June 2, 2014

Camera Shootout: Panasonic GH4 vs. Canon 5D3 RAW & Canon C100

We already saw how the new Panasonic GH4 compares to the RED EPIC and the Canon 5D Mark III shooting Magic Lantern RAW, and today we've another comparison with the 5D Mark III shooting RAW. We've also got an interesting look at the GH4 versus the more video-oriented C100, so you can see how the budget-friendly Panasonic fares against the beefier and more expensive Canon camera. Check out both tests below to see which cameras came out on top.

First up is the 5D3 vs. GH4 test from Steve Chan of DSI Pictures Entertainment:

This is the Canon 5D Mark III VS Panasonic GH4 video comparison test. As we know both cameras are very popular for video shooting. But the 5D Mark III has been out for over two years now. So I'm just curious is the 5D still the best choice for video shooting? Let me know what you guys think? 

Camera settings:
5D Mark III
Shot it with original codec H.264 ALL-I 91Mbps 25fps 1080p
(With Neutral settings, Contrast -3 Sharpness -3, Saturation -2, Colour tone 0)
GH4
Shot it with original codec H.264 100Mbps 25fps (4K Downscaled to 1080p)
(With Neutral settings, Contrast -3 Sharpness -2, Noise Reduction 0, Saturation -2, Hue 0)

Lens used:
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM

And here is the C100 vs. GH4 video (See some uncompressed footage here):

This is the Canon Cinema EOS C100 VS Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 comparison test. The reason why I'm doing this video test because both cameras are designed for serious film making. So I would like to see how these two camera performs. And which one has better image quality. As we know Canon C100 has the same 4K sensor as the bigger brother C300 and C500. But the camera itself outputs as 1080p only. So to make it fair, I shot everything 4K on the GH4 and downscaled to 1080p. And I used the same Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM lens in the test. So they should both look the same. So which one do you think looks better?

The first test done with just the GH4:

The results are interesting, and they echo a lot of what we've seen so far. The GH4 looks very sharp, especially downscaled from 4K to 1080p. Whether you're a fan of this or not is obviously a personal preference, but it's unlikely you'll be complaining about how soft the camera looks as some have with other DSLR/mirrorless cameras (at least if you're shooting in 4K). Having slow motion at more than 720p is a huge positive for the GH4, and even if you weren't planning on using it as your main camera, that might be a good enough reason to get one.

I think the really interesting tests are going to be between the A7s and the GH4, but we'll probably have to wait a little longer for those.

Links:

Your Comment

202 Comments

C100 kicked its ass in DR. GH4 clips highlights like a mofo here. Be interesting to see how the Sony A7S stacks up to the C100.

June 2, 2014 at 3:09PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
xml

agree

stunning how poor the gh4 dynamic range is

June 2, 2014 at 4:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
james

hmm in fairness it was for one shot and you could buy about 3 gh4 bodies for the price of a c100 with the prores recorder. i wonder what the yaghagaguuuh would add in regards to dr. seems none of the testers seem that bothered with it. i dont think it will sell but i hope panny dont give up on the idea. if they could remodel it to be a little smaller and self powered it would be far more practical/

June 2, 2014 at 6:56PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
kev

The YAGH is only necessary if you want balanced audio or if you need 4K 10bit 4:2:2 recorded right now, because that uncompressed signal is already coming out of the HDMI port. It's just a matter of waiting for the Shogun (and other recorders) to take that signal and record it.
In the meantime you can just record 1080p 10bit 4:2:2.

June 3, 2014 at 1:42PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

13
Reply

I don't think it's poor by any means... but... there are better options in the price range with GREAT dynamic range like the 2.5k BMCC and that new Sony A7s.

June 2, 2014 at 7:56PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
bwhitz

It's pretty clear that the cameraman screwed the exposure in the shot with the buildings, which is the only one where I see significantly more dynamic range.

June 3, 2014 at 5:17AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Marshman

Agreed.

June 12, 2014 at 10:07AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

I don't really think the Canon kicked a#@ in any way in this test.

June 2, 2014 at 8:03PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Gene

I don't like how the shadows plug up and highlights clip on the gh4 either. If you buy lighting equipment and keep your exposure in the midtones I can see the gh4 doing well... But I wouldn't shoot movie with it personally with bmcc and red / Sony rentals available.

June 2, 2014 at 8:09PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene Wolfe

I own a GH4 and I was initially really disappointed with the way it dealt with highlights. However after some playing around with settings both in-camera and in post, I've been really impressed with how much detail is really in there and able to be pulled back. It's not perfect, of course, but it is significantly better than it first appears to be.

June 3, 2014 at 9:16AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
Brian

Great comparison, especially with the C100. There are a few noticeable differences, mainly with how much warmer the GH4 looks, but I think it looks like a fantastic camera/footage.

June 2, 2014 at 3:12PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Geh Heigh Foh

I think Panasonic listened to feedback that many said the GH2/GH3 looked looked too cool and so warmed up the GH4 image.

June 2, 2014 at 8:05PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Goes to show just how spoiled for choice we are right now. :D

June 2, 2014 at 3:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Coty

I-Only looks too soft, MII&ML looks sharp but less cinematic... so-so DR, GH4 highlights fall off the cliff instead of rolling down the hill. If the GH4 had at least 14 stops DR, it'd be a great camera. otherwise just looks too video-ey for my taste. Seeing as how its very saturated and yellow also would not make it a good candidate for CC as it is coming in pre-colored by the camera. I'd pick DR over resolution anyday. nothing worse than a camera that can't handle highlights in a pleasant manner.

June 2, 2014 at 3:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply

Thanks for this great comparison. How did you mount the Canon-EF lenses on the GH4? Thanks!

June 2, 2014 at 3:34PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply

Cool. I'm kind of sick of all these camera shootouts. I'd like to request more posts about the art part of filmmaking.

June 2, 2014 at 3:40PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Brandon

I think the biggest problem with camera shootouts lies in the name. I think too many people are wanting a camera to "win out" overall when that's just not how it works most of the time. Not to mention shootouts tend to bring out the absolute worst in some commenters.

