Panasonic GH4 Announced - 4K Video Comes to Micro Four Thirds

[dougjgreen]

Perhaps others simply have higher goals for their use of the system.

My goals are extremely high - I certainly haven't seen any evidence that yours are any higher than mine. I just don't have any need for video, and a 14 ounce Micro 4/3 camera can do anything in still photography that any larger Micro 4/3 camera can.

 

[dougjgreen]

I honestly don't understand why people that have no interest in video (or m43/mirrorless for that matter, in response to other comments in this thread..) bother commenting on a GH4 thread. Panasonic and Olympus have clearly decided different strategies: Olympus for the ultimate m43 picture camera, Panasonic for the ultimate m43 video camera. For me, the GH3 (and the GH4) will be the best overall choice, as I shoot video and pictures about 50/50. I totally understand that if people don't care about video, they go the olympus route (or even some other format). In the end, even if you don't plan on getting the GH4, it IS making the m43 format more popular, and that is a good thing (unless for those that have a thing against m43 or mirrorless).

The reason that I comment on it is that I find it disappointing that Panasonic is spending the lion's share of their R&D dollars on high-end video, rather than getting their still-image cameras competitive with others in the marketplace. I actually DON'T believe that this divergent path strengthens the format overall.

 

[sigamy]

So...what's the educated guess on pricing?

 

[dolbydunn]

The reason that I comment on it is that I find it disappointing that Panasonic is spending the lion's share of their R&D dollars on high-end video, rather than getting their still-image cameras competitive with others in the marketplace.

I would take issue with your assertion that Panasonic's still-image cameras are not competitive with others in the marketplace. I use the GX7, GH3 and GM1 and my guess is that you could not tell the difference in the images from these fine cameras, or your camera, or most others. I took a side by side comparison test comparing test photos from different formats and I missed every one.

If you really want to hang your hat on your assertion that Panasonic still images are not "competitive" . . . let's post some pictures and videos and we'll see just how deficient the GH3 and GX7 actually are.

While you may be "disappointed" at Panasonic spending their R&D budget developing the highest video standards and top-notch m4/3 still camera performance in the same camera GH4, this camera will sell out immediately.

 

[dougjgreen]

I would take issue with your assertion that Panasonic's still-image cameras are not competitive with others in the marketplace. I use the GX7, GH3 and GM1 and my guess is that you could not tell the difference in the images from these fine cameras, or your camera, or most others. I took a side by side comparison test comparing test photos from different formats and I missed every one.

If you really want to hang your hat on your assertion that Panasonic still images are not "competitive" . . . let's post some pictures and videos and we'll see just how deficient the GH3 and GX7 actually are.

While you may be "disappointed" at Panasonic spending their R&D budget developing the highest video standards and top-notch m4/3 still camera performance in the same camera GH4, this camera will sell out immediately.

I'm not really sure how you'd isolate the photographer's contribution out of the equation and actually be comparing the cameras. But if you can answer that question, sure. I think I can comfortably make the case that the GH3 and GX7 are inferior to the E-M5 and E-M10 on any still-image subject matter using a fast normal lens in available light at an extremely slow hand held shutter speed (say, a half second) which would require the use of IBIS.

 

[battleaxe]

Except some of that point is moot, if you are using say Panasonic lens with IS. Or in the case of the GX7 the IBIS.

 

[dolbydunn]

. . . I think I can comfortably make the case that the GH3 and GX7 are inferior to the E-M5 and E-M10 on any still-image subject matter using a fast normal lens in available light at an extremely slow hand held shutter speed (say, a half second) which would require the use of IBIS.

Well, good grief . . . Is that all that matters to you . . . taking pictures under the least amount of light with the slowest shutter speed? That is just ONE tiny facet of photography and I'll still challenge you to prove it.

Show us pictures or videos that prove the GH3 and GX7 are inferior to the E-M5 and E-M10.

This video shot with the GX7 lacks stabilization . . . even so, I will put it up against your E-M1 "stabilized" video.

[video=youtube;wfSCPMadQ1E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfSCPMadQ1E[/video]

 

[dougjgreen]

Well, good grief . . . Is that all that matters to you . . . taking pictures under the least amount of light with the slowest shutter speed? That is just ONE tiny facet of photography and I'll still challenge you to prove it.

Show us pictures or videos that prove the GH3 and GX7 are inferior to the E-M5 and E-M10.

This video shot with the GX7 lacks stabilization . . . even so, I will put it up against your E-M1 "stabilized" video.

I was not referring to video - I was referring to stills.

