burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Well, we were hoping for a fully functional body to be shown at Photokina today, but at least they've announced they're working on it and shown a mock-up in a glass case.
DPReview has some photos and details in at least a couple of articles.

Panasonic also released a G85 model, to replace the G7, along with some other models.

The GH5 will record stills with 6K video. 4K Video is available up to 30P @ 4:2:2 (10-bit color), which is pretty amazing for a camera of its class. 4K 60P is 4:2:0 (8-bit color).

If you care about making GREAT video AND high quality stills with the same system, this camera will deserve consideration. Meanwhile, I'm using the GH4 and loving the results. I don't miss Canons and Nikons and their bulk and weight (with a bag full of full frame glass) and potential repetitive stress injuries to my wrist...

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

I read about this camera in an article some days ago. The GH4 is an excellent camera. The GH3 is now discontinued. The GX8 is still going strong. The GH5 should be a big hit in those loving mirrorless. Sony, Olympus, and Panasonic are better developing mirrorless. I am curious about Canon's new APS-C M5 mirrorless camera that is in the release stage.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

DPReview has a Preview of the Canon M5 on their site. It's apparently the best mirrorless Canon has developed, but still a disappointment. Canon's positioning of the camera to appeal to beginners and women is generally taken as an insincere effort. There are very few native lenses (six?) available for it, AF is slow, and performance lags even further when you put EF lenses on an M5 via the Canon adapter. Other than that, it produces nice images, but there are many other cameras that are, and have been, more compelling at the same or nearly the same price point.

Many of us want to see Canon and Nikon succeed in the mirrorless marketplace, but they need two or three lines of mirrorless bodies and lots of native lenses to do so. Micro Four-Thirds has the head start, and Sony is developing a decent lens line, too. Fujifilm has a small, but growing, collection of top shelf lenses, as well.

The paradox of mirrorless is that it makes it possible to design smaller bodies, and slightly smaller lenses, for any given format. It is also easier for the engineers to achieve higher lens performance when the lens-to-focal plane distance is shorter. But nearly every consumer with an existing lens collection wants to keep using it. Or, they want to keep using full frame lenses because they own — or might want to buy — a full frame body. That generally means sticking full frame 35mm or dSLR lenses on a small mirrorless body, which doesn't make sense. A tiny body stuck on a big zoom lens just seems silly, and is unbalanced.

For me, the whole point of moving to m43 was to have a system engineered from top to bottom to be coherent. I got the GH4 because I record stills and video with equal emphasis, often melding the two together in a hybrid form. I can do it all with one kit. I could do it with a 5D Mark IV or a D500 and a "holy trinity" of fast zooms, but my target audience would never see the difference, it would cost three times as much, and it would weigh nearly four times as much. And it would not fit under an airline seat.

chaman

I will keep my "heavy" DSLRs. The principal audience of my images is me.... If I am fully satisfied thats the most important thing. It may be good for video but it lacks in the still department. A camera is more than good video and decent stills. Take for example the quick, accurate focus system of modern DSLRs, the ability to have QUALITY glass, the clean images a bigger full frame sensor naturally has among other things. My DSLR and three QUALITY lenses fit PERFECTLY under the airline seat.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

If I regularly made 60x40 prints of landscapes, product photos for trade shows or point-of-purchase displays, etc., I'd probably own a full frame dSLR and a few pro lenses. But I don't. So I don't need it.

When I do "guerrilla video" and stills on the same job, I need the camera, several lenses, a flash unit, a couple of small LED panels, at least two wireless microphone systems... When I used dSLRs, I needed to check a large Pelican case to carry everything.

Nearly all my work is viewed on screens with 1080P or less resolution, or at small sizes (20" wide or smaller). It's printed for albums, or appears in PDF files for letter-size printing, or it goes into video training modules.

Back in the 1970s, in college, I decided that Marshall McLuhan was full of $#it, when he said, "The medium is the message." NO, dammit, "The MESSAGE is the message." Now that we live in an era of HDTV, 4K TV, and smartphones with over 240 or more pixels per inch resolution, the vast majority of viewers pay attention to what's said, and what's shown, even if it's just a 16-second VINE. "Good enough" quality is a given. What is memorable in most of my contexts is a message that resonates with meaning, not just a pretty picture. I'm after informative, teachable moments.

Life is full of little trade-offs. I used to project 35mm slides to 6'x9' or larger screens used for corporate multi-image shows. At 11 feet or more from the screen, they were incredibly sharp and life-like. So is an HD or 4K image from a good projector. It is only when you pixel peep a very large image from very close distances that you begin to see the pixels.

