-the-anamorphic-modes-in-the-gh5-to-be-released-this-summer/

“…We put pressure to our devs to put a proper de-squeeze for the anamorphic modes in the GH5 (let’s hope for it in the summer firmware update that’ll bring 6K anamorphic)…”

No need for expensive external monitors for de squeeze option if it is true!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

"6K/24p Anamorphic Video Mode, while fun, is severely hampered by its 4:3 aspect ratio" UM! That's what an anamorphic mode is - 4:3 Someone let our dear friends at Cinema5D know.

Here are some 1080 JPEGS from a music video that I shot with the GH5 + SLR Magic anamorphic primes.  

A couple of quick screengrabs from a recent Jazz concert I shot. I must say I was super impressed with the GH5 on this one - not only it recorded for 1h30m straight with no issues but it did so on one

Posted Images

10 hours ago, Hanriverprod said:

They literally put words I didn't say into quotes. What are they teaching you at school these days? Before jumping into conversations, take a moment, just a moment, to try and understand what's going on before injecting your opinion. Just google "quotes". Now I understand how fake news gets spread these days. I'm not going to respond to this anymore, because frankly, I think it's ridiculous. If you are still confused about how to use quotes just pm me. I majored in literature at the University of Michigan and have been writing professionally for over twenty years. I will attempt to explain clearly and succinctly the proper usage of quotes if you need me to, but I think we should stop discussing this here.

In my post I said:
your first comment indeed appeared to imply "yes, it's filmic but it's because the lighting, depth of field etc"

I don't see how one can misinterpret that as a direct quote -- even if I did use the quotation marks incorrectly, I also clearly stated "appeared to imply", denoting the following as my take on your words. I used quotation marks to separate the phrase from the rest of the sentence and somewhat in this sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

BTW, English is my third language and it would appear perfectly normal in my native one to use quotes to summarize, so apologies if I made a mistake here.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, zetty said:

In my post I said:
your first comment indeed appeared to imply "yes, it's filmic but it's because the lighting, depth of field etc"

I don't see how one can misinterpret that as a direct quote -- even if I did use the quotation marks incorrectly, as if I clearly said "appeared to imply", denoting the following as my take on your post. I used quotation marks to separate the phrase from the rest of the sentence and somewhat in this sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

BTW, English is my third language and it would appear perfectly normal in my native one to use quotes to summarize, so apologies if I made a mistake here.

 

Just don't use quotes when someone didn't say it. Is that so difficult to understand? Just write that I am implying whatever you think I am implying instead of saying that I said exactly what you think I am implying when I didn't say it. People will read it without context and think I said those words. There is a huge distinction there. Would you like it if I misattributed quotes to you on the Internet? Also, even though you are going around misquoting people as well, it's not as a grievous example as what Andy was doing since you did use the word imply, but it's still wrong. Just write: You implied that it's filmic because of the lighting, etc...

And the funny thing is, after all this, that wasn't what I was implying. The implication was that even though the image looked nice because of all these techniques and the weather, it still looked videoy, which is fine. It has its own aesthetic.  But let's be honest, the film stock aesthetic is the gold standard we are referencing when we nitpick these cameras even if you don't want to admit it. It has nothing to do with being a snob or some kind of image classism (which is ridiculous), but that we dream to be able to produce images the same quality as well produced movies on these budget cameras. Even shooting weddings, videographers are more and more pushing to get cinema-like images. I now even see some of them are referring to themselves as filmmakers which to me is fine. They are using images to tell a story. That's not to say images that can't yet live to that gold standard should be dismissed because, yes, content is king, but this is a camera forum. I don't want to get a lecture from neophytes about the importance of storytelling and technique when I share an opinion about a new camera. So not only was your use of quotes wrong so was what you thought I implied.

And are you being serious with this scare quotes nonsense? Per wikipedia link you shared, "The term "scare quotes" as it refers to the punctuation marks was coined in 1956 by G. E. M. Anscombe in an essay "Aristotle and the Sea Battle" published in Mind; a Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy."

 Just be respectful about other people's opinions and move on. Don't misquote them. Even so-called journalists these days are pulling this crap, and it's wrong so stop it.

Also, it's a camera. It has flaws. Deal with it. I'm not the one acting like a baby by trying to figure out what it's strength and weaknesses are. People defending it blindly because of the marketing and hype are the ones who need to re-evaluate how much consumerism impacts their value system. In this thread alone, I admitted I was mistaken about some characteristics of the camera, because some of the forum members were kind enough to share examples that were contrary to what I thought. I think that's productive.

Also, I accept your apology. Let's move on.

edit 1: I asked my wife before I read your post how Koreans used quotation marks because I thought maybe some of you were non-English speakers, and she said it was to directly quote someone. She also believes quotation marks didn't appear in Korea until after the Japanese Occupation, but Korean students are still being taught the correct usage of quotation marks. People abuse quotes by using what they said out of context but to just put words that were never said in quotes is just messed up.

edit 2: My wife and I have been having a good laugh about this thread the last few days, and she just said to me, "It's more important to not fight then to be right."

