"How Good Is The GH5?"

[Noa Put]

I see in another thread that you are about to spend 25K on a camera and needed accessories and that's without lenses, surely Steve's 6K for a production ready set must sound like peanuts then? He didn't mention the camerabody but you currently can get a gh4 for a bit above 1K which still leaves plenty to include all lenses you need. You mention "$2k worth of new batteries" for the c300II, the battery cost alone would buy you a GH5 you know and a extra battery is 55 dollar :)

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

Given the views you've expressed about the GH4, I shouldn't be that surprised to see you posting this article here to stir the pot a little. However the article is flawed as others have mentioned, but interesting. I shall make my own conclusions when my GH5 arrives at the end of the month.



Pete, you are entirely missing the point and seem to have taken some of the over-reactions in a GH5 thread to heart. Fan boy hype indeed. What I welcome on the GH5 is 60p 4K, dual card slot, 5 axis IS on a more Professional camera and better ISO performance and some improvements in auto focus. Videos I have seen have suggested I shall be rewarded with this.

I admit to also hoping for better vLog application with 10 bit 4:2:2; which I have yet to see any definite conclusions on and to be honest may only be viable once the Easter and Summer updates happen, of which no such videos exist to demonstrate. This article is in my mind too early. All it shows is that 10 bit recorded at a rather low bitrate of 150mbps could have issues. Does this surprise you?? Probably why further updates with larger bitrates are still to come.

How am I missing the point? The review was about the image quality and I confined my comments to that. What would be the point of holding opinions based on speculations that they will fix issues in the future?

Months back when they released the specs one of the first comments I made was how are they fitting all the extra color data into that bit rate? Bitrate, resolution, color depth, etc don't live on their own. If you added 422 to an inexpensive consumer camera it wouldn't become a professional camera it would be a consumer camera that shoots 422. In this instance the color depth might not be what it seems.

[Dan Brockett]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

I see in another thread that you are about to spend 25K on a camera and needed accessories and that's without lenses, surely Steve's 6K for a production ready set must sound like peanuts then? He didn't mention the camera body but you currently can get a gh4 for a bit above 1K which still leaves plenty to include all lenses you need. You mention "$2k worth of new batteries" for the c300II, the battery cost alone would buy you a GH5 you know and a extra battery is 55 dollar :)

Correction, contemplating spending $25k. I would actually much rather NOT spend $25k, that's why I am hoping for a C100 MKIII at NAB closer to $6k to $8k. Even if I had to buy new batteries and CFast cards for that camera, I could use the existing backpack, tripod, head, slider, we use for the C100 so the overall would be less than half the cost of the C300 MKII.

I'm generally of the "don't buy production gear until you have a client/job that will immediately pay for at least half of it" school. And hopefully you have others lined up who will also hire you and rent the gear so it can be paid off quickly. If I was buying a GH5 for my business today, I would still approach the buy the same way, camera, lots of recording media, extra batteries and at least half a dozen lenses, audio adapter, etc. It's a lot less than $25k but you have to realize, I am cheap. If there was a way to service all of our clients with only rentals, and not owning any camera, I would. We did that for quite a while in the F900 era, we rented all of our cameras and camera support gear, all I had was a little TRV900 Mini DV camera. But the hassle, insurance and endless trips, then courier charges to and from the rental houses was a lot of money and we couldn't be flexible and accept a job for the next day, we always had to have a few days to reserve the gear, check it out and pick it up. It's nice to just have the gear ready to go.

I owned the GH4 three years ago, business has improved since then, but I didn't buy it to save money, I bought it for 4K capability, size and weight. After I sold the GH4, I replaced it with a C100 MKI, which obviously was significantly more money when it was a current model. Yes, not happy about the inflated battery and media costs for the C300 MKII. $500.00 ea. for stock large size Canon batteries hurts when the last generation cost less than half of that. But it is what it is. If you want that camera that's what the accessories cost. Unless we land a client this year who will require 4K origination and on a regular, ongoing basis, probably will not spend the $25k. Might spend $10k to get something 4K capable though, but waiting to see what comes of NAB.

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Pete Cofrancesco

How am I missing the point? The review was about the image quality and I confined my comments to that. What would be the point of holding opinions based on speculations that they will fix issues in the future?

You're not missing the point of the review, you're missing the point on the fact that for many of us, this camera isn't about the over-hyped reactions generated on forums such as this, but the fact the camera is simply an upgrade to a system we have already invested in. Many, including yourself, talk about the GH5 specs as if the 10 bit 4:2:2 is its only feature of note and which the cameras status hangs on. In fact early buzz was more on 4K at 60p. There are many who are excited about this camera and plan to buy one who are not even planning to use 10 bit 4:2:2. I personally haven't crowned this camera based on specs. I am interested in it because it takes a camera I already own and adds some useful and much needed features.

