The Panasonic GH4 is arguable one of the most popular cameras for low budget filmmakers and video content creators. Even though the camera is now two years old, the addition of significant features such as V-Log and Anamorphic shooting modes made the camera even more desirable. Not to mention that the price tag of the GH4 is now around $1298 making it one of the most affordable and capable video machines for shooters on a budget.
A lot of us were expecting to hear some sort of an update around the GH line at NAB 2016, but this was a long shot at best, given the fact that NAB is after all a broadcast show for big cameras and smaller cameras like the predominantly stills oriented GH4 don’t often get the spotlight at a show like NAB.
The Sony A7s was an exception though as back in 2014, the camera was announced much to everyone’s surprise at NAB 2014. This year however, NAB was more about compact cine zoom lenses, big broadcast shoulder 4K cameras, and VR and less so about more compact cameras. Panasonic did announce a couple of new handheld 4K camcorders – the UX Series, but other than that nothing else new from them.
There are many rumours online about what the next GH camera will feature – whether it is going to be called a GH5 or something else, Panasonic will have no choice, but to really deliver on highly demanded features such as a stronger internal codec, possibly 10bit 422, a 4K/60p slow-motion frame rate and 1080/120, which is something the Sony 4K mirrorless cameras are already doing.
Some also believe that Panasonic might also bring a Super35 sensor in the GH5, and although I am not one of these folks, who believe that this will happen anytime soon, it has been discussed at length online in various filmmaking communities as a possibility and a dream feature for some.
Sadly, however in a recent interview with Hybrid Camera Revolution, Matt Frazer from Panasonic confirmed that the GH4 successor will not feature “anything else but a Micro Four Thirds sensor” around the 5:42 mark in the video below.
Now this may be a bit of a disconcerting news to some of you, however Matt did point out that the next GH5 or whatever it ends up being called “will have some compelling features” that will hopefully bring a lot of new shooters into the MFT system and also convince those already in it to stay.
The Panasonic GH5 is also rumored to have the ability to record 6K up to 30p and 4K/60p, however I am sure most will agree that a resolution bump such as 6K may be a bit too far fetched at this stage due to the lack of 6K TV sets and a more data intensive workflow. Also, this would mean that H.265 needs to be used as compression, and at this point major NLE’s and computer infrastructure is not yet ready to handle this codec.
What I want to see in the GH5 is more dynamic range and better low-light performance. MFT as a format I am fine with, after all there is a Metabones Speedbooster to take users to a pseudo-Super35 field of view already.
The most logical announcement for the GH5 is Photokina this year, which is held in September in Germany and is the premiere photo/stills show – kind of like the NAB of the photo world – where we will probably also see the new (and also rumored) Sony A9 4K full-frame mirrorless camera and the highly anticipated Canon 5D Mark IV. We’ll keep an eye out for further developments and let you know.
What do you guys think of this? No Super35 chip in the GH5? What are your hopes for the next GH 4K camera? Let us know in the comments below.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate partner and participant in B&H and Adorama Affiliate programmes, we earn a small comission from each purchase made through the affiliate links listed above at no additional cost to you.
Claim your copy of DAVINCI RESOLVE - SIMPLIFIED COURSE. Get Instant Access!
Of course it will not! It was just an unrealistic fantasy spread by some people on the internet. 🙂
me too, there was a lot of rumors because of the LS300 JVC camera which has the S35 sensor with a MFT mount, but they dont do lenses so thats that. Panasonci are heavily invested in the MFT lens mount system and coverage on the wide end especially for a S35 sensor would be probelatic
I’ve got some realistic and some unrealistic cravings. For me it’s ALL about video. I don’t care about stills. So that leads me to the following:
1. Pay the licensing to shoot for as long as we want. No more 30 minute limit. Unrealistic? Perhaps they’re seeing the need for this?
2. That new GX85 5 axis stabiliser. Definitely realistic.
3. 422 encoding. Realistic.
4. ProRes. Unrealistic.
5. New in-camera cinematic looks manager, for tuning dynamic range, magical skin tones, lovely colour- and contrast balance, without additional grading needed. Semi realistic.
6. Good sound input. Realistic.
7. Multi channel audio input and recording accessory. Unrealistic?
8. A multi purpose kit lens with crazy video autofocus. Much needed. Somewhat realistic.
Good list, if we can half of it – the GH5 could be a winner
The GH4R in Europe already has unlimited recording time, just like the North American model does.
Seriously, how often do you shoot 30 minutes plus?
I can’t think of many purposes to shoot 30 minutes plus that require a high quality camera. That is mostly for documentation of stuff or maybe capturing something like a skydive…
5 axis stabilizer, sure!
422 – YUP!
ProRes, who cares. Apple is on its way out as it always has been.
Why do you need a looks manager? Do you not have editing software? This is ridiculous. How are you going to tune your grade on a little dinky uncalibrated screen?
Why do you need good sound input? Zoom H1n – 24 bit 96 khz WAV recording. $100. Add a $40 lav mic. Done.
