Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Panasonic's GH4 Has Nothing to Fear  (Read 17450 times)
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #60 on: April 29, 2014, 08:26:49 AM »
ReplyReply

These cameras are prosumer video and there is always going to be a glitch.  Either overheating, or lack lower iso, or heavy compression.

But the issue with the Sony is the UK prices equates to $4,100 U.S., probably another 2 to 3 for the 4k recorder so its a 7 grand camera, not that the gh4 is cheap by the time you get to 4k.

I haven't shot either the gh4 or the Sony, though I've had such great use and quality out of the gh3, the gh4 will be one of the few cameras I'l buy as soon as it hits the shelf.

The Sony,I'll give it a few more versions before I open my wallet and by then, there should be some more interesting equipment.

IMO

BC
Is that price official? I've not found a price quote anywhere yet.
Still only the youtube stuff to go on, but so far I think the Sony looks a lot better than the Gh4, especially the low light looks wonderful. I might get one for low light stills.
I might take the plunge and dump my Canon gear for the 7r and 7s, then I remind myself what a total waste it is buying cameras these days, so I might not.
Logged

Kevin.
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2920


« Reply #61 on: April 29, 2014, 10:45:25 AM »
ReplyReply

…what a total waste it is buying cameras these days…

Because?
Logged
Hywel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 159


WWW
« Reply #62 on: April 29, 2014, 03:33:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Because?

Because the tech is changing so quickly that it is hard to recoup the investment before the camera is completely overtaken, maybe?

I look at the footage from my AF100 and 7D and compare it with the footage from more recent cameras and they really don't hold up very well. Hell, the 2.7K from my GoPro looks as good as the AF100 in bright light, and it cost less than 10% of what the AF100 cost me just three years ago. An iPhone shoots comparable footage in decent light. I know, ergonomics, ND, XLR, blah blah but eventually the numbers game becomes overwhelming. (Who is still buying SD equipment?)

We're in the "explosion" phase of video camera development that we went through a decade or so ago with stills, where camera generations came by every 18 months and demolished the generation before: 3.1 megapixels became 6 became 12 became 22 in a few years. We're out of the mad phase for stills cameras now, but just getting into the steepest part of the curve for video.

New video cameras are pushing to 4K and beyond. I'm a great believer in oversampling for image quality, so I definitely like shooting 4K to deliver in 1080p.

A few have in-camera RAW, or separate channel compressed RGB (eg RED, GoPro) or really good latitude (eg Arri, BlackMagic, REd Dragon) or stunning low light performance (Canon C300).

A few have XLRs and ND filters.

NOTHING has good ergonomics yet, apart from maybe Arris which lag behind on resolution. I know resolution isn't everything, but in a few years' time, those 1080p Arris are going to be as redundant as an SD camcorder, because everyone is going to be used to shooting 4K+ oversampling (even for HD delivery - same way no-one shoots with a 3.1 megapixel sensor stills camera any more, even for the web).

So... is it actually worth buying a video camera at the moment?

Obviously, if you don't have one and you need one, yes.

But I'm not sure it is worth paying big bucks for anything right now. I'd spend on glass and grip and buy a cheap-ass camera, same as I told people to do in the mad phase of stills camera tech explosion.

About the only thing that's got some future proofing is RED, and that's only because they were a bit ahead of the tech curve so it'll be a bit longer until my Scarlet is totally left behind and outshot by a sub-£1000 camera. Arri do too because they did a really sweet job on a HD camera which was point and shoot for film guys, and that'll keep their cameras in service for a long while. Who doesn't love the Alexa look, after all? But Arri will have 4K cameras soon and the original Alexas are going to look old.

If you really have a need for top-flight tech, I'd consider hiring unless you shoot several days a week and you're sure you can pay off tens of thousands of pounds investment in a couple of years, because that kit's going to be obsolete as hell by the end of 2015.

  Cheers, Hywel


« Last Edit: April 29, 2014, 03:50:29 PM by Hywel » Logged
billy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 276


« Reply #63 on: May 16, 2014, 02:45:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Price look around $2500. I'm getting one.
Logged
EgillBjarki
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152



WWW
« Reply #64 on: May 20, 2014, 02:17:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I just ordered A7S, very excited about it. The Slog2 feature is a huge deal for me along with the ability of 120fps in special cases. ISO is a good plus, but that dynamic range is really what did it for me.