June 2, 2014 at 3:49PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

7
Reply
Coty

I think those showing their worst in comments are those that don't really know what they are talking about in the first place. It seem they are feeling defensive ans insecure and are lashing out from that cornered feeling. I do wish all of thee "shootouts" would produce a higher level of discousre so we could all learn intelligently instead of throwing bombs.

June 2, 2014 at 8:09PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

+1

June 2, 2014 at 5:58PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Maxim Drygin

There aren't enough GOOD ones.

For people of limited means, it is important to know how much bang you get for your buck. It is important to be able to look at all the characteristics of two cameras, compare and contrast them, and then based on your own needs choose the right camera.

The idea of a camera "winning" is relative based on what characteristics you think are most important. IQ depends on several things. Willing to sacrifice resolution for dynamic range? MkIII is good for that. Not willing to deal with the headache of the MkIII raw workflow? Then GH4. Maybe someone likes the MkIII more in all categories but the price, but are satisfied enough with the GH4 that they are still comfortable choosing it instead. Based on the direct tests.

Two different people will look at the results and come to two different conclusions. One doesn't have to "win" for it to be a useful test.

For my own taste, I am less interested in people going out doc-style and just pointing the camera at cars and pedestrians. I would like to see more of cameras tested in a narrative setting with actors and set lights. That's the only application I care about.

June 2, 2014 at 7:15PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Damon

If you frequent this site a bit more often, you'll see that the majority of posts are usually about filmmaking techniques in general. In fact they're writing so little about cameras themselves these days that they've vacated a lot of the trolls that used to bring this blog into mud.

June 3, 2014 at 12:30AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
James

Please, please, PLEASE ... in the future, please include SKIN TONES. Filmmaking is not about sharpness in landscapes ... it's about how the camera renders skin tones. The 5D, GH4 comparo tells me nothing about how actors with varying skin tones look . ijs

June 2, 2014 at 3:45PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
pxlmvr

+1

I appreciate the test... but for real, give us skin tones for the love of God.

June 2, 2014 at 4:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Lane

+1 as well. And I like to add that I haven't seen a serious attempt of a cinematic grade with the GH4. I just rly don't like the image that comes from the camera, but maybe it can be fixed in post

June 2, 2014 at 5:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Martin

Skin tones and black levels are the MOST important thing that need to be tested when testing a camera. Almost any camera can take a picture of a landscape or a car, but skin tones are significantly more complex and varied. It also will hint on how well corrections can be made, as we can see what it captures natively for skin tones and see how they correct (another biggie).

Canon C line may be very pricey, but this is where they shine IMO. THey blow RED, GH4, and pretty much any DSLR out the window when it comes to skin tones. Sure, you cant grade it as much, but on the other side, you dont need to spend so much time correcting skin tone, which IMO is one of the hardest areas of CC to get correct and one of the easiest to see when its done incorrectly.

June 2, 2014 at 5:47PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

7
Reply

I agree, stick your beautiful 30+ lead actress in close-up on a GH4 and it won't be very flattering. 4K is great for these landscape and establishing shots but how much of a film will be made of this? Very little... I'd take 2K Raw with 11+ stops of dynamic range over compressed 4K any day of the week. Seeing how these 4K cameras handle colour and underexposure will be the big test!

June 2, 2014 at 6:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Will

Jason, though I agree with what you are saying in terms of the importance of skin tones, being an owner of both the Scarlet and C100 I have to say that RED produce much more accurate and attractive skin tones than Canon do with the C-series cameras. The 12-bit colour space of the R3D simply has far greater depth than the 8bit C-Log and this translates through in to skin tones too, picking up subtle variations in skin tone and detail that unfortunately the C100 sees as just a limited palette of colours. For an 8-bit camera the C100 is a killer, but in the real world it just doesn't stack up against the 12 bit RAW codec of RED when it comes to skin tones- I'd happily take portraiture with the Scarlet any day over the C100! In saying all of that, there are a list of things as long as my arm where the C100 trumps the RED, but that's for another time!

June 2, 2014 at 9:34PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
David

The RED Epic, at higher ISOs, desaturates. Outside of the Dragon, I would probably use the C500 or the Alexa for a decent sized production. The Alexa handles highlights very well. The Red handles shadows very well. And, Canon has excellent color rendering. Individuals can try and blow Hurlbut off, but his tests are pretty accurate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTCpuwZzPPE

June 3, 2014 at 3:12AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
RidingtheDragon

How are skin tones "more complex' as compared to the "complexity" of fluttering leaves, just as an example?

July 9, 2014 at 6:23AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Tim

+1

June 2, 2014 at 6:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Martin

YES

June 2, 2014 at 7:16PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

11
Reply
Damon

As an owner of a GH4, I can't help but feel that the person that did this test doesn't know the GH4 very well.

They should have shot using the CineLike D profile, in order to create smooth highlight roll-offs, and they should have set the Highlights to "-2" (or -4) and Shadows to "+2" (or -4) in camera. They should have also selected a 0-255 colour-space in camera, and rendered to 16-235.

Sorry to sound picky, but this test was not a good representation of the GH4's capabilities.

June 2, 2014 at 4:11PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

7
Reply
Johnny

Totally agree. The first comparison video is really bad. Obviously the person behind the camera didn't spend enough time working with the gh4. Go on vimeo and write gh4 piece of mind. You'll find some really good stuff created with the gh4.

June 2, 2014 at 4:29PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
Fab

Awesome work!
Thanks for that, as it was the determining factor in my commitment to purchase one.

June 12, 2014 at 10:20AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

I don't think you're being picky. I agree too that the GH4 was not used at its best.

June 2, 2014 at 9:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Hello guys was just wondering if anyone's done a comparison where the depth of field was the same but the iso was different and what that means ... because large sensors are nice but i want to know in low light ,if the gh4 is on par when stopping down say a 5d to match depth of field.