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

But Steve in the post up above you says he has "£6000 worth of micro 4/3 lenses plus plenty of extra batteries, media and cases."?

Yes but this is something I have spent many years investing in. I certainly didn't start out with that. I began with a couple of lenses, a 12-35 zoom, adding a 25mm prime, then a 45mm and so on.

When the GH4 came out, I too pre-ordered it. I didn't pre-order it because it did 4K, I wasn't interested in it and in fact it took several months after owning it before I even really dabbled in it. I pre-ordered it because it was a natural upgrade to a system I had already invested in. Results, I was very happy with the camera and you were not. I'd be wary jumping into any other camera system without being fully aware of its strengths and limitations.

It's the same with the GH5. I am pre-ordering it not because of its 10 bit 4:2:2, though I am certainly intrigued to experiment with it, but because of other new features that will be very useful. Forums such as these have generated an almost hysterical over-reaction to the cameras 10 bit internal recording, and seem to expect it to mean an image quality equal to an FS7 or Canon C700, but the World doesn't work like that.

So now we can expect an equally hysterical backlash that a camera costing a fraction of the price, one limited by a smaller sensor size and body isn't going to deliver quality on par with Professional Camera bodies costing 3-4 times as much. I recall issues with the FS5 when it came out concerning log footage; issues later rectified. So this isn't anything new.

Frankly if anyone is buying for 10 bit 4:2:2 alone, they'd be wise to hold off. Those of us buying because we have already invested thousands in the micro 4/3s system will benefit the most from this new camera and be less likely to have expectations beyond the limitations of its sensor.

[Noa Put]

For my particular use 4:2:2 10 bit is of no use, most likely those that do green screen or those shooting in v-log when the camera will be capable to shoot at it's highest bitrates will be looking forward to the possibilities but for most of us it will just look cool that the camera is capable of doing this.

If you shoot weddings and plan to use v-log my only concern would be how it would match my other camera's that don't have this option and I"lm not sure if I want to go through all that hassle of bringing v-log footage back to life in post, fun maybe for a personal project but not for 8 to 10 hours of footage.

[Steve Burkett]

I think if I do use vlog, and actually have started to recently since I have a good LUT to use, is for moments when I am filming with a single camera, outside say during the confetti throwing in high contrast situations. I also hoped 10 bit would help with shots where banding can occur when you grade, such as dresses against a large blank wall or lots of sky. However footage I've seen suggests at least until the 400mbps upgrade, this may not be feasible. Which is fine, I've lived with it so far. I would be reluctant to use vlog for multi camera moments. Grading a whole Wedding for me would be overkill. I don't charge enough to do that.

I do have another project this year where I'd have liked to have shot in vlog and 10 bit, but I may have to think about this. Run my own tests and see if it's worth it. It's not essential for it, just desirable.

I have read some observations that the GH4 when outputting to 10 bit via an external recorder showed little gain or improvement over 8 bit. Not sure if this is so as I've never owned an external recorder. If true, though, would 10 bit internal recording behave any differently. Perhaps you need a larger camera to get the full benefit from 10 bit 4:2:2.

Still not long to release, so there'll be a lot more tests, reviews and comments to pass judgement on.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

You're not missing the point of the review, you're missing the point on the fact that for many of us, this camera isn't about the over-hyped reactions generated on forums such as this, but the fact the camera is simply an upgrade to a system we have already invested in. Many, including yourself, talk about the GH5 specs as if the 10 bit 4:2:2 is its only feature of note and which the cameras status hangs on. In fact early buzz was more on 4K at 60p. There are many who are excited about this camera and plan to buy one who are not even planning to use 10 bit 4:2:2. I personally haven't crowned this camera based on specs. I am interested in it because it takes a camera I already own and adds some useful and much needed features.

In fairness I don't keep track of individuals members views, requirements, and their intended use of equipment. It doesn't sound like we are very far apart.

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Pete Cofrancesco

In fairness I don't keep track of individuals members views, requirements, and their intended use of equipment. It doesn't sound like we are very far apart.

Quite agree. Check my posts and you'll see me pouring some scorn over those posts that have labelled the GH5 as a Sony and Canon killer. It is nothing of the sort. There was always going to be the first low budget camera that would offer 60p 4K and 10 bit internal. But the first is rarely always the best and never always the last.

[Al Bergstein]

I bought an Atomos and have used it with a GH4 and a 5Dmkiii. I did not see enough difference to warrant the use of it to achieve higher quality. For a long running situation, like theatrical, it was great to be able to run continuously on a 500GB hard drive, then take the ProRes directly into Pr for editing. That I liked. And it did seem *a bit* better quality than the internal recordings on both cameras. It also seemed to do a slightly better job matching my C100 (from the output of the 5D).