Not sure why so many people are so unhappy with Sony... Their 55mm lens is STUNNING, I really like my A7R so far, but it will not replace my Canon kit.
Logged

Chris L
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« Reply #65 on: May 20, 2014, 08:00:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I pre ordered. BH Photo had it listed as 15.3 stops of DR but I don't think that was official. The low light sensitivity and 4k is a bonus, but the DR is what I am after.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2014, 10:43:31 PM by Chris L » Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1164


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #66 on: May 21, 2014, 03:16:24 PM »
ReplyReply



Not sure why so many people are so unhappy with Sony... Their 55mm lens is STUNNING, I really like my A7R so far, but it will not replace my Canon kit.

I think you answered your own question . . . it won't replace your Canons.

I don't think people are necessarily unhappy with Sony as disappointed.

The A7 series could have been ground breaking, off the scale when you think about ti.

A smaller form factor system that one body shoots 35 mpx stills the other 4k video.

It's just like all Sony's there is a "what if".

What if the A7s shot internal 4k for smaller stabilizers and drones, what if you could crop into the frame and us PL mount lenses, what if it was at least 10 bit and not 8 bit which is really from  1994 not 2014. 
What if the xlr input module was mounted on the bottom for security and form factor not hanging off the side, what if it had stabilization, what if the lcd screen flipped out  and had touch screen focus, what if the focus points covered the whole sensor what if it shot a higher bit rate than 50 mbs  . . . well you get the idea.

The A7 has now kind of lost it's place as it's not head over heels better for stills than the a7s, probably not as good at video.the A7R seems like it produces a stunning still, but it has the same smaller focus coverage.

Though I haven't tried the a7s, I tested, tested and tested a gh3 and olympus em1, em5 next to the A7 and the image quality wasn't any difference, actually I believe the smaller sensor em1 did better stills, I know the gh3 better video.

I think the A7 series is just typical Sony.   It has all the basics covered but whether by choice, price point, protecting higher priced models, or just rushed to market, it's an almost there camera system  because an A7r and a A7s could replace three camera brands and three cases we carry for projects.

I think it's a great system, that will get better if Sony sticks with it and doesn't offer excuses.   They have the tech, they have the ability to build a smaller form factor camera that is quick to set up and shoot.

I will test it, hope the 420 8 bit shoots above it's weight class, hope alaising is down and no jagged stuff on horizontal lines like the A7, but I'd pay double if Sony would take the gloves off and build what the market is really asking for.

We're getting into smaller form factor cameras, that are easier to use.  It's not that we can't cover everything with traditional digital video 4k's that exist but they do require more light, heavier supports which essentially means lower cost production.

IMO

BC

Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2920


« Reply #67 on: May 21, 2014, 03:41:51 PM »
ReplyReply

It has all the basics covered but whether by … price point … but I'd pay double if Sony would take the gloves off and build what the market is really asking for.

Yes. Perhaps you are not the intended market. Perhaps the intended market would not pay double.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 03:57:34 PM by Isaac » Logged
EgillBjarki
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152



WWW
« Reply #68 on: May 21, 2014, 09:17:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I think you answered your own question . . . it won't replace your Canons.

When a full frame sensor is put into such a small camera body, there are sacrifices. In this case, autofocus. Something I have no problem with when I desperately need to travel light, without loosing out on quality. With Sony, I do get much more resolution and dynamic range compared to Canon. This is a case of the right tool for the right job. Most of the time, that does end up being Canon for me.

We're getting into smaller form factor cameras, that are easier to use.  It's not that we can't cover everything with traditional digital video 4k's that exist but they do require more light, heavier supports which essentially means lower cost production.

That is exactly it, everything is getting smaller and easier to use. The A7 series is all about the form factor, being able to produce very good results in a compact powerful package.

I was very close to getting a FS700R. I am sure the A7S files will not be as good for grading compared to the 700, and it does have more options with slow motion. However, the form factor and price just make these cameras two completely different things.