Because at say iso 1600 at 2.8 the gh4 has a 35mm film of f6 maybe? how does the 5d mark 3 compare at f6 at maybe 6400.

i see a lot of video people use the F4 24-105mm not the fastest glass and stopping down is probably easier to keep things focus. This where i think a smaller sensor does well but i would like to know how well

June 2, 2014 at 4:18PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Ajit aka Whispers

Ah just saw the tailend of the C100 shootout (which i thought i'd seen before) but would like more videos on the matter... because its give more rounded view

June 2, 2014 at 4:28PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

8
Reply
Ajit aka Whispers

Would've liked to see the Blackmagic Pocket in this test. Since the GH4 came and out and people online started declaring it the Holy Grail, the BMPCC has been somewhat overlooked, but it's still a whole lotta camera for $1K, and can easily hold its own against the C100 and its big brethren. I prefer the BMPCC's superior DR and organic "film look" over the GH4 any day, even though it's "only" 1080p.

June 2, 2014 at 5:12PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply

slow motion.

June 3, 2014 at 1:02AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

BMPCC and the cameras in this video are targeted to two entirely different markets. BMPCC is for narrative filmmakers and music videos, etc that have a proper post workflow (color, etc). And also for shows where theres a sound guy. These cameras in the comp video are for one man team videographers and wedding/event shooters who just want something that "looks cinematic" out of the box so they can shit it out onto youtube

June 3, 2014 at 3:15AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

12
Reply
john jeffries

That's not true.

I've used the BMPCC and the GH Series.

The BMPCC and the 2.5K BMPC are okay cameras. They have huge downsides though, like handling, moiré and lack of decent camera software.

The GH4 is a equal competitor and not just for landscapes and weddings.

A camera does not make a image seem cinematic. Saying that is like saying, the cone makes the ice cream taste like strawberries.

June 3, 2014 at 6:19AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
RandomGuy

If it is a strawberry flavored cone, then yes it does

June 3, 2014 at 3:48PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
john jeffries

+1!

June 3, 2014 at 9:10PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

A mistake in the title and article, it's not magic lantern raw, it's the All-I implementation.

Personally, i would take raw over 4k but still this is not a raw vs h264 4k comparison.

June 2, 2014 at 5:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Panz

It's a bit of a silly test. Canon will obviously win the DR race. Downscaling 4K down to 1080p will give you a good 1080p but it's nowhere close to 4K in resolution.

Meanwhile, while GH4 won't better your high end cameras on a comparison test, it can surely look nice (filmic and all, when well graded ... and this is in 8-bit still)
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtsYp9uY5kk

June 2, 2014 at 6:10PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
DLD

If you're going to do a 'shoot out' - use the same ISO, same focal length, and so on. These tests were great entertainment value, but proved absolutely nothing.

June 2, 2014 at 8:00PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
lightingguy

To get a good measure of possible noise, I would say adjust the ISO accordingly so we can know what the noise ratios level could be on the smaller sensor.

June 3, 2014 at 1:06AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Not only did the GH4 win for sharpness over both Canon cameras but also in dynamic range. The Canon cameras couldn't even win with a Ninja. I am very interested now to see what the GH4 will do with the Shogun!

Also, the GH4 seems to look best with Leica, Nikkor, and Voightlander lenses, none of which were used in these videos.

We have yet to see the GH4 at it's maximum potential.

June 2, 2014 at 8:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

How diid the GH4 win in dynamic range? The C100 clearly had more dynamic range than the GH4. The GH4 is definitely sharper, but it looks a bit videoy to me. The 5d and C100 had a smoother filmic look.

June 2, 2014 at 8:52PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Stephen

One example is from :40 to :45 of the first video you can see more detail in the dark parts of the hallway. Not a lot more, but more. One thing that was unfair about this comparison is the GH4 was downscaled. It should have been shown at 4K. That' what the camera is about. It is very likely there would have been more dynamic range from the GH4.

Filmic is a nebulous word. It has less and less significance as digital takes over more and more. Very few people are caring about filmic. If you think digital cameras look too digital then try different lenses. Or shoot with film.

Death, taxes, and you'll see the word 'filmic' in comments at nofilmschool.

June 2, 2014 at 9:05PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Is "Gene" a real person or an internet troll?! Every comment from this character is ridiculous to say the least. Too bad there are no moderators on this site, that guy is putting alot of people off.

June 3, 2014 at 8:43AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Raynard

+1000

June 3, 2014 at 9:31AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
RickDee72

+1

June 3, 2014 at 11:04AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Rich

Did you look at the segment I pointed out? The GH4 had more dynamic range.

Sorry that may be annoying to some that like Canon a lot. I really am not trying to be annoying. It seems there are some raw nerves with some Canon users. I have been told by a famous professional photographer that he has run into the same thing with some Canon users and thinks it could be because they are angry at how much money they have spent for Canon video recording and they could have gotten better quality for less by going with a GH instead.

Also, it is not just me that thinks the "filmic" argument has worn out its usefulness. In fact, there are some fairly well known people that are finding the filmic argument is becoming annoying. If you want a film look either learn what settings in camera, what lenses to use, and what to do in post, to give the filmic look you want. Or, shoot with film.

Finding disagreement is healthy for these discussions. Rather than say someone you disagree with should be banned why not engage your viewpoints and have a long exchange of ideas with them? Not only would the people exchanging comments learn from each other but readers will learn too.

June 3, 2014 at 9:27PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

8
Reply
Gene

LOL. So Wrong. The GH4's highlights clipped way before the Canon.

June 3, 2014 at 11:03AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Rich

The outdoor scene you are referring to: the GH4 may not have been set well.

June 3, 2014 at 9:11PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Resolution has nothing to do with dynamic range. All that determines is how many pixels you have. Dynamic range is the ability to record luminance values for those pixels.

Apples and oranges. It's like saying a camera with a higher frame rate has more depth of field. It makes no sense.

June 4, 2014 at 4:51AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
Damon

That reply is to me?