Scratch audio is all you need on a cam. Or just use a lav mic on a direct input and you’re fine. Don’t ask your camera to do your audio too because you will always be let down. And then you’re paying a ton of money for all this audio stuff that is only half decent and wasted time and money.
He he, we all have different needs, mate. No need to get all upset because I have different needs than you.
I shoot 40-90 minute shoots all the time. I mean it, all the time. Documentary, interviews, and tutorials. All the time.
If you do the math, a 90 minute shoot that has to be graded and re-rendered is another Two hours of pure waste. If the location is fixed, like in a studio, or in an interview situation, I can do a pre grade and use that LUT or custom settings. The camera vendors already do this for us, but it doesn’t always look that nice. So it’d be great to have manual control. And yeah, if the screen is so bad, put in a great electronic viewfinder so it can be tuned there.
A lot of professional cameras have for professional sound input. It can be done. Less gear means it’s easier to get going, less stuff to carry around, easier to shoot in an intimate situation where lots of gear can be intimidating.
What would you like to see improved?
Well, considering that a 16gb card will fill up with high quality video in 1080p in around 20 minutes, and a 32gb will fill up in 40 minutes, you’re basically saying that you do 40-90 minute shoots all the time… with low quality settings. Unless you’re using something like a 512GB SD card, you’re not using high quality 4K capture.
Of course, if you’re genuinely using this level of equipment, the GH4 isn’t exactly enough camera for you and you’re really going to be better off shooting a much better rig directly onto HDD’s.
So I’m really scratching my head as to why you’re looking to do this with the GH5.
I’m also quite confused as to why you’re wanting to use LUT’s and grading in-camera. OK, I understand you might want to do grading *before* the compression is applied – that makes sense. But it’s very, very rare that anyone would ever have a situation to use this. Except for in a studio environment, where everything, from light levels to temperature is fully controlled. And we’re right back to the idea that GH4/GH5 level cameras really aren’t the right tool for this level of shooting.
My issue with pro cameras with XLR inputs – those that do rarely have quality compression or loss-less. Largely because this puts a huge burden on the file-sizes. So you’re back to juggling pro-grade equipment and pro-grade costs, but without the pro-grade results.
I’ve done lots of intimate setting stuff with a lav on the subject and an H1n in the pocket. A 32gb card and settings on lock is more than enough for an entire afternoon of shooting together. It’s not as clean as a V/O setup with an LDC or something with a booth, but definitely the least intimidating solution and it is definitely “clean enough”.
But for some reason, you’re thinking that “lots of gear can be intimidating” is a reason to add a hotshoe mounted shotgun (and deadcat) with huge XLR shielded wires plugged into the camera… because it’s less intimidating in an intimate situation???
I’m so tired of nonsense decisions being made on cameras that have nothing to do with how they are used 99% of the time.
He he.. I’m not sure you represent 99% of the video photographer base, and I represent 1%. But that’s not important. What’s important is our (different photographers’) different needs. A lot of professional video shooters see the compact Panasonic MFT cameras as pretty darn professional, and use them in their daily work. So I think it’d make sense to take them into consideration when developing a new MFT camera of this size.
Some friends of mine, as an example, run a professional film production studio, and they used to shoot everything on RED. But they’ve gone over to SONY A7s and say it’s soooooo deliberating. Saving time, money, weight, everything.
I’m using two BlackMagic Pocket Cinema Cameras, with a Zoom H6, and I’ve got two 256GB high speed cards, and two 128GB pretty highspeed cards. I can record an hour of RAW footage or something on a 256GB card. But I’ve gone back to ProRes HQ, because it’s faster to process afterwards, and I can record hours. I try to keep the rig as light and mobile as possible, both for me to be able to carry it around, and operate it with one hand a lot of times. In the studio I’m mostly making synthesizer tutorials. And sometimes I’m making wacky cuckoo remix videos, with greenscreen compositing and stuff…
I’m putting high hopes into a Pocket Cinema Camera v2 announcement sometime later, perhaps next year at NAB 2017? But in the meanwhile I’m checking out every friggin small camera to see if they might be a worthy replacement with the improvements that suit my needs. Sony 6300, Panasonic GX80, Panasonic GH5 are all on my list of potential awesome small cameras. Blackmagic’s little Micro Cinema Camera is shooting HD with global shutter, and most of their lineup has global shutter now. Finally.
Well, I hope you take no offense, mate. No point in arguing over differences, is there?
Some great points from Cukoo, I can relate to all these.
Jimmy Dee is looking at this from a very blinkered POV. We all have different needs and versatility is key. External audio like the H4N is a total pain. I use a G4 as my B camera and a canon c100 as my main. After years of DSLR it was such a pleasure and relief to get back to quality internal, 2 channel audio. It seems like such a small ask to have a decent audio option on the Gh5. In terms of speeding up work flow on internal cinema looks would be a convenient option. If I can scrape a few hours of the edit I’d love it!
JimmyDee, how about you put some more positive hopes for what you want?
Personally better low light and audio, 120 FPS at 1080 and better stabilisation are my hopes.
I find this hard to believe. You’re using a dual cam setup and you find that having an external clean audio track is a total pain?