When I worked in a pro lab, we regularly made portrait prints of all sizes up to 40x60 inches from digital images coming from 5.33 to 8.2 MP Nikons and Canons. That was well before full frame bodies cost less than $7000. I don't recall any of them coming back because there weren't enough megapixels. We used Photoshop and Genuine Fractals software to scale the images to larger sizes. AT NORMAL VIEWING DISTANCES (the diagonal of the print was our standard), they looked wonderful, as they did at 8x12.

The 80+ lenses available for m43 include several top notch Leica-designed primes and zooms, several weather-sealed, pro quality zooms from both Olympus and Panasonic, and a range of manual focus lenses from third parties. I'm as happy with my 12-35mm f/2.8 and 35-100mm f/2.8 Panasonic zooms as I was with Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses. When I need better bokeh, I slap on an f/1.7 or f/1.4 prime, or I just back up and zoom in. Are the results identical to full frame? No. Do I care? Not for my end uses.

There are many on UHH with various infirmities, and advanced age. Arthritis, loss of fine motor control, loss of strength and endurance eventually take their toll. Smaller mirrorless systems make it easier for such people to continue to travel with full-featured photo gear, and still do most of what they did with the "big iron" of their youth.

chaman

Well I do care for my intended purposes. You have a very funny agenda pushing these 4/3 cameras all the time and taking stabs to the DSLRs. I don't see ANY member using full frame DSLRs posting about them and finishing the posts down playing the 4/3 systems. Only YOU do that and, IMO, you are trying too hard. You love to write these essays praising the systems but conveniently avoid talking about their shortcomings. You have lowered your IQ standards to accommodate for your limitations, real or not, Im not judging, over exaggerating these systems. I think a little dose of reality is needed. These are NOT substitutes for DSLRs in any way. Oh and yes, my DSLR and 3 lenses can fit under the airline seat.....that was one of your more silly "reasons" given, it was more than that though, it was simply NOT true.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I have NO agenda other than encouraging respect for the idea that there are various imaging tools, at various price points, of varying sizes, weights, bulks, shapes, performance points, and configurations, that each serve very specific purposes. As an economics major, I know that competition, at least oligopolistic competition, is VERY good for the marketplace. It keeps the major players from getting stale and staid.

So often on UHH, people run the Canon or Nikon or Full Frame or raw imaging flag up the pole, and proudly dare others to shoot it down. It's irrational behavior! Don't buy a brand or type of camera because someone says it's the best. Buy it because it meets YOUR NEEDS within YOUR BUDGET. Use it because it fits your workflow. Use it because it feels right for your use case.

What I see in the photo marketplace is no different from any other. No one product — or type of product within the category — is universally "better" than every other product! There is only a relative difference for a specific purpose. If you have to maximize image quality, you will do so at a price. If you have to maximize flexibility and portability, you will do THAT at a price, too. Willingness to pay the price depends on needs, hopes, wants, dreams, and desires. We do not all share the same... and that's perfectly okay.

People forget that. If you are Family Guy, and you need a minivan daily, you do not buy a Porsche 911, no matter how much cash you have... Oh, if you are rich or wealthy, you might buy BOTH because you can afford the fun, but you NEED a minivan or SUV to haul a big family.

On the other hand, if you're a 50 year-old rich guy having a mid-life crisis after a divorce, maybe you buy the Porsche because you gave the van to the wife as part of the settlement, even though you won, because she cheated on you. I know a guy who actually did that...

Trying to make one item work universally is crazy. I don't use a screwdriver as a wrench, or a hammer as a screwdriver. If there is a 0.5% chance I might make a trip worthy of using a 50 MP dSLR to record something grand, then it, and its lenses, may be rented. That spares the need to "major on the minor use" by owning it and tying up my funds, and by lugging something I don't want to lug... the other 99.5% of the time.

I do know some pretty fine pros who have abandoned (or mostly abandoned) their heavy dSLR gear in favor of mirrorless cameras. Will Crockett, renowned photo educator, advisor to the US Military, and a successful commercial photographer in Chicago, uses mostly mirrorless gear from Panasonic and Fujifilm. Daniel J. Cox, who has more magazine covers and stories to his credit than I can mention, is a Lumix Luminary and uses GH4s and GX8s for the majority of his work. Giulio Sciorio, Marlene Hielema, Paul Gero, Chuck Jones... I can go on and on. They've done the math and tested the gear and made their decisions. Most of them have been using mirrorless gear for at least five years that I know of.