As I said, I was awaiting your solution for how we could remove the photographer's ability from the equation so that we were really just comparing the relative merits of the cameras themselves. As soon as you come up with that, I'll play your little game. But not before. The simple fact is, IBIS is one specific example where the Panasonic cameras are inferior to the Olympus cameras. Everybody knows that. It's true that IBIS might not be important to YOU personally. But if it IS important, it's pretty non-controversial that Panasonic's implementation of IBIS is inferior to that of Olympus, and not every Panasonic lens has OIS - and certainly legacy lenses don't - so the fact is, Panasonic does not offer as comprehensive an image stabilization solution as Olympus does.

 

[peterpix]

Hey Dougie, just go away

 

[Luckypenguin]

My goals are extremely high - I certainly haven't seen any evidence that yours are any higher than mine. I just don't have any need for video, and a 14 ounce Micro 4/3 camera can do anything in still photography that any larger Micro 4/3 camera can.

So others requiring greater capabilities, performance, controls, eronomics (whether for stills or video) in the system even at the expense of absolute size is not a higher goal? Someone might find that a tiny camera like the E-PM2, despite sharing the same major component (sensor), does not offer enough capabilities for them in comparison to something like and E-M5 or even an E-M1 and be prepared to pay the extra money and carry the extra size and weight. The extra size might even be preferable to them.

 

[Lisandra]

Please do share the link for A7's for less than $1200!!

well, granted, i saw that on a private listing, but in europe its already discounted to 1170 euros (over 300 euros!). And the fact that he had to let a basically new camera for 1185$ speaks volumes of how fast its value is going down. Even so, new in the US you can find them for around 1450$ (from 1700) and the camera is how old? barely 2 months since it became available in december? The new As are a bad investment

 

[dolbydunn]

I was not referring to video - I was referring to stills.

As I said, I was awaiting your solution for how we could remove the photographer's ability from the equation so that we were really just comparing the relative merits of the cameras themselves. As soon as you come up with that, I'll play your little game. But not before. The simple fact is, IBIS is one specific example where the Panasonic cameras are inferior to the Olympus cameras. Everybody knows that. It's true that IBIS might not be important to YOU personally. But if it IS important, it's pretty non-controversial that Panasonic's implementation of IBIS is inferior to that of Olympus, and not every Panasonic lens has OIS - and certainly legacy lenses don't - so the fact is, Panasonic does not offer as comprehensive an image stabilization solution as Olympus does.

I started taking pictures in 1972 when I worked at the Camera Repair Shop in Cincinnati. The great majority of photos that I have taken were acquired without ANY image stabilization, no auto-focus, many without an internal light meter with slow lenses on Kodachrome 25. You just have to learn the skills of photography (just like firing a gun and keeping it still). Now that I am getting older I WOULD like to have 5-axis image stabilization but since I've never had IS, I don't consider it as an obstacle.

This thread is about the GH4 and it's vastly improved video. (Some of us poke the little red button when we see a video opportunity and so we are very interested).

I don't suppose Olympus camera owners take any video, (I've never seen ANY), but if you want to post a few pictures to show that vaunted Olympus superiority you are so sure of, I love to look at pictures, especially from someone so finicky.

Show me.

BTW - If you are only interested in specs and factoids and test results and spurious superiority claims. . . that isn't the same as photography. Photography is about pictures AND INCREASINGLY about video.

 

[Lisandra]

Have you even used one for more than a day? I could name, you know, two of the best quality (optically and wide open) autofocus primes for *any* system, one of the best sensors in the business in a body the size of the E-M1, and utterly stunning output (I don't mean the jpgs, which are just OK; but why would I shoot jpg on this kind of camera?). I (and others with me) haven't been able to replicate the shutter shock with natives or the adapted primes I have. And while the ultrawide thing is a shame for those of is hoping to use rangefinder/Leica M lenses, it's all about what native ultrawide a they release, and in the meantime there are always SLR ultrawides, which work just dandy. I haven't done any serious testing with long exposures, but haven't noticed any odd leaks or flares on my A7r during the few I've tried to date. And I haven't seen much beyond those few initial reports over a month ago.

I do agree the GH4 is an entirely different proposition and very likely a much better all-round camera, definitely a better video rig. The E-M1 is also a better camera in a lot of ways. And yet, for my landscape and people shooting/DOF control (I like the look of a fast 35 on FF) it is the perfect complement to MFT for me. Is it a first gen product? Yes. Flawless? No. A hell of a camera? Very much so.

