4 ms·

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 agai

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.
    - sjwright 8y ago
      The Sony A7 Mark III is an astonishingly good camera. If I was buying today it's probably what I'd get. The only sticking point is glass: Sony make some great stuff but it can be eye-wateringly expensive. I wish Sigma and Tamron would release their EF- and F-mount full frame lenses with Sony E-Mount and native autofocus performance. Or at least provide a first-party mount adapter that achieves the same.
      - eropple 8y ago
        Yeah, the A7III is definitely on my short list. I could spring for the A7R III, but that just seems...excessive? And as likely as not to show off even slightly imperfect glass.

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.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    The Sony A7 Mark III is an astonishingly good camera. If I was buying today it's probably what I'd get. The only sticking point is glass: Sony make some great stuff but it can be eye-wateringly expensive. I wish Sigma and Tamron would release their EF- and F-mount full frame lenses with Sony E-Mount and native autofocus performance. Or at least provide a first-party mount adapter that achieves the same.
    - eropple 8y ago
      Yeah, the A7III is definitely on my short list. I could spring for the A7R III, but that just seems...excessive? And as likely as not to show off even slightly imperfect glass.