Just today I sold my FX30 for the S5ii. I started filmmaking with the GH5. Actually shot a feature film with the GH5. But, what drove me to Sony was, of course, the AF. But, after seeing what can come out of the S5ii for the past year, and missing the better colors that I think LUMIX offers, I finally decided to switch back to LUMIX. What broke the final straw was seeing two videos comparing the FX30 with the S5ii. And when I saw how natural the colors were from the S5ii, especially skin tones, I decided to finally pull the trigger. I'm excited about joining the LUMIX family again. And I have to be honest, it has also been your videos that made me consider the switch as well. Plus, I miss the dynamic range of a full frame camera. So, there is that, too.
The DR of the GH7 seems to be pretty close to FF: Maybe one stop difference. As Dustin says however the low light difference is more material: about 2 stops behind LUMIX FF cameras (which are among the better hybrid cameras for low light).
Been a full frame since I sold my GH5. Hopefully the future S1H II, or whatever the final product is, will bring the GH7 features to full frame. ProRes RAW internally, 32-bit float audio and numerous timecode options.
I bet it will. They carried through the photography features of the G9II to the GH7 so I'd assume they would carry the GH7 features to full frame least to the best of their ability
Getting a speedbooster for it is the gamechanger that made me pull the trigger on this camera. Metabones released a update for the pdfa to work with automatic lenses and it works really well. The point I agree on is dual native ISO though thats sweet to dial in when needed. I highly suggest pairing the camera with a metabones speedbooster if the investment makes sense. Great video:)
Great video mate. Sadly for me, full frame just isn't working... I have been shooting with the s5iix for about a year and it's been cumbersome for the most part, and the biggest reason is the 60p crop - which kills me... and especially kitted out with all the gear it just became too cumbersom to film with. I just shot a video with my old G9 with a 9mm lens wide open and not only was it easier, the results were better hands down - this is likely use case and my skill level with the s5iix. For some reason, I just can't get it to work for me, so I decided to sell all my gear and switch the GH7... At least I have all of the lenses :D Thanks for the vid.
For some like you, m43 will just work better. The GH7 is still an incredible camera I can't deny it. If something like the GH7 in full frame exists soon, I don't know if I'll need to upgrade for a very long time lol
@@DustinArmstrongPro well said. I just handle mft better like hand in glove and I struggled with full frame. I’m listing all my cameras today with my PL mount cinema lenses and will hopefully buy the Gh7 when they sell!
I'm on my toes waiting with anticipation as well. " What's ahead for Lumix". I'll be honest red and Nikon have me looking over my shoulder.... But Lumix please surprise us!! I have my ear up for all Lumix news. Thanks for posting.
Question: What was the focal length and ƒ-stops used for both of the cameras, and the actual distance from subject for the Bokeh examples… That information is typically important in those situations for comparison purposes… Which is why we tend to use the Leica ƒ1.7 Zooms, or ƒ1.2 Primes… With µ4/3 the position of the camera will almost never be quite the same due to the obvious lens physics… 🤔
As someone who has used all three main sensor sizes, you must admit that it is easier to make good footage with a M4/3 than with an FF camera. And faster lenses than f2.0 on m4/3 erase low light disadvantage, and with all the additional frame rates, formats, and stability you have with m4/3 cameras, it's an easy choice. You have tons of affordable fast lenses for m4/3 try one, you won't regret it. And in most cases, clients don't care and do not want to know which camera you are using, they care about results not tools you are using. FF vs m4/3 is something TH-camrs made up into an issue, which is almost never an issue in a real world. And the vast majority of TH-camrs covering this topic have the trustworthy level of an politician, zero!
As a side note, the average voters lack of critical thinking and willingness to believe what they want to hear is why crooked politicians do better than someone telling the truth. So it would seem that even well intentioned politicians should be careful with the truth. And who can even tell what the truth is? Well we should question our own beliefs and bias constantly
I actually think it's easier to get good looking footage from full frame than m4/3, but it's probably because I've used full frame for years like I said
@@DustinArmstrongPro Can't argue with that, I spent years on m4/3, now I use FF and APC cameras, but I use manual focus a lot and take a lot of handheld shots, so good IBIS is essential for me, decided gonna sell my Fuji and buy GH6 or 7 depending on the cost. And I change fps frequently, for example, when I shoot weddings, I use 3-5 different fps, for that GH cameras are the best.