I can see how the A7S does not fit into your workflow, even with the benefit of size and price. As you stated above, price is not a big issue for you, the file size is. Blackmagic surly does present a much bigger appeal for you.
Logged

kirktuck
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #69 on: May 22, 2014, 01:41:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I just spent the last two days shooting food and various restaurant scenes at a restaurant here in Austin with the GH4. My fellow shooter usually uses a Sony f55 Cinealta with Zeiss glass. He was pretty smitten with the image quality of the files using the GH4's Cinelook D and the in camera application of a slight shadow/highlight adjustment. The focus pull via touchscreen was priceless and the ability of the Panasonic X lenses to deliver good stuff wide open was a good surprise. We did not shoot 4K. We shot 100 mps 1080p at 29.xx so we could take advantage of the VFR option. Very cool. We filled up 100 gb of storage and today we sit down to ingest and begin editing. What I'm seeing on my monitor is very good. The only place where something like the Sony might be a big competitor is in files where you must end up shooting over 800 ISO. You can barely see some crawl even at 400 ISO in dark areas of slightly underexposed scenes but by the time you get to 3200 the noise gets thick enough to make cutting together images shot at lower ISOs dicey.

A cold sweat moment looking for the microphone level control on the touch screen but no other gotchas. It's a very straightforward camera and over the course of our two days of ample shooting it's a pretty solid platform. Just thought I'd chime in.
Logged
billy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 276


« Reply #70 on: May 22, 2014, 03:06:10 PM »
ReplyReply

The focus pull via touchscreen was priceless

Thanks for your solid input. Can you explain the above quote a bit further? Are you using Autofocus and selecting your focus point by touchscreen? If so, I didn't know any cameras can do that yet? Also, if using AF, how good is it for tracking a moving person that is off center?
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4903



« Reply #71 on: May 22, 2014, 04:55:17 PM »
ReplyReply

I'll chime in that, yes, the GH4 can refocus while filming by touching on the screen where you want it to go next. It really works very smoothly.

The best way to focus with people is face/eye detection. Not foolproof, but does a good job most of the time.

Michael
Logged
kirktuck
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #72 on: May 24, 2014, 02:03:19 PM »
ReplyReply

The touchscreen/focus pull/af is straightforward and easy to use. I use it in the AF-S mode and that way it goes from one locked focus area to another locked focus area. It's a little tougher to hit the screen and move the camera at the same time but it's a nice effect. Like a traditional focus pull on a moving camera.

Focus tracking is great in good light and, logically, less so in poor light. There is a dedicated focus tracking mode where one locks on by touching the subject on the touch screen and I've had success with it. I've had better luck on controllable projects (where you can do a rehearsal) by using lenses with manual focusing rings and just doing a pull from one mark to the next with moving subjects. Example, mark focus at X point and Y point and rack the focus as the subject moves from X to Y.

My only observation with the GH4 is that you do start to get a bit of noise at 1600 and above. I have a cure for that. It's called "lighting."  Smiley
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1164


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #73 on: May 28, 2014, 05:14:13 AM »
ReplyReply

The touchscreen/focus pull/af is straightforward and easy to use. I use it in the AF-S mode and that way it goes from one locked focus area to another locked focus area. It's a little tougher to hit the screen and move the camera at the same time but it's a nice effect. Like a traditional focus pull on a moving camera.

Focus tracking is great in good light and, logically, less so in poor light. There is a dedicated focus tracking mode where one locks on by touching the subject on the touch screen and I've had success with it. I've had better luck on controllable projects (where you can do a rehearsal) by using lenses with manual focusing rings and just doing a pull from one mark to the next with moving subjects. Example, mark focus at X point and Y point and rack the focus as the subject moves from X to Y.

My only observation with the GH4 is that you do start to get a bit of noise at 1600 and above. I have a cure for that. It's called "lighting."  Smiley

Completed over a year and a lot of terabytes with the gh3 and yes the autofocus and touch screen focus works well with planning and sometimes even quck lifestyle.

The camera is good, not pretty by any means and the gh4 doesn't help the looks with the YAGH thing.