indeed I have, i was one of the first to get a hands on one to test, posted the results in another forum. I have sort of a relationship with sony. I was expecting much more, I gave them a massively blah feedback. First off, noise is not particularly better than any of the fujis, there are instances where the fuji is better. I dont shoot jpegs. The A7r is even noisier. Second, the 28-70 is a garbage lens, more than any kit lens ever. The 55 is a good lens, but not the massive resolution monster dxo mark claims. You really have to stop it down. The 35 is good, but not amazing either. It does have massive dynamic range, but detail wise a nikon d7100 is better. Even the 16mp fujis and em1s look visibly sharper on the edges. The A7r is only helped by its massive resolution when brought down to web size, but printed to native size its not that impressive. Its visibly softer than the D800. I also have a ton of files with motion blur at highish shutter speeds from the a7r. I didnt experience light leaks, but a few reports is enough for me, and I suspect the complaints of erratic white balance have something to do with this.
Every adapted lens I tried performed worse on the a7 than on a native body, by a visible margin. Maybe next time around theyll probably fix all that, but this was a beta release to say the least

 

[Biro]

I'm happy that so many of us are happy and excited about the GH4. It looks like a terrific photographic tool - particularly for professionals. For me, however, it's not as urgent a development. I still have a 720p HDTV that offers excellent picture quality and I don't ever see me going beyond, say, a 42-inch screen even when I upgrade to 1080p.

4K video is not exactly highly relevent for me. Sure, the TV manufacturers will be pitching 4K for all it's worth - the same way they pitched 3D TV. I suspect they will get roughly the same response from consumers. But for filmmakers and professional videographers, the GH4 looks like it's exactly what they need. I personally am ooking forward to the clearance sales on GH3s.

 

[tanngrisnir3]

The reason that I comment on it is that I find it disappointing that Panasonic is spending the lion's share of their R&D dollars on high-end video, rather than getting their still-image cameras competitive with others in the marketplace. I actually DON'T believe that this divergent path strengthens the format overall.

Their still-image cameras are competitive with others in the marketplace.

What color is the sky in your world?

 

[dougjgreen]

Unfortunately, in terms of things like Image stabilization, and dynamic range across the entire product line, the Panasonic cameras are actually not competitive. In other areas, they are. What I find frustrating is that Panasonic prioritized this camera over a G7 which would take the G6 and it's nice viewfinder and ergonomics and display, and put both competitive IBIS and a current generation sensor into it. By the time Panasonic has a camera that is the equal of the OM-D E-M5 (which has been out nearly two full years) as a still image camera, Olympus will have retired that camera and developed an entire lineup of 3 successors -high end, mid-range and low cost - to it.

 

[tanngrisnir3]

Unfortunately, in terms of things like Image stabilization, and dynamic range across the product line, the Panasonic cameras are actually not competitive. In other areas, they are. What I find frustrating is that Panasonic prioritized this camera over a G7 which would take the G6 and it's nice viewfinder and display, and put both competitive IBIS and a current generation sensor into it.

In terms of image stabilization, sure, but so what? Not even remotely everyone values that.

In terms of dynamic range 'across the range'? What an odd qualification. At the high end, there's no statistically significant difference, and at the lower end, people aren't necessarily using dynamic range as a qualification in a purchasing decision.

 

[dougjgreen]

In terms of image stabilization, sure, but so what? Not even remotely everyone values that.

In terms of dynamic range 'across the range'? What an odd qualification.

By that, I mean, neither the GF6 nor the G6 is competitive with the low end of the Olympus line in terms of Dynamic Range nor IS. Most vendors would round out their lineup with competitive product before pushing the frontier in a small niche like pro-level video.

 

[robbie36]

The reason that I comment on it is that I find it disappointing that Panasonic is spending the lion's share of their R&D dollars on high-end video, rather than getting their still-image cameras competitive with others in the marketplace. I actually DON'T believe that this divergent path strengthens the format overall.

This is probably a moot point. I am pretty certain that Panasonic would not actually be making M43 cameras now if it wasnt for the importance of video for the company. M43 has lost them money from the start and ILC 'photo' cameras are not a core part of their business. 4k video is a core part of their strategy across product lines, video cameras, video players, TVs if they still make any etc. In fact as 4k is a central 'new tech' for the company's future they can continue to afford to lose money and invest in the technology for all those future sales and profits which will eventually emerge from it one day (or most likely not).

 

[dougjgreen]

This is probably a moot point. I am pretty certain that Panasonic would not actually be making M43 cameras now if it wasnt for the importance of video for the company. M43 has lost them money from the start and ILC 'photo' cameras are not a core part of their business. 4k video is a core part of their strategy across product lines, video cameras, video players, TVs if they still make any etc. In fact as 4k is a central 'new tech' for the company's future they can continue to afford to lose money and invest in the technology for all those future sales and profits which will eventually emerge from it one day (or most likely not).

Fair enough. But if still imaging is not important to Panasonic's future path, let us know now, so those of us who are not interested in video don't waste our time on their products going forward. Like I said earlier - I'm disappointed that Panasonic, who has a camera that I consider to be ergonomically just about perfect, in the G6, has not seen the need to make that camera, which is otherwise outstanding, competitive in terms of either IBIS or it's sensor technology, when those two things would seem to be pretty straightforward.