June 4, 2014 at 9:37AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Sorry Gene, I'm a little curious what you deem 'Dynamic Range' to be? The GH4 came up well short of the C100- be it against its internal codec or when recording to Ninja. Take a look at the cityscape side-by-side at the 1min2sec mark. The clouds within the scene are clipping massively, the flare on the corner of the building has been lost altogether and detail on the curved surface of the building in the foreground has also lost almost all of its detail.On the other end of the spectrum the blacks are crunching and colours- though vibrant, lack tonal variation- appearing as blocks of colour rather than smooth gradients. In contrast the C100 looks to be holding all of this information- and comfortably so. And given that the C100 is only a mid range performer in terms of dynamic range it really goes to highlight the shortcomings of the GH4 in this department. In fact it looks like Panasonic have made few inroads in terms of dynamic range since the AF100.

June 2, 2014 at 9:09PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
David

At 1:02 the GH4 image has a complete white background on the building, the Canon cameras do not. You are exaggerating both lost detail in the GH4 and the "C100 looks to be holding all of this information- and comfortably so."

Also, the GH4 is not at its best. It has been downscaled. One could say it has been handicapped. One could also say in order for the test to be fair the GH4 should have been left at 4K, at its best. The GH4 also does not have an ATOMOS external recorder. These are points everyone should be emphasizing in the name of fairness.

June 2, 2014 at 9:27PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

I've presented the evidence so not worth taking any further- you're wearing blinkers mate! Enjoy your GH4 purchase.

June 2, 2014 at 9:40PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
David

You didn't see my answer? Look between your comments. Enjoy your tunnel vision mate.

June 2, 2014 at 9:47PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

6
Reply
Gene

I don't know if you're pointing out DR or blow out because of the settings of the GH4 could have been better.

June 3, 2014 at 12:02AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Gene

Canon C100---$5000.00

Canon 5D3---$3400.00

Panasonic GH4---$1700.00

These numbers should also be brought up in the name of fairness.

June 2, 2014 at 9:40PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

If fairness is your goal here, I'd say you should include the Panny's $2k interface unit that'll give the same XLR and BNC connectors as the C100 has.

All of a sudden now we're comparing a $5k camera (that's over 2 years old, mind you) and a $3700 camera.

June 2, 2014 at 11:23PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

6
Reply
Swissted

Does the c100 have SDI's?

June 2, 2014 at 11:31PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Ah, my mistake - C300 has them. C100 has 8-bit HDMI.

Still, if I'm on a shoot, I'll probably pick the C100 any day over the GH4 + base, except if I need a good slow-mo. Will be interesting if/what Canon releases as the next iteration (C105? C200?)

June 2, 2014 at 11:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Swissted

I think we have failure in communication. Either that or I need sleep.

June 3, 2014 at 12:03AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Add $500 for the Speed Booster that you will need for the GH4.

June 3, 2014 at 2:54AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
JustaDP

Not required.

June 3, 2014 at 5:14AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Gene

I suppose not if you're shooting weddings.

@21:37
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtDotqLx6nA

June 3, 2014 at 6:54AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
JustaDP

But where are the definitive cat videos? Preferably hairless cats to get the skin tones just right.

BOTH Canon's rely on external gimmicks...recorder or codec tweak. For a fairer comparison wait until the external 4K recorder is available for the GH4. Happily even on its own the GH4 totally outperforms both of the Canon Klunkers for sheer video image quality (and after a lot of information is discarded in the dumbing down to 1080p).

Ha ha...love how the Canon-fan-boys are starting to squirm...but rationalizing their mediocre video cameras nonetheless.

June 2, 2014 at 8:12PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Okkam

The GH4 looks great. But still has a certain videoness to it that I'm not liking. Even though the GH4 is 4k, the C100 still has a more pleasing look to it.

June 2, 2014 at 8:59PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Stephen

Nonsense. The image from the 5D with ML is amazing and I love shooting with it. When I can. But I'm still hoping in the that the GH4 can match or exceed it simply because i can't afford to buy my own 5D and the GH4 would probably last longer on the market. For the price of the 5D body, I could get a GH4 and a full set of lenses.

June 4, 2014 at 4:57AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Damon

Why do you love how the Canon-fanboys are "starting to squirm"? Why are you deriving any pleasure whatsoever out of arguing over cameras?

June 4, 2014 at 10:16AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Coty

Personally I prefer the way the C100 handles colors. The GH4 is certainly as good or better than the C100 when it comes to sharpness and details. The slightly larger sensor also gave the footage a slightly shallower DOF which made comparing the footage a little tougher. I couldn't tell sometimes if the C100 looked soft compared to the GH4 or if it was just rendering middle-ground features in less sharp focus due to the sensor size disparity. As a GH3 owner I want the GH4 to tackle all challengers and while I think it is smoking the 5D ML raw footage out there, the GH4 footage looked distinctly more like video and less like film to me in this comparison IMHO.

June 2, 2014 at 8:54PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Isn't the moral of these test always- whatever the job requires. There is no better.

June 2, 2014 at 8:54PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
VinceGortho

We need to go back to horses for transportation. Something has been lost in the transportation experience with cars. Horses look better. Cars have that metal look.

;0)

June 2, 2014 at 9:07PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Resolution isn't everything and 4k takes up A LOT of space and you need FASt hard drives to work with the footage which most people don't have and we seem to forget about. The colors from the MK III RAW looked much more natural and impressive, for some reason the GH4 shoots yellowish, isn't good in low light and has a cropped sensor. If I wanna shoot 4k I'll just shoot C500 pro res.

June 2, 2014 at 9:36PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Brad Watts

1080p Magic Lantern 2K Raw takes up way more space than GH4 @ 100 Mbits - about 282 GB per hour vs ~ 30 GB.
.
And an outboard recorder can be used with the YAGH unit. At this time, it's limited to AJA Ki Pro Quad but it will record in 10-bit and to a much higher bit rate such as ProRes (ProRes HQ 4K is about 320 GB/hr).

June 2, 2014 at 10:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
DLD

I'm salivating to see the GH4 with the Atomos Shogun. If it turns out to be as good as anticipated I have some plans.

June 2, 2014 at 11:13PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

8
Reply
Gene

Please do add a link to ANYTHING that you have done, Gene. I'm sure there are many people who would love to see your work.

June 3, 2014 at 8:47AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Raynard

Unless it's an emigration visa to Mars, I'd rather not see anything from this clown.