As someone with several Lumix cameras, including the GH6 and S5IIX, I don’t see why you say it’s easier to get good footage on MFT than FF. The S5IIX is just crazy crisp and clean even with the kit lens, and has great stabilization. The mainstream f/1.8 primes would also require f/0.9 on MFT to match the bokeh, and the standard f/2.8 zooms require the high end f/1.4 primes on MFT to match. I have yet to see any zooms on MFT that go wider than f/1.7. I don’t see raw quality as an advantage of MFT. Where it shines is in the compactness and affordability of the lenses.
@@StephenKendall you would think that as well as the benefits you mentioned that sensor readout potential is higher. Feasibly m43vshould be closer to affordable global shutter 🤷♂️
Thanks a lot for sharing your views on this camera. At first I was wondering why you are claiming that the GH7 can't compete against full frame in low light, and then I realized that you are comparing at same ISO. If you were comparing with comparable lenses instead of comparing at same ISO - for instance comparing MFT f0.95 25mm against FF f1.9 50mm - you would notice that at same shutter seed, the ISO on the GH7 is about 4 times lower than on full frame. In this fairer comparison, I believe that the GH7 does compare favorably to many full frame cameras (and even some modern medium format cameras). In fact, physics does work in favor of small sensors in low light: small sensors generate less heat, and enable a better conversion of incoming light (photons) into measurable current (electrons). A typical FF sensor converts 52-58% of light only (the R3 reaches 61%), while several MFT sensors are above 80%. That is a very significant step up. Of course, in good light, MFT cameras will usually be at a disadvantage against larger sensors because they usually have a comparatively high base ISO, which leads to a more limited dynamic range. Also, FF lens selection is usually better.
IBIS on the gh7 is superior, crops less in the electronic stabilization modes as well. No crop in 60p or 120p 4k. Paired with the 10-25 f1.7 and 25-50 f1.7 it’s killer for video..
My Leica nocticron F1.2 captures insane low light.. more than enough to film in absolute darkness. Noise yes but boris fx denoising works quite well. Yes it could be a con but not by much.
A speedbooster and manual lenses makes a lot of those issues go away by giving you an extra f stop and increasing the optical resolution by reducing the image circle. But then at that point you may just want ff.
I don't really have a problem with the lens in terms of quality. Still has to do with backrooms blur. Those are definitely great lenses (I've used them before), but even still 1.7 is f3.4 in terms of background blur.
@@DustinArmstrongPro Hey, yes, 3,5 is very good to get 3d-Pop in the Image. How ever, F2,8 or 5,6 in FF equivalent is NOT working to get a background blur that works esthetically ... :-) And yes, the Leica Lenses with F1,7 are insanely sharp with good microcontrast wide open! If you need a bit more blur you just need to shift the Look a bit more to tele spectrum and / or / a bit tighter framing and it is all beautiful!
I just priced a Panasonic FF 24-70 f/2.8 against their MFT 12-35 f/2.8 (I've had a GH3 since not long after it came out, so have an older version of the 12-35). There's a $1,200 USD difference between the two... ouch. I don't think my wallet can handle going to Full Frame 😁 I'm a photojournalist at a TV news station, where we're issued Sony PXW-X400's, but have A7ii's and a couple of FX9's with some proper zooms available for special projects. Full Frame, for all it has going for it, is a giant PITA for me to work with when I'm one man banding in an ENG/Run-n-Gun scenario , and I end up having to stop down so much in order to keep subjects in focus that it kinda negates the benefits for me.
For sure price is definitely a factor to consider. It's like medium format is very pricey compared to full frame. But yeah in broadcast and journalism with servo zoom lenses, blurry backgrounds may not be important at all. Not saying everyone needs full frame just for my use case those are my thoughts. A lot to consider!
