Jump to content

Panasonic GH5S 4K / 240fps low light monster


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, noone said:

I like both Pana and Sony.

I agree this is a wonderful camera.

I disagree it is better than an A7s in low light from what I have seen posted and from early reviews.    That it is getting mentioned with the A7s or low light is prizes enough given the small sensor.  

For video if you shoot up to 6400 often, get this, if you  shoot 12800 often, maybe get this but above that, get a recent FF camera or A7sii

For stills, I will stick with the A7s and use whatever ISO I want and whatever F stop I want.    Including high isos at fast apertures even with infinite DOF.  I would like one of these to replace my GX7 though.

Hey I am a big to the original A7s fan. It has a grungy look to it and it is kind to women's faces! But I would argue this GH5s keeps up with the A7s mk II until 12,800. Above that no. But unless people shoot in bars like you do that is not a realistic need for the majority of people.

And I can stick a speed booster on the GH5s and get a fast lens and overcome another stop maybe even 1 1/2 stop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 655
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

the extra $500 is the "you know you fuckin want it" tax.

Just saw the asking price. m4/3 isn't what it used to be.

Not saying DPAF specifically, but a hybrid system with PADF like what Fuji, Sony, Olympus, and Nikon1 use - you know the rest of the camera industry. I've seen people say similar things to "the

Posted Images

10 hours ago, Zak Forsman said:

I agree. but it doesn't add up to 14. say you can see 12 steps on a xyla chart, but the bottom 4 are so noisy they are unusable. then another camera sees the same 12 stops on a xyla chart but only the bottom 2 are too noisy to use. that's the difference we're talking about. the range is still 12 stops in both scenarios.

This is why there can be such a big disagreement between people as to how many stops a camera has!

One person might disagree with another as to at which you can see the last stop or not. 
Other people might count usable (which opens its own kettle of fish!) stops, while another just counts all stops.
That doesn't even count the mistakes people might make... such as not shooting at base ISO for their test. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Thpriest said:

Am I right in saying that the IS in Canon lenses will work with a speedbooster?

Yes it will. 

7 minutes ago, jonpais said:

What was the butt-ugliest video camera ever made?

 
Pick any of the consumer camcorders with SD quality. 

Or heck, one of those VHS tapes camcorders!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Old Pentax cameras where beautiful also I thought. Nikon F was weird looking, The F2 Nikon was a thing of beauty.

Hell I didn't see the Video camera thingy. Hmm LoL. I would have to think hard on that. A Sony FS700 was no beauty queen. Especially  with that butt ugly tube thing for the LCD Yikes!!! Not counting the uglier video output from it!

I always thought a Sony ENG Camera with a B4 lens hanging of of it was a real thing of beauty. Man I loved working with them. Sort of a extension of your Johnson LoL. Manly as hell, I better stop I can see that. I can tell you you Had to be manly to carry the older ones. Some with dual batteries were over 25 pounds. All that for 480p LoL.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mercer said:

So, are we really discussing lowlight and wide depth of field to try and argue that the GH5s is as good as FF... especially the a7s?

When it comes to lowlight, then yes the GH5S is better in lowlight than the a7Smk2

Especially in a practical sense as MFT sensor allows you to use faster lenses than would have been practical on the a7S. It really is pretty simple when you think about it & try it out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

When it comes to lowlight, then yes the GH5S is better in lowlight than the a7Smk2

Especially in a practical sense as MFT sensor allows you to use faster lenses than would have been practical on the a7S. It really is pretty simple when you think about it & try it out. 

This camera is a game changer that is for sure. I am really surprised Sony let Panny use this sensor! But I guess they have let Nikon use their FF ones ahead of a Sony release.

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

It seems to me from the various tests that some are saying the GH5s is the new king and others are saying it is very good for M43.    Seems to me physics says it will be more likely very good for M43 (and as good as any APSC and some FF).       It DOES look nice at 25600 in some tests but not sure I would say it is better than an A7s yet.


There is no APS-C stills cameras that do better at lowlight than the GH5S. None.

And in my views and others, the a7S loses to the GH5S at high ISO ranges you'd use. 

 

7 hours ago, noone said:

The A7s was dethroned as low light king by a couple of medium format cameras recently.


Not for video that I know of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IronFilm said:

When it comes to lowlight, then yes the GH5S is better in lowlight than the a7Smk2

Especially in a practical sense as MFT sensor allows you to use faster lenses than would have been practical on the a7S. It really is pretty simple when you think about it & try it out. 

Except it isn’t, no matter how you justify it, FF has a two stop advantage over Micro 4/3. So in sLog on the a7s, native ISO is 3200 on the GH5s native ISO is 2500... with the 2 stop advantage of FF, that puts the GH5s at an equivalent ISO of 10,000... right out the gate. Plus any fast lens is also negated by the 2 stop advantage. Is there something I’m missing here, because I’m not following you?

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

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. 

Exactly. And that is the original GH5 which comes out ahead of the a7Smk2

14 minutes ago, mercer said:

Except it isn’t, no matter how you justify it, FF has a two stop advantage over Micro 4/3.
<snip>
Is there something I’m missing here, because I’m not following you?