I'm sure you can fit a dSLR and a few lenses under an airline seat, but I could never travel without lights and audio gear, all of which add to the bulk and weight. I eliminated 2/3 of the bulk and weight of camera and lenses when I switched, leaving room in my bag for my audio gear, a flash, and two small LED panels.

For me, there is no debate... There are only choices. I'm a voice for choice. Use whatever make sense... just make sure you look left, right, up, and down before looking in front and behind. dSLRs are GREAT for what they do. But there's more to photography than dSLRs.

chaman

Exceptions are not the rule. MOST professionals rely on DSLRs. That IS a FACT. IQ is the most important thing to me. Low light performance, quality glass a REAL fast and accurate focusing system. Areas where 4/3 lack. I do not need to write an essay for that. Each post from you gets longer and longer. You say you do not try too hard? I beg to differ. Talk about their deficiencies with the same enthusiasm and try to be more objective. As said before not one DSLR shooter ends up a post throwing cheap shots at any 4/3 system. A fairly large percentage of your diatribe is invested in pointing out the "negatives" of DSLRs, and you do not have an agenda? Please. Present the good with the BAD otherwise you loose credibility.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I stand by my previous statements, and yes, I like to write.

I have used dSLRs and mirrorless cameras for the same things, so I think I have a pretty good perspective. FOR WHAT I DO, which is communications and training oriented, with a few portraits thrown in, m43 mirrorless is just right. That's where it ends.

dSLRs have plenty of positives AND negatives. I could do a comparison sheet of positives vs. negatives, since I used both SLRs and dSLRs (and dozens of film cameras from half frame 35mm through 4x5) from 1968 to 2012, and followed their development since 2012.

The most negative thing about dSLRs is the damned mirror flapping around in there, followed by the hubris of the manufacturers. I hated the mirror black-out back in '68, and it hasn't changed!

The most positive thing about dSLRs is the availability of lots of new and used glass, followed by the availability of the best big sensors, "big-pixel" sensors, and the NPS/CPS services offered by Nikon and Canon to their pros.

The most negative thing about m43 is the low light level performance, which is about two stops less sensitivity (S/N ratio) than full frame, or one stop less than APS-C (on average).

The most positive thing about m43 is the lack of the mirror, followed by the utter lack of need for lens micro adjustments, followed by all the stuff I mentioned earlier. The best lenses ARE tack sharp, with most of the Panasonic pro, Olympus pro, and Leica-branded lenses perfectly usable from wide open to f/11. I find the depth of field increase due to the 2X crop factor to be useful... It only bothers me when doing portraiture, and then not very much. I get very nice results at 50 to 55 mm, f/2.8 – f/4. At 100mm, the background is soft enough. I like the whole head in focus.

Gpa-15 Loc: Tinton Falls, NJ

Hi Bob...
Can you tell me if the GH5 will be able to give me the PRECISE-Frame (in 16MP resolution), as does the IOS-App 'VideoPix' of the Videos I record on my 5th Gen Apple iPod Touch??? ...and THEN allow me to Slightly-Crop THAT 16MP image, at will?? --- Bob, for me, the Instantaneous Capture [with NO PP] type shooter, the GH5 (as described above), would be the Perfect Camera. --- I just ALSO pray that there will be a WAY to have it work with the 2TB 'My Passport' ...AND, a Small (but powerful), Portable Power Supply.!!! --- Oh Bob, THINK of BOTH the 8K Videos ...OR the 16MP Stills you could Capture (Of an ENTIRE Wedding Ceremony [1hr long]; ...OR, an Entire Graduation [2hr vid, with a GUARENTEED 16MP still, of YOUR grandson; ...as he shakes hands with the 'presenter'; ...and, as he grabs his diploma; ...and, as Both He and the Principal/President are Looking to the Camera and Smiling.!.!.!]). --- Bob, How MUCH Could YOU charge for THAT 'Guarentee'.???
---Thanks for your Consideration and Comment, Bob; I look forward to Your and the Comments of Other UHH-Pals

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

Interesting...the GH4 is heavier than my Nikon D5500.??

Gpa-15 Loc: Tinton Falls, NJ

-------------
Hi Ken... I'm a little confused. What was the point of your Comment, relative to my response to Bob???

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

A very simple statement. The D5500 Nikon is ligter in weight than the GH4. Bob said the GH4 is lighter than DSLR's.
GH4 weighs 19.75oz
D5500 weighs 15oz
This has nothing to do with your responce.
And the D5500 is 24megapixels.

Gpa-15 Loc: Tinton Falls, NJ

----------
Hi Ken...
Thanks for the INFO.

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

Thanks Gpa, just trying to make it clear.