Hello Dustin, thanks for this video. This "blurry background" story is really a pathology of youtube and youtubers. 99% of people believe that the 24x36 has "a low depth of field". In truth, the 24x36 is a tiny sensor with a LOT of depth of field. I use a Hasselblad Medium Format H5D-60 with a 42 x 57 mm sensor every day. And there yes, we can say that we use a low depth of field. So this story of so-called "large sensor" and supposedly "low depth of field" is just a question of point of view. The 24x36 is not a large sensor (moreover it is part of the Small Format) and it has a large DOF. It's just because 99% of people only know the 24x36 as the largest sensor that they make the amalgam and think that it is a "large sensor" in absolute terms. There is absolutely no problem with the MFT. You just have to adjust the camera to obtain a low DOF (assuming that "photographing low depth of field" is a valid criterion, which is far from being the case. It's just a youtube fad) I also work in MFT. If I want high definition, very high image quality, I will most certainly not use the 24x36 which is big, heavy and expensive for a tiny optical quality. Unless you use Lumix S Pro lenses or Leica L lenses, the 24x36 is very VERY BELOW in terms of optical quality, compared to the MFT (especially the fabulous Olympus Pro ƒ/1.2 lenses) and of course compared to the Hassleblad Medium Format lenses. I am talking about photography only. I do not include video in these remarks, except for the quality of the lenses)
Honestly what panasonic had done with the GH and S5 series lately (if I shot with lumix), I would skip both because I know they are dropping a heavy hitter soon in the S1Hii
Sure but that would mean I'd be at f/1.9 and I'd lose autofocus which is fine, but on L mount full frame there's 5 prime lenses all 1.8 with autofocus as an option so I'd still rather shoot full frame
who buys a GH7 to use as a webcam?! drive it through OBS etc - I've had multiple Sony's that can ... never even considered it - prob one of the most uninteresting features I could think of
5:30 That’s not really true, a CST with no tone or gamut making is only doing a 3x3 matrix for color (using the coefficients from the published white paper) and an inverse EOTF for the transfer function. Every professional log format literally publishes the exact math, no interpretation allowed. That is way a Color Space Transform does.if you were to use tone mapping on the input that might add some proprietary stuff, but that is not typically done on the input side.
MFT low light performance is a misconception. MFT cameras can match a full frame at a lower ISO than a Full Frame. For example, put a F2.8 lens on the GH7, so to match the bokeh on a full frame you need a F5.6 both set at the same ISO, but now your image is darker than the GH7 so you need to push your ISO up to match it, providing you keep your shutter speed/angle the same. A good example is here: th-cam.com/video/J2PrrBRbH84/w-d-xo.html
I was pretty disappointed with how sharp the GH7 was compared to the GH6, it was shocking to see how digital the image look compared to the softer, organic look of the GH6. I ended up returning it. Here’s hoping LUMIX can go back to the IQ of their previous generation of cameras
It's only been a year and 4 months let the S5II/X cook 🤣🤣 Honestly you should do a video about how it can record BRAW that would be cool or compair it to the BM6K Full frame
The GH cameras are a great workhorse and were very helpful for me getting into video, but there's just something about the depth of the color and light quality that I get with my s5ii and s5iix that the GH m4/3 line can't seem to attain.
MFT is actually better in low light conditions than full frame (the problem is that most people use it as if it were full frame and in MFT there is no need to increase iso)
@@DustinArmstrongPro In fact, full frame is superior to MFT in highlights, not in low lights, i.e. in recovering shadows, and therefore you can get better results with MFT in low light. The ISO equivalent of MFT to full frame is multiplied by 4, so you don't have to increase the ISO, what you have to do is overexpose. (The noise problem in MFT comes from underexposure) and it is advisable to use faster lenses since you have the advantage of not having such a short depth of field and getting more light. Regarding MFT lenses, in most cases you can get all or almost all the sharpness at full aperture, and in full frame you have to close 1 or 2 steps of the diagram in many lenses, i.e., the concept of the smallest depth of field falls apart. Something they don't mention regarding ISO is that the more you increase the ISO, the more dynamic range you lose, and therefore the concept of greater dynamic range in full frame falls apart, i.e., you can get more dynamic range in MFT. I must mention that the biggest advantage in mft is the stabilizer to get more light, more dynamic range and more stable and sharper images because you can lower the shutter speed more and therefore get more light without losing image quality. In conclusion, you can get the same or better results in low light conditions in mft since everything is in favor of the smaller sensor but most people don't know how to use it and compare it in the same conditions as full frame.
@@DustinArmstrongPro In fact, full frame is superior to MFT in highlights, not in low lights, i.e. in recovering shadows, and therefore you can get better results with MFT in low light. The ISO equivalent of MFT to full frame is multiplied by 4, so you don't have to increase the ISO, what you have to do is overexpose. (The noise problem in MFT comes from underexposure) and it is advisable to use faster lenses since you have the advantage of not having such a short depth of field and getting more light. Regarding MFT lenses, in most cases you can get all or almost all the sharpness at full aperture, and in full frame you have to close 1 or 2 steps of the diagram in many lenses, i.e., the concept of the smallest depth of field falls apart. Something they don't mention regarding ISO is that the more you increase the ISO, the more dynamic range you lose, and therefore the concept of greater dynamic range in full frame falls apart, i.e., you can get more dynamic range in MFT. I must mention that the biggest advantage in mft is the stabilizer to get more light, more dynamic range and more stable and sharper images because you can lower the shutter speed more and therefore get more light without losing image quality. In conclusion, you can get the same or better results in low light conditions in mft since everything is in favor of the smaller sensor but most people don't know how to use it and compare it in the same conditions as full frame.