Yes, twice as much light falls on a FF sensor than a 4/3"
And people repeat this over and over as if somehow this is an automatic trump card which wins the argument. 
When this is very clearly false!!!

Even a super simple test of this statement shows how outrageously false it is. 
Compare say a 5Dmk2 video vs a GH5 (the original! Forget about the GH5S for now).

Clearly clearly the GH5 is doing better in lowlight than the 5Dmk2. You'd have to be blind to say otherwise. 

So hopefully that makes it super clear it is not just about the amount of light which falls on the sense. As rather arguably what is more important is how the light is used by the sensor!

It might almost be best to forget about sensor size (as it is the sensor engineers who need to worry more about that than us), and just focus on the resulting image instead! :-)

 

 

6 hours ago, ryne275 said:

i don't understand...ya'll want a cine cam...but if that's REALLY what you want there are better options out there...hell, you can find a used red one mx for about the same price...3k 60fps, 4k raw, 120 in 2k...

gh5s might have more bells & whistles but the red one is a cine cam and the other is a prosumer cam...plus the red won't give you that icky digital video look

 


I basically almost NEVER give a downvote. But was forced to join @jonpais here and do the same! 

As SERIOUSLY? Have you even shot with a RED ONE any time in the last couple of years or so? I have, on quite a few shoots (usually sound department, but sometimes as DoP too). Never by my "choice" though! ha

Under the right conditions the R1 can be nice (but so can almost any camera....), but the lists of cons for the R1 is so extensive! That for 97% of users here the R1 would be a bad choice indeed. 

 

Heck, even I'd rather shoot with a BMPC4K + URSA Mini 4K combo than shoot with one RED ONE MX. (which the two cameras together secondhand would cost similar, or less, as what a RED ONE does)

And the 4K sensor BMD used in them was the worst BMD ever put out!



 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looking through every impressions riew I can find again and they pretty much all say how the camera is great up to either 6400 or 12800.      They are not talking about it as better than an A7s for low light.    

Some add in the at same DOF argument but again, that is a lot less often than many would use.   DPRs uses both and most are at the same ISO yet seem to not have DOF issues and the same DOF shots are all very close in.

For stills of course the A7s will still have a DR advantage  at low ISO and can shoot at a lower ISO too as well as having a DR advantage at higher ISOs.'

It is not the low light  ability that makes this the video camera to get, it is other video specs like 8bit 420 VS 10 bit 422 but the low light being very good is what helps sell it.:

Choices have never been better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mercer said:

Are we really discussing wide depth of field to argue that the GH5s is as good in lowlight as FF, especially the a7s?

 

I feel you are totally missing here when DoF is brought up. Which is as the DoP, you (together with the director) decide on a certain DoF you want to shoot a scene at. 

 

Do you for instance only want the tip of the actress' nose to be in focus or do you want her whole face to be sharp? Do you want the person she is sitting next (imagine you are shooting down the bar, not straight on) to to be totally blown out of focus and not clear (you might), or do you want her to be out focus but still kinda clear who the person is, or do you want them *both* to be sharply in focus? 

 

What you pick depends on the scene and story you're trying to tell, what is appropriate to match with it. 

 

Then whatever DoF you decide upon after that (be it a few inches, or a few feet) you then translate that to the right F stop (well... T stop, if you want to be consistent across lens changes) to shoot on your lens. And if you're using an a7Smk2 instead of a GH5S, that F stop is forced to be a lot higher! Which thus starts you off at a disadvantage in a low light scene vs a GH5S. 

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

Just looking through every impressions riew I can find again and they pretty much all say how the camera is great up to either 6400 or 12800.      They are not talking about it as better than an A7s for low light.    

Some add in the at same DOF argument but again, that is a lot less often than many would use.   DPRs uses both and most are at the same ISO yet seem to not have DOF issues and the same DOF shots are all very close in.

For stills of course the A7s will still have a DR advantage  at low ISO and can shoot at a lower ISO too as well as having a DR advantage at higher ISOs.'

It is not the low light  ability that makes this the video camera to get, it is other video specs like 8bit 420 VS 10 bit 422 but the low light being very good is what helps sell it.:

Choices have never been better.

But it is Better than a A7s is in low light that the Vast Majority of people will ever use I say up to 25,000 ISO.  Even if you have a A7s the taking pictures at ISO 102,000 gets old quick. It is not natural looking. That is more for just showing on reviews. And like IronFilm says above, M4/3 has the DoF advantage to boot. It is rare to use razor thin DoF in Video.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought we were talking a7s, why bring an almost 10 year old camera into the discussion? Of course, sensor technology and processing will be better 10 years later. Listen, I think what Panasonic has done with the GH5s is amazing. It looks really good in lowlight but let’s not get hyperbolic here. What the a7s can do with a single candle is near miraculous.

@IronFilm

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I would rather not use 102400 but will when I have too.     EG a night time projection of a large building with a lagoon close behind so need a shift lens.

 

Just walking around at night and I can easily be there.

Geez I wish this camera WAS the best ever at ISO 1 million but isnt.      To me at ISO 25600 this is better than most but not the best (from the impression reviews I have seenSO FAR).

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...