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

Is it helpful to the thread? Can I take it to private message? Does anyone care that I'm offended? All good questions. On the actual topic then, my new battery charger is 2A, not 0.6 A. For the GH5 the stock charger is not sufficient or quick enough.

Have you seen Zed ProMedia's review that I posted this morning? I believe he says to expect around 1-1/2 hours from one battery. Do you think that's accurate?

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

when I was out vlogging  with the G85 yesterday, I lost a few shots because with the camera set to AFS and using tap to focus, even though my large unsightly head filled 3/4 of the screen, the camera kept focusing on the background, so I had to resort to manual focus for the rest of the day. Sure, manual focus is great, but when you're by yourself and you just want the camera to... ?

 

I don't understand... Not possible to get focus using tap to focus?!

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Orangenz said:

Is it helpful to the thread? Can I take it to private message? Does anyone care that I'm offended? All good questions. On the actual topic then, my new battery charger is 2A, not 0.6 A. For the GH5 the stock charger is not sufficient or quick enough.

Sorry....can you clarify....did you buy a second charger because the GH5 charger is too slow, and if so, do you mind sharing a link to what you bought....also do you know per chance whether the stock GH4 & GH5 chargers are identical....I believe the batteries are...

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Fritz Pierre said:

Sorry....can you clarify....did you buy a second charger because the GH5 charger is too slow, and if so, do you mind sharing a link to what you bought....also do you know per chance whether the stock GH4 & GH5 chargers are identical....I believe the batteries are...

I bought Patona charger that takes 2 batteries at the same time. It's USB powered and requires 2.1A input minimum, which I can provide with a dedicated adapter (mine is 2.4A and it seems to charge quickly enough, although I haven't compared the time with Panasonic's original charger directly). Also, I have found out Patona and in particular Dot.Foto batteries to be of better quality than the rest of generic ones -- in fact, they last almost the same time as the original, just somewhat less precise with determining of how much juice there's left. I think both of these brands are available in Europe only.

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

I bought Patona charger that takes 2 batteries at the same time. It's USB powered and requires 2.1A input minimum, which I can provide with a dedicated adapter (mine is 2.4A and it seems to charge quickly enough, although I haven't compared the time with Panasonic's original charger directly). Also, I have found out Patona and in particular Dot.Foto batteries to be of better quality than the rest of generic ones -- in fact, they last almost the same time as the original, just somewhat less precise with determining of how much juice there's left. I think both of these brands are available in Europe only.

Does the camera "see" these batteries when you use them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, shooter said:

Does it work on both auto and manual focus?

Yes, in fact, I always leave the camera set on manual. Sometimes I use tap to focus, sometimes not. It works great with the Panasonic app as well, for example, if you're vlogging from home, you can use the touch screen on your smart phone or tablet. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Yes, in fact, I always leave the camera set on manual. Sometimes I use tap to focus, sometimes not. It works great with the Panasonic app as well, for example, if you're vlogging from home, you can use the touch screen on your smart phone or tablet. 

What's the percentage of success going on the method of trial and error using tap to focus? Any hint?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, shooter said:

What's the percentage of success going on the method of trial and error using tap to focus? Any hint?

Trail and error? I've never done any tests. The other day was the first time it's happened. There was a well-lit contrasty building behind my face and it fooled the camera. But it can happen any time, there are examples online of tap to focus not working perfectly. I can run some tests tomorrow, but this isn't the GH5, it's the G85, so in another thread.

Screen Shot 2017-04-12 at 8.41.00 PM.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Trail and error? I've never done any tests. The other day was the first time it's happened. There was a well-lit contrasty building behind my face and it fooled the camera. But it can happen any time, there are examples online of tap to focus not working perfectly. I can run some tests tomorrow, but this isn't the GH5, it's the G85, so in another thread.

Screen Shot 2017-04-12 at 8.41.00 PM.png

I see. So you tried to focus your face and the camera focused the background? Maybe in autofocus? Did you see if in manual mode the tap to focus behaves the same? 

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

I see. So you tried to focus your face and the camera focused the background? Maybe in autofocus? Did you see if in manual mode the tap to focus behaves the same? 

I had the camera set to manual and tapped on my face. Next time, I'll have to tap the LCD. :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Fritz Pierre said:

Does the camera "see" these batteries when you use them?

Of course it does. What I am saying is that the metering isn't as precise or consistent but then just slightly so. I have had shit batteries like DSTE where the metering goes from 2/3rds to flashing red like in 10 minutes. I have another Patona double charger for GX85 and use a single power adapter from Ravpower to feed both of these as well as AA/18350 battery charger (it has three outputs, each rated at 2.4A). Pretty handy and compact setup.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, shooter said:

:) 

I meant maybe, if in autofocus, the camera had tried to correct and focus the background instead, no?

Not sure. Could be the camera, could be user error, could be my horoscope. It actually might be a good tool, since it's poor technique to shoot in front of a contrasty building anyway, as we saw in a slow motion video uploaded by Hanriverprod recently.

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...