@@DustinArmstrongProIn fact, full frame is superior to MFT in highlights, not in low lights, i.e. in recovering shadows, and therefore you can get better results with MFT in low light. The ISO equivalent of MFT to full frame is multiplied by 4, so you don't have to increase the ISO, what you have to do is overexpose. (The noise problem in MFT comes from underexposure) and it is advisable to use faster lenses since you have the advantage of not having such a short depth of field and getting more light. Regarding MFT lenses, in most cases you can get all or almost all the sharpness at full aperture, and in full frame you have to close 1 or 2 steps of the diagram in many lenses, i.e., the concept of the smallest depth of field falls apart. Something they don't mention regarding ISO is that the more you increase the ISO, the more dynamic range you lose, and therefore the concept of greater dynamic range in full frame falls apart, i.e., you can get more dynamic range in MFT. I must mention that the biggest advantage in mft is the stabilizer to get more light, more dynamic range and more stable and sharper images because you can lower the shutter speed more and therefore get more light without losing image quality. In conclusion, you can get the same or better results in low light conditions in mft since everything is in favor of the smaller sensor but most people don't know how to use it and compare it in the same conditions as full frame.
In fact, full frame is superior to MFT in highlights, not in low lights, i.e. in recovering shadows, and therefore you can get better results with MFT in low light. The ISO equivalent of MFT to full frame is multiplied by 4, so you don't have to increase the ISO, what you have to do is overexpose. (The noise problem in MFT comes from underexposure) and it is advisable to use faster lenses since you have the advantage of not having such a short depth of field and getting more light. Regarding MFT lenses, in most cases you can get all or almost all the sharpness at full aperture, and in full frame you have to close 1 or 2 steps of the diagram in many lenses, i.e., the concept of the smallest depth of field falls apart. Something they don't mention regarding ISO is that the more you increase the ISO, the more dynamic range you lose, and therefore the concept of greater dynamic range in full frame falls apart, i.e., you can get more dynamic range in MFT. I must mention that the biggest advantage in mft is the stabilizer to get more light, more dynamic range and more stable and sharper images because you can lower the shutter speed more and therefore get more light without losing image quality. In conclusion, you can get the same or better results in low light conditions in mft since everything is in favor of the smaller sensor but most people don't know how to use it and compare it in the same conditions as full frame.
I don’t feel like the S5iix limits me in any way, but full frame 4k60 would be amazing 🤌🏽 Also why has no manufacturer thought about Full frame 2k60? Maybe it’s not physically possible 🤔
All these shilltubers make it seem like the only reason anyone should be getting full frame cameras is to do other shilltuber videos. It's like every new MacBook review that comes out, the only thing people talk about is finalcut performance.... lol, as if that's ALL people do? Christ....
Don't forget to checkout betterhelp! betterhelp.com/dustinarmstrong
Just today I sold my FX30 for the S5ii. I started filmmaking with the GH5. Actually shot a feature film with the GH5. But, what drove me to Sony was, of course, the AF. But, after seeing what can come out of the S5ii for the past year, and missing the better colors that I think LUMIX offers, I finally decided to switch back to LUMIX. What broke the final straw was seeing two videos comparing the FX30 with the S5ii. And when I saw how natural the colors were from the S5ii, especially skin tones, I decided to finally pull the trigger. I'm excited about joining the LUMIX family again. And I have to be honest, it has also been your videos that made me consider the switch as well. Plus, I miss the dynamic range of a full frame camera. So, there is that, too.
Welcome back to the fam🔥 appreciate you watching
The DR of the GH7 seems to be pretty close to FF: Maybe one stop difference.
As Dustin says however the low light difference is more material: about 2 stops behind LUMIX FF cameras (which are among the better hybrid cameras for low light).
Been a full frame since I sold my GH5. Hopefully the future S1H II, or whatever the final product is, will bring the GH7 features to full frame. ProRes RAW internally, 32-bit float audio and numerous timecode options.
I bet it will. They carried through the photography features of the G9II to the GH7 so I'd assume they would carry the GH7 features to full frame least to the best of their ability
I subscribed for the real talk and honesty. Thank you man 🔥
Appreciate you watching🙏
Dude you nailed it. Full retention. I love the gh7 but the points you made are spot on. Cheers
Appreciate you watching🙏
Getting a speedbooster for it is the gamechanger that made me pull the trigger on this camera. Metabones released a update for the pdfa to work with automatic lenses and it works really well.
