The content in this website is accurate at the time of publication but may be subject to change without notice. Please note therefore that these documents may not always contain the most up-to-date information. Follow us. Article Blog Posts Feature Story. Video List. Media Contacts. Panasonic study. The camera may stop recording to protect the camera if the temperature exceeds the certified operating temperature. Our website uses cookies and similar tools to improve its performance and enhance your user experience and by continuing to use this website without changing your settings, you consent to their use.
In an interview with DP Review , Panasonic confirmed that it is working on different tiers of L-mount systems to compliment its high end not to mention high price S1 series. A mid-range and entry level version of the Panasonic S1 is an intriguing proposition — particularly if the physical size of the cameras can be reduced. However, don't expect an APS-C sensor to be the answer to either of these points….
In the same conversation, Panasonic confirmed that it will be sticking to full-frame and Micro Four thirds cameras — it will not enter the potentially overlap-casing APS-C arena, which might lead to cannibalization of one of both lines.
Much as it must be irritating to be gazumped by Canon, Sony and Sharp, Panasonic will be waiting a bit longer to bring 8K to the masses. All that being said I would buy another one if the viewfinder is significantly better and I can use my existing stack of oem batteries; if I have to use a new battery I would not consider buying it, even if the viewfinder is amazing and the USB is upgraded. GH series has to have smaller sensor, because of higher bitrate and quality.
Panasonic AF hopefully improved not given though , otherwise amazing camera. Wanted to buy one, bought and then sold Panasonic GX85 instead for one Tokyo job done. Panasonic still does get good images but extremely difficult to figure out Panasonic colors and mix in acceptable ways with other brands' camera footage I had to mix Nikon and Panasonic footage and never got good results.
I too had many problems with Panasonic color. I never have understood why it's so hard to get Panny colors right. But it's a consistent problem. Surely someone must know what the issue is? It the GH series is a m43 camera series, it has neither a "larger" sensor or a "smaller" sensor, only THE sensor size which the m43 system is built around!!! One thing is clear, if you look at content shot on the GH5 the quality is really mixed.
From mediocre to outstanding. Of course this is not the camera, but the skill of the videographer and the camera. Too bad there aren't more competitors in that format GH5S does well in low light not as good as FF obviously. I have a G7 which is trash in many low light situations but is amazing if you have studio lights. Without meaning any disrespect to any one I think this sensor debate is over egged. However this is more true in theory than in practice. There are loads of users who have not even come close to getting the best out of the gear they have.
There some who really know how to make their gear work. George, I think yes and no. Can I tell the difference between the two even at base ISO? There is a place for m Those that need a smaller, lighter kit with acceptable image quality in photo and video.
Those wanting the S series cams desire premium image quality in photo and video, and is fine with the compromise in cost and weight. Full respect to your shooting experience and successive GH cameras. I sometimes wonder if we view things differently as creators and as content viewers? For example I have done blind viewing guess the camera for stills and video. A caveat is the content was not shot in very low light etc. I remember when I bought my 5D mkIV. The truth is it was better than the 7D but when you looked at the actual content or at the video , good content stands and those differences reduce or even disappear.
Totally disagreed with you that a larger sensor is better in low light only theory. It is not only in theory but in practice. Read again, I did say a larger sensor is better twice. My point is more that the difference shows in more difficult lighting etc , and of course that viewers rarely if ever notice a difference if the content is good. See, this is the thing. You are mixing the subjective with the objective. The subjective being the viewer, and the objective being is it as good as full frame.
Take the content out of the comparison, and does the image stand against an identical image. Looking at your methodology, you can have excellent video, but it can be ruined by horrible audio.
Does this make the video any less good than if the film was silent? But everyone hates crappy audio, but that's besides the point. Stick to the video aspects, and not some holistic approach, and m43 falls short. Big Time. Or shot on a smartphone if we follow that logic. All modern camera systems are capable of amazing video and stills quality in the right conditions and many old ones are too.
Well said George !!! In my experience it is meaningless to judge a sensor size on it's own. What lenses you put on and how you use the system is key.
