5 ms·

Wow. My video kit is a GH4, GH3, and G7 for live or recorded-to-external events, so I am plenty deep in hock to Panasonic. But I did not expect that they would

Wow. My video kit is a GH4, GH3, and G7 for live or recorded-to-external events, so I am plenty deep in hock to Panasonic. But I did not expect that they would have a way to get even more of my money. I've been considering a Sony full-frame as a photo camera with some backup video usage but Panasonic has so much goodwill with me that I will probably hold off until I can play with an S1 or S1R and make a decision. I don't get excited about cameras much anymore, but...dang.

seltzered_ 8y ago
Hoping this technology will eventually make its way to a prosumer mini camera like the lx10. I’ve been waiting for 4k60 with some form of built-in stabilization. Sorta wish GoPro would make something along this front given their investment in custom ASICS for hypersmooth - dream of something like a hero 7 with a bigger sensor size to deal with low light.
growlist 8y ago
I'm big into Lumix m4/3 and will be strongly considering this as I've had some beautiful shots out of my GF2 and more recently GX1, though that's probably a lot to do with the decent primes I use (20mm and 25mm). I doubt I'll be able to afford the rumoured £2k price tag at the outset but hopefully a year or two down the line. Also hoping there might be some cheap primes offered as there are for other systems - I read somewhere that (for some reason that escapes me now) m4/3 primes require more expensive glass, and my other half was able to get a decent Canon prime for less than half what I paid for my 20mm pancake.
sjwright 8y ago
Don't overestimate the value of full frame. Unless you're trying to get a shallower depth of field than you can achieve with your MFT lenses, a full frame camera doesn't offer much inherent advantage. For example, the Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7 lens is visually equivalent to a hypothetical 85mm f/3.4 lens on a full frame (35mm) sensor. When I say equivalent, I mean these combinations would have the same practical field of view, the same depth of field, and—this is the part which trips people up—the same overall quantity of photons falling on the sensor area. Historically, larger sensors have been more efficient at converting said photons into data, but the difference has narrowed greatly to the point where it doesn't matter so much, particularly at the relatively modest resolution of 4K video (approximately 8.3—8.9 megapixels) where the limits of lens diffraction don't tend to come into play. Of course on full frame systems you can easily find inexpensive 85mm f/1.8 and very high quality f/1.4 lenses. But if you don't use the extra depth of field and you shoot FF at f/3.4 or greater, there was no fundamental benefit. (Of course you should never discount the glass advantage, as the mid-range FF glass tends to be optically superior to high-end MFT glass... but does that benefit apply to a new lens mount? Will these cameras do a good job focusing EF and/or F mount glass?)
- romed 8y ago
  Doesn't the availability of speed boosters somewhat counteract the advantage of access to Canon and Nikkor lenses? I switched from a Nikon system to an Olympus m43 body and kept using all my old glass. Except for one particularly snazzy macro lens, I don't have any native m43 lenses.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    That is 100% correct. Another way (a better way in my opinion) is to think of a speed booster is it's a sensor size increaser. In effect a GH4 with a Metabones EF speed booster attached is effectively comparable to an EF camera with an APS-H size sensor (1.3x crop factor).
  - dllu 8y ago
    Yes, but only somewhat. A speedbooster is not optically perfect and may degrade image quality by introducing aberrations.
- reneherse 8y ago
  Lower noise levels at high ISO are an advantage of FF. Very useful for shooting action in low light (e.g. sports and dance), where you need high shutter speeds to freeze motion.
  - romed 8y ago
    I think what you meant is that low noise and high ISO are advantages of large pixels. Larger sensors just happen to have more such pixels. If you where willing to eat the reduction in resolution, you'd get the same noise and sensitivity from any size sensor. For example, a 10MP APS-C sensor has the same sensitivity as a 25MP full frame sensor, all other things held equal.
    - NikolaNovak 8y ago
      Per pixel. Not overall. 25MP (or any resolution) full frame sensor with a (say) 1.8 lens will gather more photos than 10MP (or any resolution) APC sensor with a 1.8 lens.
sjwright 8y ago
If you're currently running a GH4, you should be more excited about the GH5S. It's not cheap but this future Pana FF is probably going to be more expensive again. You get a camera that does everything your GH4 does, but a lot better. The only thing it misses out on compared to the GH5 is sensor stabilisation, which your GH4 doesn't have anyway. You get the full benefit of all your existing glass. In fact you get more benefit because the effective crop factor of the GH4 in 4K is 2.3, whereas on the GH5S with the multi-aspect sensor it's between 1.8 and 2. It's a bigger sensor both physically and logically. Whereas a full frame Pana means an expensive body and a new glass collection, with barely any advantage over a GH4/GH5/GH5S with a speed booster.
- eropple 8y ago
  The GH5/GH5S are interesting from a video point of view. I'm talking about as a photo-first camera; I assume the S1/S1R are going to inherit most of the GH5's photo-friendly stuff. My current glass is literally all tailored for video stuff--a bunch of those MFT 14-140 lenses, which I love for video but are nothing special for photography--so that isn't really a big concern for me right now. Also, I do like a good autofocus that I can then tweak; I haven't used a speed booster, but Metabones's own website suggests that it's not great.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    Fair enough, I assumed that because you have GH-series cameras your use is video because that's where they excel. They are perfectly fine stills cameras, but they aren't een the best stills cameras within the MFT ecosystem. A Panasonic full frame camera is interesting in the context of video. But for stills, I'm not sure I'd want to invest in an unproven system that has one of the most obscure lens mounts in the industry. Even if it can be adapted, autofocus performance is unlikely to be good—just look at the Sony cameras for evidence there.
    - eropple 8y ago
      That makes sense. The other option I'm considering is actually getting into Sony, as most of their mirrorless cameras can sub into my video workflow with no huge loss and I really like the feel and the results when I've borrowed even lower-end ones from friends.