The point I agree on is dual native ISO though thats sweet to dial in when needed.
I highly suggest pairing the camera with a metabones speedbooster if the investment makes sense. Great video:)
Haven't used a speedometer so can't speak to that but I have heard it's popular. Appreciate you watching🙏
@@AdrianvandenBroeck exactly what speed booster are u referring to
@@OG-Rarities.UnseenUnreleased metabones ultra 0.71x
Great video mate. Sadly for me, full frame just isn't working... I have been shooting with the s5iix for about a year and it's been cumbersome for the most part, and the biggest reason is the 60p crop - which kills me... and especially kitted out with all the gear it just became too cumbersom to film with. I just shot a video with my old G9 with a 9mm lens wide open and not only was it easier, the results were better hands down - this is likely use case and my skill level with the s5iix. For some reason, I just can't get it to work for me, so I decided to sell all my gear and switch the GH7... At least I have all of the lenses :D Thanks for the vid.
For some like you, m43 will just work better. The GH7 is still an incredible camera I can't deny it. If something like the GH7 in full frame exists soon, I don't know if I'll need to upgrade for a very long time lol
@@DustinArmstrongPro well said. I just handle mft better like hand in glove and I struggled with full frame. I’m listing all my cameras today with my PL mount cinema lenses and will hopefully buy the Gh7 when they sell!
But the Crop of MFT is bigger even with de Súper 35 Crop of than the Lumix S5
@@DustinArmstrongProI don't appreciate the struggling in low light part
@@OG-Rarities.UnseenUnreleasedyou can speedboost or buy open lenses
I'm on my toes waiting with anticipation as well. " What's ahead for Lumix". I'll be honest red and Nikon have me looking over my shoulder.... But Lumix please surprise us!! I have my ear up for all Lumix news.
Thanks for posting.
I'm sure they got somethin in the oven
Great video! The GH7 is a powerhouse!
It's crazy!
I love it!
Question: What was the focal length and ƒ-stops used for both of the cameras, and the actual distance from subject for the Bokeh examples… That information is typically important in those situations for comparison purposes…
Which is why we tend to use the Leica ƒ1.7 Zooms, or ƒ1.2 Primes… With µ4/3 the position of the camera will almost never be quite the same due to the obvious lens physics…
🤔
As someone who has used all three main sensor sizes, you must admit that it is easier to make good footage with a M4/3 than with an FF camera. And faster lenses than f2.0 on m4/3
erase low light disadvantage, and with all the additional frame rates, formats, and stability you have with m4/3 cameras, it's an easy choice. You have tons of affordable fast lenses
for m4/3 try one, you won't regret it. And in most cases, clients don't care and do not want to know which camera you are using, they care about results not tools you are using.
FF vs m4/3 is something TH-camrs made up into an issue, which is almost never an issue in a real world. And the vast majority of TH-camrs covering this topic have the trustworthy
level of an politician, zero!
As a side note, the average voters lack of critical thinking and willingness to believe what they want to hear is why crooked politicians do better than someone telling the truth. So it would seem that even well intentioned politicians should be careful with the truth. And who can even tell what the truth is? Well we should question our own beliefs and bias constantly
I actually think it's easier to get good looking footage from full frame than m4/3, but it's probably because I've used full frame for years like I said
@@DustinArmstrongPro Can't argue with that, I spent years on m4/3, now I use FF and APC cameras, but I use manual focus a lot and take a lot of handheld shots, so good IBIS
is essential for me, decided gonna sell my Fuji and buy GH6 or 7 depending on the cost. And I change fps frequently, for example, when I shoot weddings, I use 3-5 different fps, for that GH cameras are the best.
As someone with several Lumix cameras, including the GH6 and S5IIX, I don’t see why you say it’s easier to get good footage on MFT than FF. The S5IIX is just crazy crisp and clean even with the kit lens, and has great stabilization. The mainstream f/1.8 primes would also require f/0.9 on MFT to match the bokeh, and the standard f/2.8 zooms require the high end f/1.4 primes on MFT to match. I have yet to see any zooms on MFT that go wider than f/1.7.
I don’t see raw quality as an advantage of MFT. Where it shines is in the compactness and affordability of the lenses.
@@StephenKendall you would think that as well as the benefits you mentioned that sensor readout potential is higher. Feasibly m43vshould be closer to affordable global shutter 🤷♂️
I am still happy with my g9 & s5, not to mention TZ101. I still have not maxed them out yet, thanks.
Hey did you do those low light tests comparing gh7 to other aps-c cameras?
Thanks a lot for sharing your views on this camera.