For example, When I bought my G80 and f2. Yes dunamic range was worse, but that's why we have different tools for different jobs. However if you ignore the content for a moment, pixel peep then then there will be evident differences that become more pronounced the harder you push the camera with poor or difficult light. Little or nothing is said about how to work with or around technical limitations or how to get the most out of the gear you have. The question always focusses on the gear, not the end user.
I can't help but notice that when comparing the studio scenes between a recent M43 camera and a recent FF camera and setting the iso of the FF two stops higher than the M43 i. This means that the difference is not so much a result of the sensor but of the lens. Some people use FF lenses with speedboosters on their M43 cameras and get results that are remarkably similar to FF images. It is just that if you don't want to use adapters, FF offers more faster bigger, heavier, expensive glass while M43 offers slower smaller lighter, cheaper glass.
But even that could change if manufacturers and the market wanted to. Even the differences in dynamic range between say a G9 and an S5 isn't that much.
If you expose well, both will give natural looking results. No you can't. Anyone that says they can tell the difference between formats in a blind test is lying. To you or worse, to themselves. That being said, if you display a number of prints or images taken in more general shooting situations not extreme low light etc few people can reliably see the difference between different cameras and formats.
If you are a person that enjoys visual imagery you are drawn to the content , not the file attributes. A good image has more to say than the pixel quality it is comprised of.
If the point of interest is just pixels, then its a very dull image. The ISO has to be increased two stops as well to even things out, killing most of the advantage that full frame has in theory. There are situations when full frame is superior, but for my work, all the good sides of MFT in general, and the GH cameras in particular, have been winning so far.
Still lying to yourselves. If I use an 85mm 1. Unless you do a side by side which is useless in the real world you wont be able to tell. Someone did this for months on a m43s forum, posted a mix of ff and m43s photos and nobody could say which was which. He even went so far as post a couple of iso photos and not even then, no one guessed all of them. If you create equivalence with faster lenses they end up being expensive and large which negates most of the advantages of having an M43 system in the first place.
As a video shooter you also need very dense ND filtering which again is expensive esp if you want minimal image quality loss. The only drawback is all the competing mounts tie you in to a brand unlike the more universal M43 system. When Olympus pushed the size advantage in media campaigns a few years hence DSLRs were the dominant camera.
As soon as you start talking the premium line up then there is little in it weight wise. For me at least , a camera system is much more than the sum of its sensor.
Still a great tool that get the job done nicely? Still very affordable? Still part of a giant ecosystem? Since when??? The fact that they all had 16 MP sensors doesn't necessarily mean that they had the same 16 MP sensor. The GH4 can shoot Cinema 4K x , bit mbps. The GH3 sensor was also a big improvement over the one in the GH2. And DPR describes it as "completely new".
Does the current model have major shortcomings? Is it overdue for a refresh? A 3- or 4-year product cycle is pretty normal for a high end model. Basically, everyone else got better. It's still doing okay by being cheaper and smaller, but it's now clearly in the "pay less, get less" category.
There's just so many other cameras I'd pick for vlogging and light video work, that could also be small and light with the right lens. Autofocus capabilities like Sony and Canon for tracking moving subjects, either mounted on a gimbal or handheld. Dynamic range in stills to at least 14 stops.
The lack of these features is moving me to switch to Sony, who have all of these things. If Panasonic gives these things to the GH line, I will stay. Has any camera company released an incremented series of model names e.
GH5 Mark II , and then continued with the original increment e. Would it kill Panasonic to give us an idea of their honest intentions? I wish I believed they would do that on the 25th. They're doing damage control at this point. Remember Olympus had no intention of selling its camera division until the last day.
Corporations can "announce" any intention they want. Believe it when you see it. Panasonic is known to have done weird stuff with model names before. They also introduced a GX8, which was a new model sitting above the GX7 level in the lineup. It will depend how much info they release. If it's just garbage "new GH6 coming some time" with no specific specs then I would agree.
I think that's a rather naive and simplistic view of corporate decision-making and product development. And even if they did, that camera wouldn't hit the market until at the earliest.
The development time for a high end camera is at least years. Samuel, they aren't worried about their phoney-baloney jobs. They're worried about YOU!
0コメント