seltzered_ 8y ago

Hoping this technology will eventually make its way to a prosumer mini camera like the lx10. I’ve been waiting for 4k60 with some form of built-in stabilization. Sorta wish GoPro would make something along this front given their investment in custom ASICS for hypersmooth - dream of something like a hero 7 with a bigger sensor size to deal with low light.

growlist 8y ago

I'm big into Lumix m4/3 and will be strongly considering this as I've had some beautiful shots out of my GF2 and more recently GX1, though that's probably a lot to do with the decent primes I use (20mm and 25mm). I doubt I'll be able to afford the rumoured £2k price tag at the outset but hopefully a year or two down the line. Also hoping there might be some cheap primes offered as there are for other systems - I read somewhere that (for some reason that escapes me now) m4/3 primes require more expensive glass, and my other half was able to get a decent Canon prime for less than half what I paid for my 20mm pancake.

sjwright 8y ago

Don't overestimate the value of full frame. Unless you're trying to get a shallower depth of field than you can achieve with your MFT lenses, a full frame camera doesn't offer much inherent advantage. For example, the Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7 lens is visually equivalent to a hypothetical 85mm f/3.4 lens on a full frame (35mm) sensor. When I say equivalent, I mean these combinations would have the same practical field of view, the same depth of field, and—this is the part which trips people up—the same overall quantity of photons falling on the sensor area. Historically, larger sensors have been more efficient at converting said photons into data, but the difference has narrowed greatly to the point where it doesn't matter so much, particularly at the relatively modest resolution of 4K video (approximately 8.3—8.9 megapixels) where the limits of lens diffraction don't tend to come into play. Of course on full frame systems you can easily find inexpensive 85mm f/1.8 and very high quality f/1.4 lenses. But if you don't use the extra depth of field and you shoot FF at f/3.4 or greater, there was no fundamental benefit. (Of course you should never discount the glass advantage, as the mid-range FF glass tends to be optically superior to high-end MFT glass... but does that benefit apply to a new lens mount? Will these cameras do a good job focusing EF and/or F mount glass?)

romed 8y ago
Doesn't the availability of speed boosters somewhat counteract the advantage of access to Canon and Nikkor lenses? I switched from a Nikon system to an Olympus m43 body and kept using all my old glass. Except for one particularly snazzy macro lens, I don't have any native m43 lenses.
- sjwright 8y ago
  That is 100% correct. Another way (a better way in my opinion) is to think of a speed booster is it's a sensor size increaser. In effect a GH4 with a Metabones EF speed booster attached is effectively comparable to an EF camera with an APS-H size sensor (1.3x crop factor).
- dllu 8y ago
  Yes, but only somewhat. A speedbooster is not optically perfect and may degrade image quality by introducing aberrations.
reneherse 8y ago
Lower noise levels at high ISO are an advantage of FF. Very useful for shooting action in low light (e.g. sports and dance), where you need high shutter speeds to freeze motion.
- romed 8y ago
  I think what you meant is that low noise and high ISO are advantages of large pixels. Larger sensors just happen to have more such pixels. If you where willing to eat the reduction in resolution, you'd get the same noise and sensitivity from any size sensor. For example, a 10MP APS-C sensor has the same sensitivity as a 25MP full frame sensor, all other things held equal.
  - NikolaNovak 8y ago
    Per pixel. Not overall. 25MP (or any resolution) full frame sensor with a (say) 1.8 lens will gather more photos than 10MP (or any resolution) APC sensor with a 1.8 lens.

sjwright 8y ago

If you're currently running a GH4, you should be more excited about the GH5S. It's not cheap but this future Pana FF is probably going to be more expensive again. You get a camera that does everything your GH4 does, but a lot better. The only thing it misses out on compared to the GH5 is sensor stabilisation, which your GH4 doesn't have anyway. You get the full benefit of all your existing glass. In fact you get more benefit because the effective crop factor of the GH4 in 4K is 2.3, whereas on the GH5S with the multi-aspect sensor it's between 1.8 and 2. It's a bigger sensor both physically and logically. Whereas a full frame Pana means an expensive body and a new glass collection, with barely any advantage over a GH4/GH5/GH5S with a speed booster.

eropple 8y ago
The GH5/GH5S are interesting from a video point of view. I'm talking about as a photo-first camera; I assume the S1/S1R are going to inherit most of the GH5's photo-friendly stuff. My current glass is literally all tailored for video stuff--a bunch of those MFT 14-140 lenses, which I love for video but are nothing special for photography--so that isn't really a big concern for me right now. Also, I do like a good autofocus that I can then tweak; I haven't used a speed booster, but Metabones's own website suggests that it's not great.
- sjwright 8y ago
  Fair enough, I assumed that because you have GH-series cameras your use is video because that's where they excel. They are perfectly fine stills cameras, but they aren't een the best stills cameras within the MFT ecosystem. A Panasonic full frame camera is interesting in the context of video. But for stills, I'm not sure I'd want to invest in an unproven system that has one of the most obscure lens mounts in the industry. Even if it can be adapted, autofocus performance is unlikely to be good—just look at the Sony cameras for evidence there.
  - eropple 8y ago
    That makes sense. The other option I'm considering is actually getting into Sony, as most of their mirrorless cameras can sub into my video workflow with no huge loss and I really like the feel and the results when I've borrowed even lower-end ones from friends.