June 3, 2014 at 9:33AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
RickDee72

So someone that thinks the GH4 will look even better with a Atomos Shogun is from Mars? Really?

Doesn't that that say more about you than the one you are commenting about?

June 3, 2014 at 9:32PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

That's... not a very good argument.

"$1700 camera? Meh, if I want to shoot in 4k I'll just go spend $30,000."

See, there is a certain key point here I think you are missing...

June 4, 2014 at 5:02AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Damon

Always a fun read, these comments.

I have a C300, C100 and a GH4. The GH4 seems to have 1-2 stops less DR than the Canons. Panasonic I think quotes 11 stops, and canon is at 12. This seems about right, perhaps a little more. It's obvious in the night shot in the above comparison the best when you look at the neon lights. Very, very clear there. Also in the shot with the buildings and the bench, though I suspect the GH4 wasn't set to a proper Cinelike profile with adjustments to rescue the DR there.

In the real world, with properly set gammas, the GH4 is pretty astoundingly close to the C100 in image - given decent light. It's certainly as sharp, and you can coax a nice DR out of it with a Log-like profile. I wouldn't use it as my A camera simply because the C300 and C100 with a recorder hold up better in contrasty scenes (never mind the low light and more DoF control). The C cameras are simply easier to work with in more situations.

But I could definitely use the GH4 as an A cam if I planned my lensing and scenes properly. It can look truly wonderful if set up, shot, and graded properly. Oh yes, and it has that 4K. For the price, the flexibility (due to it's size and internal 4K recording) and image quality it offers is pretty amazing right now.

I think this "GH4 looks video like" comes from people a) not used to the deeper DoF that a M 4/3 camera will give you given the crop, b) people who don't know light or how to use it. I can make a C300 look "video like" if I wanted to: shoot it with harsh, flat light, shoot it at F10, pump up the contrast, and use a poorly selected focal length on my lens to flatten everyone out. Even an iPhone can be made to look film like - just watch Apple's 30th Anniversary of the Mac promo.

The Gh4 (and the C100, and C300, and every other damn camera) is a great tool to have in the toolbox that is capable of some amazing video... in the right hands.

June 2, 2014 at 10:56PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
Paul

And let's not forget filters that can also alter the image to a more "filmic" look.

June 2, 2014 at 11:08PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
DLD

Thank you

June 4, 2014 at 5:05AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Damon

Very helpful comments Paul! Thanks for sharing your experience. Would you have any qualms about using a GH4 as a B-cam for a C100? I ask because I am considering pairing my C100 with a GH4.

June 11, 2014 at 1:24AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

14
Reply
Chris

BTW, Canon is cooking something up for Photokina (the largest trade show held biannually in Köln, Germany). There's a camera with no model number that they are sending to the World Cup in Brazil (starts in 10 days). No word on what exactly they are testing though - 4K, faster auto-focus, etc.
.
Speaking of auto focus - it's limited by the on-sensor technology of the moment and the processing power of the interconnected chip. LG is doing something different with their new smartphone by using a laser-aided AF, similar to the stand-alone $70,000 German AF system.

June 2, 2014 at 11:04PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
DLD

Canon will have a camera at the World Cup used in the worldwide broadcast? I thought I had read the cameras were going to be Red and Panasonic. Or the Canon camera is just going to be shooting for samples to promo the camera at shows later on?

June 2, 2014 at 11:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Gene

Sorry, Red ans Sony.

ESPN will be live streaming it in 4K. http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/espn-will-live-stream-all-64-m...

June 2, 2014 at 11:24PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

A few Canon prototypes will be given to select photographers. There's even a link to the rumor on your cited website. No one knows as to the make or model. Also, Canon was spotted at a couple professional studios in NY a few days ago (guarded by security) doing video tests.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/canon-7d-mkii-rumors-possible-c...

June 3, 2014 at 7:07AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
JustaDP

ESPN will be streaming the WC in 720p because they probably want to synchronize their OTA (ABC), cable (ESPN2) and streaming (ESPN3/Watch ESPN) platforms. Sony will only shoot three full matches in 4K but, off these articles, it seems like they will send their crews to all matches for their "WC'14" DVD. IIRC, FIFA deploys about 35 cameras per match for a live broadcast, whereas the 4K recording may use fewer than half a dozen and all of those won't have a live feed but will rather have its files edited in post.
.
Hypothetically speaking, of course, these 4K compilations could be available within a few hours of the live event for that day's highlight presentation but whether that will be the case or not is currently unknown.

June 4, 2014 at 1:59AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
DLD

At the end of the day, we go with our subjective tastes for what looks best. So, to each his/her own.

I've been a Panny user (GH2/GH3) and a Canon user. While I kept trying to convince myself during my Panny days that the GHx's produce a better image because of its resolution/sharpness, there is nothing quite like the buttery, gorgeous footage that comes straight out of the Mk III / C100. Especially in lower light environments.

On the GH4 - 4K is cool, as are the slo-mo capabilities, lighter form factor, etc. But it just doesn't give me that jaw-dropping beauty from the Canons.

June 2, 2014 at 11:27PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Swissted

It may just be me, but I feel like the 5D Mark 3 RAW looked the sharpest out of all of them, with the GH4 coming in second. Still the C100 has the best DR and Canon's color (in both models) is definitely better. The most surprising thing to me was how well the GH4 did in low light, though I'm not sure how much (if any) noise reduction was done.

June 3, 2014 at 12:16AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Arendee

It appeared the C100 was kicking butt (not quite as sharp but better all round) until about halfway through when for some reason the C100 was shot with 5.6 with double the ISO. What? This is either very biased trying hard to show off the Panasonic or definitely appears to be so.

June 3, 2014 at 1:00AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Let's do this instead... take the Canon 5D, C100, and the GH4... let's take a CN-E 30-105mm T2.8 ... put them on all the cameras.... borrow a blonde model... no speed boosters will be allowed. I want the same FoV and DoF. I want a Key of 2.8... I want a 3:1 ratio. The ISO must be the same. And, the lighting set-up must remain unchanged.

June 3, 2014 at 2:59AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
RidingtheDragon

Exactly. And of course consistent focus for all.

I see no reason why halfway through they suddenly switched the Canon settings when it's quite obvious the only thing those settings would do is destroy the image. They are using a 16-35 for landscape. 16mm focused on infinity for far off subjects will give the same details as 5.6. With less noise, less glow, more details (because of the lower ISO).

June 3, 2014 at 8:41AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply

I suspect the Canons will perform very well and the GH4 will not under such conditions.

June 3, 2014 at 3:02AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
RidingtheDragon

In that test they are matching "depth of field" one of the advantages of having better low light performance is that you can stop down more to pull focus easier.

When the c100/c300 came out that was one of the things people were taking about.

June 3, 2014 at 1:43PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Whispers

Please stop posting these 'comparison' videos claiming to be shootouts. It's a useless demo unless the readers are interested in using either cam for snippets of landscape videography to go directly to web.

There's nothing in this test that can accurately provide information on how well the two cameras can compare. Where are the skintones? Where are the exposure markers? Where is the color latitude testing? On top of all those issues, it's ported to YouTube where it's transcoded again for web streaming purposes. This is a farce.

June 3, 2014 at 7:29AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Rob

A 'better' comparison. But, I agree with Rob about these alleged 'shootouts.'

http://vimeo.com/94057334

June 3, 2014 at 7:49AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
RidingtheDragon

June 4, 2014 at 8:31AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
RidingtheDragon

Ok, it was shot with a 5D. But it doesn't look impressive. I looks like a re-run.

June 7, 2014 at 12:25AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Gene

I think this is an excellent example of great skin tones on the GH4:

https://vimeo.com/90794067

June 3, 2014 at 9:13AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
Nick James

I sold my C100 and the Atmos. GH4 has more Dynamic Range you have set it up right and its complex! Not just Cine profiles... i.Dynamic etc. . There is more "room" in Higligths than with C100 & Recorder tested myself. Check for setup: http://vimeo.com/95637428

June 3, 2014 at 9:38AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Simon

June 3, 2014 at 9:42AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Simon

I own and use the GH4, the C100, BMPCC, BMCC, and BMPC so I don´t have to worry which is the best. However I can´t compare the C100 to any of the others. It is 1080p while GH4, BM 2.5k and BMPC 4k. In terms of resolution the 4k wins. DR the raw wins (BMCC). In terms of lowlight Canon wins. None of those cameras are Universal ones...but if I could have only one I wouldn´t think for more than a second. GH4 everytime. Cheap, robust and extremely versatile. Absolutely beautiful image with Voigtlander glass. 17,5mm 0.95, 25mm 0.95 and 42.5mm 0.95. Can´t be beat at this level.

June 3, 2014 at 5:24PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
Augusto Alves d...

Hi guys,

Just thought I would let you know that Film Convert have just released the new camera pack for Panasonic GH4.

If you're an existing Customer you can download them below:
Mac: bit.ly/S56UUp
Windows: bit.ly/1hXvk9v

Cheer!
Saskia

June 3, 2014 at 7:51PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply

If you're colour grading there's probably no difference but I still put my money on the 5DIII. I thought the images were more natural and far less processed than the Panasonic.

June 3, 2014 at 10:14PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
JR

I think the GH4 obviously seems to look better due to the oversampling of 4K. Once it's taken down to 1080 it looks way more sharper and with lot more detail than the 5D and C100 but just because of the oversampling. On the other hand, it would help a lot if proper tests for dynamic range are done to the 3 cameras, using Macbeth color chart to see the possibilities of these cameras. Nevertheless, I'm amazed by the quality and affordable price of the GH4.

Thanks for sharing, No film school!

June 4, 2014 at 1:53AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

And again what is the point in confronting cameras in such circumstances? Static footage made on a perfect weather day?

Take a test's at night, in the rain, do a shoote with glidecam or "handheld", for GOD SAKE at least make a detail shot of a freakin flower or something. This whould be a real TEST. What you did is basically just tone comparison and you can set the tones manualy inside every camera and even if you don't do that, you can correct colors later so that's meaningless

June 4, 2014 at 2:27AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply

I did!
Watch this!
http://youtu.be/isLmaGVkPlo

June 4, 2014 at 4:16AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Joe Nanoski

What time was it when you shot 0:35 to 0:44? It was night with a full moon?

June 4, 2014 at 9:27PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

2am... And yes those are true moonlit scenes!!

June 4, 2014 at 10:15PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Joe Nanoski

Since that is the case the low light of the GH4 is fantastic

There can be no complaint of how much was captured at night with this $1700.00 camera!! What a low price. Only the GoPro is beating it for how much value one can get with how little is paid. The GH4 is a wonder of the video world!

June 4, 2014 at 10:45PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Joe,

Wow! That's some fantastic looking footage.

Can you tell us what your lenses, settings, etc. were?

June 6, 2014 at 6:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Robert

I agree with you Robert. The more I watch that footage the more I am impressed!

June 7, 2014 at 12:38AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

15
Reply
Gene

Olympus M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8
Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4 Summilux
Panasonic Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm f1.2

June 7, 2014 at 1:17AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Joe Nanoski

All Oregon!

June 7, 2014 at 1:20AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Joe Nanoski

Knock yourself out WilBerry. Look forward to your comprehensive test when you make it available. (rolls eyes)

June 6, 2014 at 8:52PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
james

June 4, 2014 at 4:18AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Joe Nanoski

Very nice test showing there is no problem with rolling shutter.

Here's is another very impressive test for moire in the GH4. Can't see any--and they TRY to make moire happen: http://vimeo.com/94233203

Griffin Hammond also couldn't find moire in his GH4:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7Grj67XCUk

June 4, 2014 at 9:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
Gene

Oh by the way people, this train test it meant to show you how the GH4 performs in the worst conditions possible... Like in the middle of the day with the bright sunlight in front of you. Banding, dynamic range in the shadow of the train, movement on a Glidecam, Moire on the train, rolling shutter of the train at 55mph etc....

And straight from the camera too!

It's a test!

Nothing more!

June 5, 2014 at 4:07AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Joe Nanoski

Any other questions?

June 4, 2014 at 4:22AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

6
Reply
Joe Nanoski

Am I the only one that is less than impressed w/ Panasonics less than impressive delivery record. At the end of the day, Canon trumps most of these other brands simply bcoz I know even in Africa I can walk in a camera shop and I'll get a 5D. Dayyum, I can't even get a GH4 in the US? I might reluctantly have to go for a 5D.

June 4, 2014 at 4:53AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Bobkat

Go check out the footage I linked on the first page.

June 4, 2014 at 8:34AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
RidingtheDragon

It's all the way at the bottom of the page. It starts off with links about the 5D skin tones.

June 4, 2014 at 8:36AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
RidingtheDragon

Skin tones can be graded any way one chooses (although, there are more options off a 14-bit Raw rather than the 8-bit compressed). That said, people really underrate the resolution angle. When I watch a 2.5 Res image, it's just so much more pleasing to me than 1080p and that's just on my monitor.

June 4, 2014 at 12:36PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

13
Reply
DLD

No it doesn't... You know nothing! I had the 5D mk3 and mk2. The GH4 destroy those cameras in every way!

Sorry :)

June 4, 2014 at 2:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Joe Nanoski

The GH4 still has serious bending with their rolling shutter.

http://vimeo.com/91802787

The pros of the GH4 is in its resolution. The pros of the Canon 5D with ML is color tech, RAW, and DoF. If I had to choose between the 5D with ML and the GH4 on a film shoot; I would choose Canon.

Also, I have never had problems with shooting with Magic Lantern.

June 4, 2014 at 7:59AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

11
Reply
RidingtheDragon

Thanks for that video. Because after all we all find ourselves moving our cameras back and forth that fast all the time when we are shooting in real life.

;0)

June 4, 2014 at 9:45PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

It matters if you're doing a whip pan. Unless, you plan on fixing everything in post.

June 5, 2014 at 9:43AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

6
Reply
JustaDP

I know. But my point is rolling shutter means nothing for the vast majority of shooting.

June 5, 2014 at 11:56PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Gene

@Joe There is serious bending witnessed in your train test @ 0:11. That's not exactly footage I would be promoting.

June 4, 2014 at 8:02AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

8
Reply
RidingtheDragon

Hahaha... Canon's are even worse!

June 4, 2014 at 2:02PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Joe Nanoski

Serious bending? Serious?

June 4, 2014 at 9:47PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
Gene

The reply was meant to RidingtheDragon.

People really will catch and care about the 'bending' in the motion blur for a fraction of a second?? Really? You did see the train going by with no bending witnessed in comparison to the stationary, upright stop sign post? It shows there is no issue in the real world with the rolling shutter.

If you want to make a "test"(so-called) video turning the camera back and forth quickly, in a way we never do in real life situations, to produce the rolling shutter effect go ahead and do it and give people that want to complain about rolling shutter something to complain about.

June 4, 2014 at 9:55PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Yeah, and your point is??

June 4, 2014 at 10:17PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Joe Nanoski

That reply was not to you. I clicked on the wrong reply. There is no serious bending.

June 4, 2014 at 10:21PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

RidingtheDragon,

Looking at it in slow motion there is only slight bending at 0:45. You meant there was motion blur?

June 4, 2014 at 10:19PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

i want no about Panasonic GH4... which kind of Lenses v can use..

June 4, 2014 at 8:19AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
karthik sundar raj

I think you can use just about any lens on it. Read about it here: http://suggestionofmotion.com/blog/panasonic-gh4-lens-options-adapted/

June 5, 2014 at 1:00AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
Gene

It looks like the Dynamic Range for the C100 (with or without the Ninja) is better than the GH4. If I could afford to shoot on the C100 with an external recorder, I would go for the C100. However, I think the GH4 is a wonderful option for filmmakers who may not be able to afford the C100.

June 4, 2014 at 12:33PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
William

Show me a Canon video that matches this?? Seriously!!

http://youtu.be/RJT5YtlJhos

June 4, 2014 at 2:09PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Joe Nanoski

Did you link to the right clip? That honestly looks like something that could be shot on an iPhone.

June 4, 2014 at 7:28PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Swissted

I have an iPhone and no you can't... Hahaha... Go do it then?

June 4, 2014 at 10:21PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Joe Nanoski

This looks .. really boring from visual aspect.
And there is huge video look about it. If you shoot home videos and stuff, sure, but this won't cut for filmic look.

June 5, 2014 at 8:08AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
Sauros

Sorry, but this is what the future of films looks like now.... Go watch anything on a 4K anything and you'll see... Lol...

June 5, 2014 at 10:17AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Joe Nanoski

June 13, 2014 at 9:35AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

9
Reply
k

You can't even see how good this is unless you have 4K display... Which I do :)

Do you guys?

June 4, 2014 at 2:12PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Joe Nanoski

I'm totally in support of the GH4, but clearly you drank the kool-aid. A higher resolution display ain't gonna make this footage any better. Totally agree with the guy that said this could be shot on iPhone...

June 4, 2014 at 8:52PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Ryan

Man, you nothing about anything! Go home!

June 4, 2014 at 10:24PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Joe Nanoski

Man Ryan, you know nothing about anything! Go home!

Correction :)

June 4, 2014 at 10:31PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Joe Nanoski

What are you people bitching about?? A company finally makes a cam we want at the price we want and you are still bitching!

Sigh......

June 4, 2014 at 2:27PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
Joe Nanoski

+1

June 4, 2014 at 9:58PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

6
Reply
Gene

no I think every one is excited. Your footage is just terrible. it's not the camera or display its you its your skill, your lack skill. But you'll get better once you read about shutter angles/speeds frame rates etc. I used to be bad like you. Then I learned some stuff . . . learning is good. It makes your footage better. Do be arrogant about this just go learn.

June 5, 2014 at 4:14AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Ignacio Genzon

Hahahahahahahaha..... Says a nobody! My views and likes say otherwise... :)

Sorry!

June 5, 2014 at 3:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

9
Reply
Joe Nanoski

I make money at what I do!

Do you??

Stop talking out of you're "ASS!"

June 5, 2014 at 3:28PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

6
Reply
Joe Nanoski

Ignacio Genzon - Links to your masterful footage please. Would love to make my own judgment.

I think the footage by Joe Nanoski is awesome. Thanks for making available.

June 6, 2014 at 9:03PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
james

Thanks James! :)

June 6, 2014 at 11:38PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Joe Nanoski

if I could afford a C100 i would already have a C100. in the meantime the GH4 or the Mk III are both sweet.

June 4, 2014 at 6:14PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
kyle

I'm surprised no one has commented on the depth of field. The GH4 has 1.4 lens, but the mk3 has still a more shallow depth of field. I think the GH4 is very sharp, but to me its like comparing an iphone to a full-frame sensor. The iphone is always sharp, but the full frame gives a nice bokeh and depth that is hard to get with a smaller sensor. I like to have the ability to blur the background. Without comparing DR on the two cameras I would choose the 5D any day until Panasonic releases a full frame :)

June 4, 2014 at 7:44PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

7
Reply
northfilm

looks like the 5D has a 2.8 lens.

June 4, 2014 at 7:44PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
northfilm

Get some SLR Magic MFT lenses like the T0.95 and you'll have plenty of bokeh and shallow DOF.
.
http://www.adorama.com/SLR2595MF.html?utm_term=Other&utm_medium=Affiliat...

June 4, 2014 at 10:45PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
DLD

Yup!

June 4, 2014 at 11:10PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

7
Reply
Joe Nanoski

Slap a metabones speedbooster on this sucker. Problem solved. 1+ me biaaatch

June 5, 2014 at 7:05AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
bobhadababyitsaboy

June 6, 2014 at 1:11AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

7
Reply
Gene

Digiscoping of some beautiful wildlife with a GH4 @ 96fps in slomo: http://vimeo.com/groups/gh4k/videos/96732935

June 4, 2014 at 10:36PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

People complain about the GH4 on the internet.

Meanwhile, in the real world.....

sales of the GH4 are higher than Panasonic projected they would be. They have had to increase production to keep up with the demand.

June 4, 2014 at 10:39PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Hahaha... Yup :)

June 4, 2014 at 11:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
Joe Nanoski

The reason why the GH4 isn't for me is simple: It's still got the DSLR form factor with all of the problems that come with it. I'm pretty sick of constantly needing to buy or modify add-ons to get a configuration that suits my shooting style, so it's not the camera for me. A lot of footage I've seen from the GH4 looks great when it's used in a more cinematic style, but I also think that you can essentially make any camera look cinematic with enough elbow grease. I'm not knocking the camera's image. It's clearly the camera for a lot of people out there, but I'm pretty firm in the camp that my next camera won't be a DSLR style camera.

June 5, 2014 at 10:33AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Coty

I don't think you're complaining. You're saying you feel more comfortable with another camera. I am meaning the complaints are exaggerations, and even things that are made up, to make the GH4 look like an inferior camera. Even if people like Canon, or Sony, etc., more, there's no reason to lie about a camera they seem to hate.

Also they make it sound like the GH4 is a failure. It shows they are out of touch with what is happening in the real world. Maybe it's jut laziness, and a bit of mean spiritedness, on their part.

June 6, 2014 at 1:19AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Spot on
DSLarse are wonderful but all the add one make them impractical in many situations
Think I will be buying a c100 to give me the look we love but ergonomics I require
Frankly it's all good isn't ?

June 6, 2014 at 3:59PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply

Yup. We're seriously spoiled for choice these days.

June 6, 2014 at 7:09PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Coty

Do you work for Panasonic? I'm curious how you are privy to their sales numbers.

Or, if you are just going by their ability to keep units in stock, then I'd argue that Blackmagic is the most successful camera company in history! ;)

June 5, 2014 at 1:45PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
Swissted

No one knows the real numbers outside of the Panasonic HQ ... but everyone is aware that, a month into the camera release, it's still hard to find the unit on the shelves ... stores get a batch and then, poof, they're sold out ... then, there's your rule of thumb - look at the B&H camera rankings ...

#2 among the mirrorless (with the #1 being a fairly inexpensive closeout of NEX-6)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Mirrorless-System-Cameras/ci/16158/N/4...
.
#1 in pro video
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Pro-Camcorders-Cameras/ci/16763/N/4256...
.
And, at this moment, on back order as well ... having a 5-star customer rating doesn't hurt either ...

June 5, 2014 at 10:17PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
DLD

What adapters were used to mount the EF lenses?

June 5, 2014 at 10:17AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
mia

I'm a fan of what Panasonic is doing with the GH4, but I'd still much rather shoot with a C100. Built in NDs, XLR, ergonomics, it all makes a big difference that to me at least trumps simple resolution. Even in these tests the GH4 isn't necessarily better, it's just sharper which isn't always a good thing. Deep depth of field on the small sensor, in camera sharpening, and more saturated colors. Does that sound like film? Nope. It's cool if you want that look to demo on 4k TVs at Best Buy, but it's rarely the look that most of us are going for.
The other thing with this test is that it says "ND filter attached". The C100 has 'em built in…did they use those or throw on some Fader type or other cheap ND?
In any case, if there's a good picture profile that can bring the sharpening down and make the color match a C100 better I might just pick one of these up as a B cam. Remember that the C100 is basically a 4k sensor that down samples on the fly to 1080.
Again, I like the GH4 and I'm genuinely glad to see more and better cameras out there.

June 5, 2014 at 5:58PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Andrius Simutis

I have the C100 and a ninja 2 & Blade, for documentary work the C100's form factor cannot be beat for working quickly and alone, the dynamic range and handling of highlights on scenes where I do not have the ability to light are critical for me. I am thinking of getting a BMPCC for a "B" camera, I prefer the additional dynamic range to resolution for my work. I stoped using the Canon 7D and 60D as soon as I got the C100, no comparison for me, in look or using the cameras on shoots, the C100 is a real movie/video camera and that is what I was looking for.

M

June 5, 2014 at 6:57PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply

Pages