These days, I use it mainly as a monitor for clients to watch as I'm shooting. The HDMI port is too flakey for professional use. Wiggle it and your image can go away. I'm a huge believer in SDI for all cameras I buy. I'll end up with an BM HDMI>SDI converter for some of my GH5 work, when it arrives.

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

I have read some observations that the GH4 when outputting to 10 bit via an external recorder showed little gain or improvement over 8 bit. Not sure if this is so as I've never owned an external recorder. If true, though, would 10 bit internal recording behave any differently. Perhaps you need a larger camera to get the full benefit from 10 bit 4:2:2.

[Ronald Jackson]

I have a "Lockport" micro HDMI to HDMI protector/convertor on my GH4. It does the trick. GH5 full HDMI of course so perhaps no need for a protector. We'll see. (I do though prefer SDI but more HDMI in the consumer/prosumer market I suppose.)

Ron

[Mark Rosenzweig]

I too found the micro-HDMI port on the GH4 led to drop outs when recording to my Atomos Shogun Inferno (not the full HDMI port on the Atomos). The GH5 has a full HDMI port and comes with a lock for that port. So does the Sony A7s ii come with a lock.

[Dan Brockett]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

When the GH4 came out, I too pre-ordered it. I didn't pre-order it because it did 4K, I wasn't interested in it and in fact it took several months after owning it before I even really dabbled in it. I pre-ordered it because it was a natural upgrade to a system I had already invested in. Results, I was very happy with the camera and you were not. I'd be wary jumping into any other camera system without being fully aware of its strengths and limitations.

On this we definitely agree. It's the only time I ever bought a camera without trying one before buying and it was a frustrating experience. I will never do that again, too much at risk, too much hassle to go whole hog on a system only to discover it doesn't meet your and your clients expectations.

[Noa Put]

I see in another thread a few of your disappointments with the gh4 was that it had bad audio, that's like buying a dedicated videocamera and complaining it can't take any decent pictures, you can't expect high quality in-camera audio from a photocamera with videofunctionality.
Or you disliked the m4/3 dof and fov, that's because it has a smaller sensor and it's a well known fact, this again is like buying a full frame camera and complaining you hate the too narrow dof at f1.4. You can change the fov you know by using a speedbooster.
Or that you found that the lenses seemed small and cheap, here you are describing one of the m4/3 main benefits, the lenses can be made much smaller and lighter and panasonic and olympus do have some high quality glass, furthermore you can attach about any imaginable lens from almost any brand onto a m4/3 camera with the right adapter.

If you would have done your homework to find out the basics about a camera system and not have pressed that buy button based over some hype about a camera you could have saved yourself from disappointment.

Back to the GH5, some of it's improvements over the GH4 are substantial, you can have better audio quality now using the DMW-XLR1, you can shoot handheld with any non stabilized prime lens and it has codecs found back on camera's costing a lot more. Other then that the camera improves on autofocus from some comparison tests I have seen so far, they have improved the color science (something I see on my gx80 and g80) and they have improved the lowlight (also from some tests I have seen) and it will record without any limit (something panasonic already made possible for us Europeans with the gh4r and they are the only company so far that I know of that has made that change)

So to answer your question about a camera you have no interest in ever buying again, to me it's improvements are bigger then the GH3 to GH4 update was. How good it is? It will surpass my expectations and that of my clients, I"m currently happy with my gx80 and g80, even with their disadvantages and they get the job done, the GH5 will eliminate about any frustration that still is left and it will even provide features I probably never will use, like the high bitrate 10bit codecs.

This doesn't mean it's a perfect camera for video, like with any dslr on the market today, there are limitations, often intentional to protect higher end models or to just maintain a difference between dedicated video- and photocamera's, camera's like the c100, fs5 or even my never talked about gy ls300, will always have better videofunctionality because they are designed with video only in mind.

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

On this we definitely agree. It's the only time I ever bought a camera without trying one before buying and it was a frustrating experience. I will never do that again, too much at risk, too much hassle to go whole hog on a system only to discover it doesn't meet your and your clients expectations.

It's a matter of taste. I find the poor HD detail of the Canon 80d to be totally unacceptable, but others like yourself will have different views. I saw a recent article on the BBC News that shows they were using the GH4 to conduct discreet Interviews in China. The GH4 has been used on Top Gear to name just 1 of the TV Productions that have found a good use for the camera. In fact I've seen and heard of more cases of the GH4 being used in Professional TV Productions than say the 80d or even the C100 (where the C300 is preferred for obvious reasons).

So whilst the GH4 and GH5 are not cameras you would personally use or rate highly, they do have their fans and I expect the GH5 to be similarly popular amongst many Professionals looking for a small light weight camera with great features.

Yes colour won't be as good out of the box as say Canon, low light won't top fullframe and 10 bit 4:2:2 won't look as good as say the Sony FS7 or Canon C700. However for those willing to accept some compromises, the camera offers a great deal to the Video Professionals. Just not to you obviously. :)