At first I was wondering why you are claiming that the GH7 can't compete against full frame in low light, and then I realized that you are comparing at same ISO. If you were comparing with comparable lenses instead of comparing at same ISO - for instance comparing MFT f0.95 25mm against FF f1.9 50mm - you would notice that at same shutter seed, the ISO on the GH7 is about 4 times lower than on full frame. In this fairer comparison, I believe that the GH7 does compare favorably to many full frame cameras (and even some modern medium format cameras). In fact, physics does work in favor of small sensors in low light: small sensors generate less heat, and enable a better conversion of incoming light (photons) into measurable current (electrons). A typical FF sensor converts 52-58% of light only (the R3 reaches 61%), while several MFT sensors are above 80%. That is a very significant step up.
Of course, in good light, MFT cameras will usually be at a disadvantage against larger sensors because they usually have a comparatively high base ISO, which leads to a more limited dynamic range. Also, FF lens selection is usually better.
IBIS on the gh7 is superior, crops less in the electronic stabilization modes as well. No crop in 60p or 120p 4k. Paired with the 10-25 f1.7 and 25-50 f1.7 it’s killer for video..
My Leica nocticron F1.2 captures insane low light.. more than enough to film in absolute darkness. Noise yes but boris fx denoising works quite well. Yes it could be a con but not by much.
Right I know that some will disagree with me
A speedbooster and manual lenses makes a lot of those issues go away by giving you an extra f stop and increasing the optical resolution by reducing the image circle. But then at that point you may just want ff.
Yeah that's something I don't have experience with, but I do think yes at that point just go full frame
Dude- you really NEED the Leica 1,7 Zooms. Dont compare the cheap zooms! 🙂
I don't really have a problem with the lens in terms of quality. Still has to do with backrooms blur. Those are definitely great lenses (I've used them before), but even still 1.7 is f3.4 in terms of background blur.
@@DustinArmstrongPro Hey, yes, 3,5 is very good to get 3d-Pop in the Image. How ever, F2,8 or 5,6 in FF equivalent is NOT working to get a background blur that works esthetically ... :-) And yes, the Leica Lenses with F1,7 are insanely sharp with good microcontrast wide open! If you need a bit more blur you just need to shift the Look a bit more to tele spectrum and / or / a bit tighter framing and it is all beautiful!
Great content! Instant subscribe! 🔥
Ty🙏
I just priced a Panasonic FF 24-70 f/2.8 against their MFT 12-35 f/2.8 (I've had a GH3 since not long after it came out, so have an older version of the 12-35). There's a $1,200 USD difference between the two... ouch. I don't think my wallet can handle going to Full Frame 😁
I'm a photojournalist at a TV news station, where we're issued Sony PXW-X400's, but have A7ii's and a couple of FX9's with some proper zooms available for special projects. Full Frame, for all it has going for it, is a giant PITA for me to work with when I'm one man banding in an ENG/Run-n-Gun scenario , and I end up having to stop down so much in order to keep subjects in focus that it kinda negates the benefits for me.
For sure price is definitely a factor to consider. It's like medium format is very pricey compared to full frame. But yeah in broadcast and journalism with servo zoom lenses, blurry backgrounds may not be important at all. Not saying everyone needs full frame just for my use case those are my thoughts. A lot to consider!
and with Nikon offering Red Luts conversion, Sony allowing Braw, they all try to bring something to compete with
What a day to be a camera enthusiast
Hello Dustin, thanks for this video. This "blurry background" story is really a pathology of youtube and youtubers.
99% of people believe that the 24x36 has "a low depth of field". In truth, the 24x36 is a tiny sensor with a LOT of depth of field. I use a Hasselblad Medium Format H5D-60 with a 42 x 57 mm sensor every day. And there yes, we can say that we use a low depth of field.
So this story of so-called "large sensor" and supposedly "low depth of field" is just a question of point of view. The 24x36 is not a large sensor (moreover it is part of the Small Format) and it has a large DOF. It's just because 99% of people only know the 24x36 as the largest sensor that they make the amalgam and think that it is a "large sensor" in absolute terms.
There is absolutely no problem with the MFT. You just have to adjust the camera to obtain a low DOF (assuming that "photographing low depth of field" is a valid criterion, which is far from being the case. It's just a youtube fad)
I also work in MFT. If I want high definition, very high image quality, I will most certainly not use the 24x36 which is big, heavy and expensive for a tiny optical quality. Unless you use Lumix S Pro lenses or Leica L lenses, the 24x36 is very VERY BELOW in terms of optical quality, compared to the MFT (especially the fabulous Olympus Pro ƒ/1.2 lenses) and of course compared to the Hassleblad Medium Format lenses.