The deal breaker of the gh4 is the 2.3 crop.  2x is a lot, especially since there is not a lot of wide lenses for this camera and no autofocus wide faster than f4.

The really beautiful constant zooms at 2.8 are useful, except at f 2.8 is like 5.6 in FF and for most work that's just too much focus.

The A7s is at least it has the benefit of throwing a cinematic focus without having to always go one lens longer than anticipated.

Granted the a7s is feature hobbled compared to the gh4, with no touch screen, small focus  coverage and no ability to shoot 4k without a recorder, but a larger frame helps, though why every video cam with eyes on any segment of the professional market should be around super 35mm or aps c, because that format has worked well for years and seems to be just the right mix of physcial size, dop, noise and obviously traditional PL mount lenses.

Don't get me wrong my gh3's were great and I preordered the gh4 but held back.

With video we're back to the 18 month game of the one upgrade at a time, thing we have with computers and previously still cameras.

I think we all know that Sony, or panasonic could pop out anything if they felt like it, including stabilization, touch screen focus and a one piece bottom module that converted to 10 422 4k and probably will, just like I'll bet panasonic comes out with a larger format sensor eventually because super 35 or aps c is about perfect for a cinema look.

Anyway, today we have what we have.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: May 28, 2014, 01:31:16 PM by bcooter » Logged

billy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 276


« Reply #74 on: May 28, 2014, 01:46:32 PM »
ReplyReply

kinda off topic but now that the sony a7 series bodies have been out, is there a consensus with which EF lens adaptor works best? For AF with Canon lenses,  metering, focus confirmation with ZE lenses etc? For some reason I am trying to avoid metabones, I don't like the flat lens mount on bottom and prefer a cylinder shaped adaptor.
Logged
andrew00
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #75 on: May 29, 2014, 06:39:16 AM »
ReplyReply

I tested the GH4, it's great, technically it's 90% perfect.

However, I felt the skin tones weren't right and the image had a clinical edge to it - I preferred video from my BMPCC even though the resolution was only 1080P.

Maybe the latter issue can be corrected with PP, but the former I could never really get to where I wanted it to. I felt that once you tweaked one area, i.e. the green channel which is way OTT by default, it'll affect the others too much.

So if there's one weakness in the GH4 I'd say, Imo, it's in the colour depth.
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1164


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #76 on: May 29, 2014, 04:15:48 PM »
ReplyReply

I tested the GH4, it's great, technically it's 90% perfect.

However, I felt the skin tones weren't right and the image had a clinical edge to it - I preferred video from my BMPCC even though the resolution was only 1080P.

Maybe the latter issue can be corrected with PP, but the former I could never really get to where I wanted it to. I felt that once you tweaked one area, i.e. the green channel which is way OTT by default, it'll affect the others too much.

So if there's one weakness in the GH4 I'd say, Imo, it's in the colour depth.


There was an earlier post about matching footage from a RED to the gh4 and yes it can be done, but with all the dslrs and video cams I've used they react differently in different situations.

In studio, with controlled lighting, I can make everything from a fs100 to the gh4's look like red footage as long as I add more fill light and are careful of ambient blowback.

In the real world under moving conditions, it's much harder if you want that filmic look.

The only answer is to become expert at resolve 10, or a few other grading suites and even then you'll find to exactly match takes many hours of post.

There is no free lunch.  If you want to throw background focus on a gh4, it's an all prime lens world as f2.8 on their zooms is way too much focus, especailly with a 2.3 crop.

If you want that kodak vision look where there is some slight built in noise to the subjects then it's a RED an Arri even a blackmagic, with the Arri and Red being dependable the balckmagic seems to come with wait until we fix it issues.

I just think these video cams look like video and people having been trying for 10 years to make all brands, makes, formats, codecs into a film like look.

To me the only reason to buy a gh4 is it's autofocus capabilties and the fact you can work a little under the radar.

But my view is get expert at resolve and that will solve a lot of mix and match issues, or just bite the bullet pay the fees and shoot everything on a RED or Arri.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: June 01, 2014, 01:31:04 PM by bcooter » Logged

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad