GH5 or the G9

[John McCully]

Nice Robert, and thanks for your thoughts which I shall keep in mind as I think this through. I would still very much like to see the side by side I go on about -)

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by John McCully

Both of these YouTube videos are just words, more words, nothing but words.

You said that for you it comes down to functionality or 'features'" and that is exactly what these videos show you, they tell you which features you either will be missing or which are added, like do you need the xlr adapter, vlog, anamorphic shooting, unlimited recording times, synchroscan etc or are the g9 added features more important for you, as shown in photojoseph's video?

Both the g9 and gh5 will deliver comparable results with just minor visual differences that only pixelpeepers will be able to tell apart, for your use I would just look at the features each camera offer because that will make a bigger difference.

[Mark Rosenzweig]

Originally Posted by Robert Lane

John, you should look at the plethora of YouTube videos that clearly explain the differences between 4:2:0 8-bit and 4:2:2 10-bit color. It's a major, visible palpable step-up in image quality.

No, no, it is not. 10bit comes in very handy if you do extreme grades of video. Otherwise, no, the difference between 422 and 10bit vs. 420 and 8bit is nearly invisible. The videos that "explain" the difference are talking theory, not demonstrating differences that you can see. I shoot in both. I care about IQ, I do not see anything important (I do not do extreme grades, though I grade from log profiles).

However, If you are talking a "visible step up in image quality" then you need to consider HDR video. HDR is a big step up in visual quality. And you need to shoot Vlog for that, or HLG. If the camera cannot shoot in log profiles then it is missing the ability to really make for extraordinary video - HDR. And for taking advantage of the full dynamic range of the camera.

[Robert Lane]

Real-world footage tells the tale on the differences between 8 and 10-bit. All you need do is look at non-graded footage tests (posted by dozens on YT/Vimeo) on simple things like open sky gradients. In 8-bit world you'll see clearly visible banding. In 10-bit you don't, smooth natural gradient.

This visible and technical difference gets deeper when grading/color finishing. There's simply more data and deeper colors available. To say otherwise is not only misleading but technically incorrect.

*You* may not see or realize the difference in your work, but the distinction between bit-rate/color depth is very much a pre-production planning issue from one-man-band to full-crew national campaign productions that has to be addressed before anyone gets on-set. Even clients see - and pay for this difference.

[Robert Lane]

Originally Posted by John McCully

Nice Robert, and thanks for your thoughts which I shall keep in mind as I think this through. I would still very much like to see the side by side I go on about -)

Honestly John, you'll beat yourself to death making minutia comparisons like this. Once you get on-set with whichever camera you choose you'll quickly forget about these minuscule details because you'll be concerned with much bigger issues - like how to get good looking output from your compositions.

Pick a camera that has the majority of the features you prefer - and that fits the budget/workflow you want and go for it. Otherwise you risk "...becoming an old man... waiting to die..." (quote from "Inception") hahaha

[Mark Rosenzweig]

Originally Posted by Robert Lane

Real-world footage tells the tale on the differences between 8 and 10-bit. All you need do is look at non-graded footage tests (posted by dozens on YT/Vimeo) on simple things like open sky gradients. In 8-bit world you'll see clearly visible banding. In 10-bit you don't, smooth natural gradient.

This visible and technical difference gets deeper when grading/color finishing. There's simply more data and deeper colors available. To say otherwise is not only misleading but technically incorrect.

*You* may not see or realize the difference in your work, but the distinction between bit-rate/color depth is very much a pre-production planning issue from one-man-band to full-crew national campaign productions that has to be addressed before anyone gets on-set. Even clients see - and pay for this difference.

I am sorry, but watching recompressed 8bit streams on YouTube or vimeo will not demonstrate your claim. High compression is a big factor in banding. If the OP intends to grade a lot, 10bit matters. But for most video it does not. What "clients"? - newlyweds? local broadcasters? or Netflix?

You think a guy asking whether to get a GH5 has clients who will see the difference? More than dynamic range? or resolution? 10bit is second order.

Finally, you keep spouting specs. Deeper color and more data are better (really?). The issue is how much it matters visually and in what circumstances.

If the OP wants to shoot HDR, the issues of bit depth, log files, color gamut become much more important. HDR is a big deal visually; tried it?

[John McCully]

Noa, indeed those videos TALK about functionality and I know that stuff backwards, forwards and sideways having studied the specifications and viewed many such videos. It seems clear to me that for photography the G9 is the better product, for my intended use. But for video the picture is not clear. Let me repeat what I wrote in the comments with which I opened this thread:

'I note that the big differences are the ability of the GH5 to shoot V-Log and 10 bit 4:2:2. So what, is my question. Do I need V-Log and 10 bit 4:2:2?"

I believe you are saying indirectly that no, I don't need V-Log and 10 bit 4:2:2 but not in so many words. Many thanks.

Mark, many thanks for your input. So I do need V-Log in order to get HDR. And I absolutely do need HDR, you say. Please forgive my ignorance but will I obtain the visual benefits of HDR when viewing on my gorgeous 27" Dell P2715Q 4k monitor.

Robert, I hear you. Many thanks. I should point out that right now I shoot using a Sony AX100, a Lumix G85 and a Lumix GX85 and this far I have not seen the dreaded 'clearly visible banding', not even the remotest hint of it. I should point out I do little to no grading as I try to get it right in the camera. I should also point out I am not becoming an old man but I already am. And the moment I was born I was waiting to die, as we all are, but that's a subject for alt.philosophy and not DVINFO. Believe me, I am not beating myself but continue to happily shoot with my existing gear, very happily that is. The intent to upgrade is pure luxury, and indeed a pleasurable exercise.

So now the question I shall now address is do I need/want HDR. I really do need a loaner GH5!

[Mark Rosenzweig]

Originally Posted by John McCully

Noa, indeed those videos TALK about functionality and I know that stuff backwards, forwards and sideways having studied the specifications and viewed many such videos. It seems clear to me that for photography the G9 is the better product, for my intended use. But for video the picture is not clear. Let me repeat what I wrote in the comments with which I opened this thread:

'I note that the big differences are the ability of the GH5 to shoot V-Log and 10 bit 4:2:2. So what, is my question. Do I need V-Log and 10 bit 4:2:2?"

I believe you are saying indirectly that no, I don't need V-Log and 10 bit 4:2:2 but not in so many words. Many thanks.

Mark, many thanks for your input. So I do need V-Log in order to get HDR. And I absolutely do need HDR, you say. Please forgive my ignorance but will I obtain the visual benefits of HDR when viewing on my gorgeous 27" Dell P2715Q 4k monitor.

Robert, I hear you. Many thanks. I should point out that right now I shoot using a Sony AX100, a Lumix G85 and a Lumix GX85 and this far I have not seen the dreaded 'clearly visible banding', not even the remotest hint of it. I should point out I do little to no grading as I try to get it right in the camera. I should also point out I am not becoming an old man but I already am. And the moment I was born I was waiting to die, as we all are, but that's a subject for alt.philosophy and not DVINFO. Believe me, I am not beating myself but continue to happily shoot with my existing gear, very happily that is. The intent to upgrade is pure luxury, and indeed a pleasurable exercise.

So now the question I shall now address is do I need/want HDR. I really do need a loaner GH5!

Yes, that is the question. HDR is wonderful, but you cannot see the benefits unless the viewing device is HDR capable. Almost no monitors are - requires an enlarged color gamut and 10 bit color depth and higher brightness/ dr. Many TVs are HDR capable, YouTube displays in HDR on capable viewing devices. Many new smartphones, from Apple, Samsung, Sony, and LG, are HDR certified.

Now, you might not want to get into HDR right away, but if you have a camera that has log profiles you are future proofed. But, no mistake, HLG is bigger step up than even 4K over HD. And way, way, more visible than 8bit vs 10bit SDR videos.

[Noa Put]

I know with what question you started the thread but a bit further you also said: "For me it all comes down to functionality" so that made it a bit uinclear, anyways:

Do I need V-Log and 10 bit 4:2:2?

I would say, if you have to ask then no, you don't "need" it. The same applies for HDR, you need a camera, a nle and a tv (not your dell) capable of dealing with HDR footage and it's not as simple as it seems to produce. HDR is the new buzz word and those who have seen correct produced HDR footage say it makes all the difference, well, that's what they also said about camera's that can shoot in RAW and since I have a camera that can shoot in that format I much prefer shooting with a baked in look. HDR doesn't interest me at this moment and also not in the coming years, unless my clients would start to demand it, everytime something new comes up the whole videographerscommunity goes wild because you "need" to have that, right? :)

Both the gh5 and the g9 are fine camera's and like I said before, pick one of two based on the importance of the features the camera's have, not based on the fact if they can shoot vlog or not because if that would be important for you, you would not have to ask.

[John McCully]

Thanks Mark, and Noa; most helpful. For many complicated reasons heaving nothing to do with videography I must pass on HDR at this time. 'Future proofing' this type of gear I have found to be problematic. If and when I choose to go HDR I shall spring for a GH6, or whatever. In the meantime I might just go with the G9.

Many thanks.

[Steve Burkett]

When I got my GH5 a year ago, I didn't bother with the vLog upgrade. Now I have it on order. The difference. Having got the GH5s with vLog installed and shot some footage with It, I suddenly see why I need it. The colours and extra dynamic range can really lift image quality. My main colour profiles I use are HLG and vLog not for HDR delivery though I hope to experiment with this in time, but simply to provide better rec709 colour footage. Even with a single pass of a LUT table can elevate the GH5 footage above other colour profiles used in camera.

My best aadvice. Hire a GH5 for a day and see if the extra features are worth it
The G9 is more aimed for Photography and whilst it can just like the G80 deliver great 4K footage, the GH5 makes these cameras feel quite inferior. Until you start shooting with the extra functions the GH5 provide, how can you really say if they are worth it or not.

[Robert Lane]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

When I got my GH5 a year ago, I didn't bother with the vLog upgrade. Now I have it on order. The difference. Having got the GH5s with vLog installed and shot some footage with It, I suddenly see why I need it. The colours and extra dynamic range can really lift image quality. My main colour profiles I use are HLG and vLog not for HDR delivery though I hope to experiment with this in time, but simply to provide better rec709 colour footage. Even with a single pass of a LUT table can elevate the GH5 footage above other colour profiles used in camera.

My best aadvice. Hire a GH5 for a day and see if the extra features are worth it
The G9 is more aimed for Photography and whilst it can just like the G80 deliver great 4K footage, the GH5 makes these cameras feel quite inferior. Until you start shooting with the extra functions the GH5 provide, how can you really say if they are worth it or not.

Bravo, perfect answer to end the thread.

[John McCully]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

When I got my GH5 a year ago, I didn't bother with the vLog upgrade. Now I have it on order. The difference. Having got the GH5s with vLog installed and shot some footage with It, I suddenly see why I need it. The colours and extra dynamic range can really lift image quality. My main colour profiles I use are HLG and vLog not for HDR delivery though I hope to experiment with this in time, but simply to provide better rec709 colour footage. Even with a single pass of a LUT table can elevate the GH5 footage above other colour profiles used in camera.

My best aadvice. Hire a GH5 for a day and see if the extra features are worth it
The G9 is more aimed for Photography and whilst it can just like the G80 deliver great 4K footage, the GH5 makes these cameras feel quite inferior. Until you start shooting with the extra functions the GH5 provide, how can you really say if they are worth it or not.

Thanks Steve. As you might glean from a close reading of this thread I have been seeking to obtain a loaner to do just that. Where I am currently located hiring is not an option, at least not at a reasonable price. Whilst it is true that the G9 is aimed more at photography - the Panasonic marketing folks have stressed that point and in my opinion it is a superior photography camera versus the GH5 - as a hybrid shooter, perhaps not a common specie here at DVINFO that reality gets my attention.

By the way, I believe the G9 delivers superior footage, has improved video functionality, versus the G80/G85 which I have, 4k 60p to name one superior attribute and there are many more.

You believe the GH5 makes the G9 feel quite inferior. Have you shot video with the G9? Having said that let me add that as you use the GH5 that may indeed be quite true, you will get no argument on that from me, but again as explained in the thread I don't intend to go with HDR at this time.

The overall consensus in my read of this thread, not unanimous, is that the G9 under the conditions in which I intend to use the camera, will provide a superior hybrid shooting experience versus the GH5. Jordan Drake, Camera Store TV video guy tells us 'the G9 is an insanely capable video camera'. Words, I know, but so is this thread.

Look, please don't misunderstand me; for you video only production guys the GH5 is it. I get it. Based on the huge amount of data out there, specifications and wot not, let me repeat I now believe the G9 is the superior hybrid shooting camera for me especially as I don't intent to go with HDR, for now.

Thanks for your thoughts, much appreciated.

[Ron Evans]

John if your video shooting is clips of no more than a few minutes at a time then you may be really happy with the G9. The time limits which vary depending on what your shooting may come as a disappointment if there is something interesting to shoot. I think that for me is the most restricting part of the G9. If this will never happen to you then the G9 will be great and of course the form factor is more arranged for still shooting.

Marketing wise. The G9 is the stills camera with 80Mpixels stills, GH5 the hybrid and the GH5S the video centric model see in the dark. They will all shoot video and stills of course with different specialties and restrictions the user has to choose. Being video is my needs I have the GH5 and the GH5S.

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by John McCully

Thanks Steve. As you might glean from a close reading of this thread I have been seeking to obtain a loaner to do just that. Where I am currently located hiring is not an option, at least not at a reasonable price. Whilst it is true that the G9 is aimed more at photography - the Panasonic marketing folks have stressed that point and in my opinion it is a superior photography camera versus the GH5 - as a hybrid shooter, perhaps not a common specie here at DVINFO that reality gets my attention.

You believe the GH5 makes the G9 feel quite inferior. Have you shot video with the G9? Having said that let me add that as you use the GH5 that may indeed be quite true, you will get no argument on that from me, but again as explained in the thread I don't intend to go with HDR at this time.

The overall consensus in my read of this thread, not unanimous, is that the G9 under the conditions in which I intend to use the camera, will provide a superior hybrid shooting experience versus the GH5. .

John, no I've not used the G9, but its specs and my considerable experience with so many Panasonic Hybrid, mirrorless cameras lends me an opinion that for video functions, it is inferior to the GH5. It is as others say designed for Photography with a bit of video on the side. Sure it can deliver good quality video, and if you're not dedicated to Producing video, but do it as a side to Photography, the G9 is a better option than the GH5. However there is more to 10 bit and vLog than HDR. Just so you're aware.

Personally if I was primarily a Photo producer with video on the side, I'd go for the Fuji XH1. Far better Photography than Panasonic IMO and the baked in video is better than Panasonic too, which I find the colours need tweaking to get right. Hence why I value the GH5 for its 10 bit and Log.