I am talking about photography only. I do not include video in these remarks, except for the quality of the lenses)
A larger sensor doesn't collect more light.
Honestly what panasonic had done with the GH and S5 series lately (if I shot with lumix), I would skip both because I know they are dropping a heavy hitter soon in the S1Hii
You need to use a 0.95 lenses like voightlander.
Sure but that would mean I'd be at f/1.9 and I'd lose autofocus which is fine, but on L mount full frame there's 5 prime lenses all 1.8 with autofocus as an option so I'd still rather shoot full frame
hi bro iam lumix user , but g9ii is better or not forj wedding events and pre wedding ,
GH7 is better but G9II is still great as well
gh7 misses uvc webcam which many of its competitors (e.g. sony) offer that work well.
No LUMIX camera has that though least yet
who buys a GH7 to use as a webcam?! drive it through OBS etc - I've had multiple Sony's that can ... never even considered it - prob one of the most uninteresting features I could think of
@@TeamAstroworkz I guess they don't because it can't.
Yet, people will shoot a Hollywood feature on an iPhone Pro Max 15 and still GH7 is bad. Boggles your mind.
I haven't seen anybody call the GH7 bad
That all has to do with great Apple marketing. Sony does this too.
5:30 That’s not really true, a CST with no tone or gamut making is only doing a 3x3 matrix for color (using the coefficients from the published white paper) and an inverse EOTF for the transfer function. Every professional log format literally publishes the exact math, no interpretation allowed. That is way a Color Space Transform does.if you were to use tone mapping on the input that might add some proprietary stuff, but that is not typically done on the input side.
MFT low light performance is a misconception. MFT cameras can match a full frame at a lower ISO than a Full Frame. For example, put a F2.8 lens on the GH7, so to match the bokeh on a full frame you need a F5.6 both set at the same ISO, but now your image is darker than the GH7 so you need to push your ISO up to match it, providing you keep your shutter speed/angle the same. A good example is here: th-cam.com/video/J2PrrBRbH84/w-d-xo.html
why its not clog4? Do you know the reason behind that?
I don't. Probably ARRI just wanting it only for their Alexa 35
@@DustinArmstrongPro yeah i guess
I was pretty disappointed with how sharp the GH7 was compared to the GH6, it was shocking to see how digital the image look compared to the softer, organic look of the GH6. I ended up returning it. Here’s hoping LUMIX can go back to the IQ of their previous generation of cameras
It's only been a year and 4 months let the S5II/X cook 🤣🤣 Honestly you should do a video about how it can record BRAW that would be cool or compair it to the BM6K Full frame
I've done a video on BRAW with the S5IIX 😉
Imagine how much Panasonic would get done if they focused on supporting only one sensor size.
The GH cameras are a great workhorse and were very helpful for me getting into video, but there's just something about the depth of the color and light quality that I get with my s5ii and s5iix that the GH m4/3 line can't seem to attain.
I feel the same
Insane depth with Leica and vintage Carl Zeiss lens usage
the S1H mark 2 is going to be a full frame GH7 on steroids
Wouldn't be surprised
Full frame too heavy for my run and gun style
For sure that's a main advantage of M4/3
My honest thoughts: garbage.
Stop releasing this many videos I can't keep up
Do you have enough sound proofing in your mom's basement wtf is that big stack behind you
Stop getting old
It's my secret stash
MFT is actually better in low light conditions than full frame (the problem is that most people use it as if it were full frame and in MFT there is no need to increase iso)
Not sure where you heard this, but it's not true.
@@DustinArmstrongPro In fact, full frame is superior to MFT in highlights, not in low lights, i.e. in recovering shadows, and therefore you can get better results with MFT in low light. The ISO equivalent of MFT to full frame is multiplied by 4, so you don't have to increase the ISO, what you have to do is overexpose. (The noise problem in MFT comes from underexposure) and it is advisable to use faster lenses since you have the advantage of not having such a short depth of field and getting more light. Regarding MFT lenses, in most cases you can get all or almost all the sharpness at full aperture, and in full frame you have to close 1 or 2 steps of the diagram in many lenses, i.e., the concept of the smallest depth of field falls apart. Something they don't mention regarding ISO is that the more you increase the ISO, the more dynamic range you lose, and therefore the concept of greater dynamic range in full frame falls apart, i.e., you can get more dynamic range in MFT. I must mention that the biggest advantage in mft is the stabilizer to get more light, more dynamic range and more stable and sharper images because you can lower the shutter speed more and therefore get more light without losing image quality. In conclusion, you can get the same or better results in low light conditions in mft since everything is in favor of the smaller sensor but most people don't know how to use it and compare it in the same conditions as full frame.
@@DustinArmstrongPro In fact, full frame is superior to MFT in highlights, not in low lights, i.e. in recovering shadows, and therefore you can get better results with MFT in low light. The ISO equivalent of MFT to full frame is multiplied by 4, so you don't have to increase the ISO, what you have to do is overexpose. (The noise problem in MFT comes from underexposure) and it is advisable to use faster lenses since you have the advantage of not having such a short depth of field and getting more light. Regarding MFT lenses, in most cases you can get all or almost all the sharpness at full aperture, and in full frame you have to close 1 or 2 steps of the diagram in many lenses, i.e., the concept of the smallest depth of field falls apart. Something they don't mention regarding ISO is that the more you increase the ISO, the more dynamic range you lose, and therefore the concept of greater dynamic range in full frame falls apart, i.e., you can get more dynamic range in MFT. I must mention that the biggest advantage in mft is the stabilizer to get more light, more dynamic range and more stable and sharper images because you can lower the shutter speed more and therefore get more light without losing image quality. In conclusion, you can get the same or better results in low light conditions in mft since everything is in favor of the smaller sensor but most people don't know how to use it and compare it in the same conditions as full frame.
@@DustinArmstrongProIn fact, full frame is superior to MFT in highlights, not in low lights, i.e. in recovering shadows, and therefore you can get better results with MFT in low light. The ISO equivalent of MFT to full frame is multiplied by 4, so you don't have to increase the ISO, what you have to do is overexpose. (The noise problem in MFT comes from underexposure) and it is advisable to use faster lenses since you have the advantage of not having such a short depth of field and getting more light. Regarding MFT lenses, in most cases you can get all or almost all the sharpness at full aperture, and in full frame you have to close 1 or 2 steps of the diagram in many lenses, i.e., the concept of the smallest depth of field falls apart. Something they don't mention regarding ISO is that the more you increase the ISO, the more dynamic range you lose, and therefore the concept of greater dynamic range in full frame falls apart, i.e., you can get more dynamic range in MFT. I must mention that the biggest advantage in mft is the stabilizer to get more light, more dynamic range and more stable and sharper images because you can lower the shutter speed more and therefore get more light without losing image quality. In conclusion, you can get the same or better results in low light conditions in mft since everything is in favor of the smaller sensor but most people don't know how to use it and compare it in the same conditions as full frame.
In fact, full frame is superior to MFT in highlights, not in low lights, i.e. in recovering shadows, and therefore you can get better results with MFT in low light. The ISO equivalent of MFT to full frame is multiplied by 4, so you don't have to increase the ISO, what you have to do is overexpose. (The noise problem in MFT comes from underexposure) and it is advisable to use faster lenses since you have the advantage of not having such a short depth of field and getting more light. Regarding MFT lenses, in most cases you can get all or almost all the sharpness at full aperture, and in full frame you have to close 1 or 2 steps of the diagram in many lenses, i.e., the concept of the smallest depth of field falls apart. Something they don't mention regarding ISO is that the more you increase the ISO, the more dynamic range you lose, and therefore the concept of greater dynamic range in full frame falls apart, i.e., you can get more dynamic range in MFT. I must mention that the biggest advantage in mft is the stabilizer to get more light, more dynamic range and more stable and sharper images because you can lower the shutter speed more and therefore get more light without losing image quality. In conclusion, you can get the same or better results in low light conditions in mft since everything is in favor of the smaller sensor but most people don't know how to use it and compare it in the same conditions as full frame.
I don’t feel like the S5iix limits me in any way, but full frame 4k60 would be amazing 🤌🏽
Also why has no manufacturer thought about Full frame 2k60? Maybe it’s not physically possible 🤔
Yeah more just an annoyance. Full Frame 4k60 would just make things easier.
Probably just not much demand for 2k format
2k is 1080p
@@Wildridefilms 2k is actually 1440p
@@Wildridefilms pretty sure he's referring to 2560x1440p
@@waynealejo 4k is 3840 or 4096 pixels wide. So 2k is 1920 or 2048 pixels wide. What you're referring to is 2.7k or QHD
All these shilltubers make it seem like the only reason anyone should be getting full frame cameras is to do other shilltuber videos. It's like every new MacBook review that comes out, the only thing people talk about is finalcut performance.... lol, as if that's ALL people do? Christ....
LFG MUSCLEHAWK
MuscleHawk goes crazy