I’m assuming that you’re like the rest of us and you lay out your timeline, then sync both cameras (presumably using the audio tracks and a clapper or similar method), then do your cuts from there. So you’re already syncing audio from one source. How much of a pain in the butt is it to add another track to that? Premiere Pro CC does this automatically. I don’t use CC, so I do it manually. Takes me around 20 seconds.
How are you mic’ing your talent? How many mics do you have active?
If you’re doing one person, I could see dual source, 2-channel audio. Some pre-amps have a channel pad that allows a low and high channel in case of strong variation (ie music, dramatic, action…). If you’re doing 2 people I could see dual source, 2-channel audio. But how do you handle 3, 4, 5 etc? Is 2-channel audio really the best choice for that? 20-30% of my projects involve 3 or 4 audio channels. Admittedly, I rarely get to 5. However, when I do end up with 3-4, it’s pretty important to me to mix everything individually in post without having a bad mix.
I have “elaborate setup” equipment and “quick-n-dirty setup” equipment. None of which is particularly well suited to piping into the camera via a tripod or hotshoe mount.
I keep my audio equipment separate from the camera and when I do want to move my camera around, I don’t have to play with a camera with a wireless receiver and clean pre-amp attached to it… or worse yet, a bunch of wires and cables…
My point isn’t that having decent quality internal audio on the camera is itself bad (although it probably adds needless cost to the camera that is utterly wasted on something that will probably be a “B” camera for most people). My point is that it’s almost never the *best* place to keep audio. The H1n or H4n are far better tools and don’t really add *that* much difficulty, especially if you’re already going to be doing even basic edits. The only time in-camera audio is best is when you have a simple setup and you’re doing a certain type of video and don’t want to take the 20-30 seconds per clip to sync. I would guess that is pretty rare for people running $3000+ video kits. Pretty common for people running $500-1500 video kits and vloggers.
For me, a good codec, high quality video that can take a bit of grading without looking grainy and crap, 120fps at 1080 (that is *CLEAN*, not like the Hero4) and 4k60. 5 axis stabilization would be good too, especially for 2017….
But also I would love to see them work more with the lens adaptor companies. The biggest reason I didn’t go for a GH4 was that I had the money for the camera, but I had no interest to switch to Pana lenses and the Metabones was not up to the quality I would expect for the price… not to mention that it cost almost as much as the GH4 itself.
Like you said, lots of people run a Canon or Sony main and a Pana as B. My bag is full of Canon glass. I’m sure yours is too. Most of it worth far more than the GH4. Pana needs to make this a priority. Maybe they can’t do it on their own. But they could work more with Metabones to get it working well.
I don’t deny the use of small cameras for part of the professional’s work kit. I am also looking into cameras like this for my own kit.
On the other hand, I don’t think that most video work uses 40-90 minute clips though. And I don’t think that most video work records audio directly into the camera – especially in a studio environment.
I would say that it’s very rare indeed to see a video clip longer than 15 minutes. If I were doing something that required more than 15 minutes, I’d probably be putting enough time and effort into setup that in-camera audio is not primary audio. The longer the clip, the less work it is to sync a secondary audio source in post. And if I were shooting in a way that was expecting to fill a card, I’d probably not want to be sharing the card with large high quality audio WAV files. Yes, they are indeed much, much smaller than the video files, but it makes no sense to put audio in the same place and also suck up more bandwidth when the net result is actually going to be lower quality.
I certainly wouldn’t want to buy a camera where a large chunk of its cost is taken up for audio equipment when 99.9% of my shooting uses external audio recording that costs far, far less and offers noticeably higher quality.
Just trying to point to common sense.
I very often shoot more than 30 minutes long files, and i’m glad with the hack on GH2 which let me do that. If i upgrade my gear, it would really be a problem for me that 30 minutes limitation.
Is the video you do with a runtime at 30 minutes+ something you would consider to be “professional”?
One of the points being discussed here is that a flip out screen is a serious critical value for any user at any level, from novice to professional, but long duration recording is not something that is used in any serious professional video work where quality is an issue.
For example, archival stuff for dailies – this was mentioned and while it is indeed part of a professional work environment, it is not something that by its nature requires a very high level of quality and would almost never be part of a published work. No real need for 4K.
Interview/documentary work is an avenue where longer clip length is also an issue. However again, professional published documentaries seldom have a single long take, with multiple camera angles and B-roll to help keep the user visually engaged and can easily cover things such as a brief hiccup at the 12 minute clip length limit. Also, it’s pretty likely that interview/documentary can get away without 4K video…
I have yet to come across any serious media (final results) that publishes content in “single take, single camera” for 30 minutes without a break.
Hence, if you upgrade your gear, you’ll probably have no issues recording long clips at 1080p.
It’s not a bad thing to have longer clips and it’s not a huge deal if it doesn’t. It’s a minor annoyance.
Not having a good articulating screen that can flip out to the side… that’s not a minor annoyance – that’s a serious functional flaw.
Again, I spent my entire day in the studio yesterday (shooting photos this time). I shot roughly 130 different tripod setups. Of these, only 2 were shot with the screen folded to the back of the camera. More than half were shot with me physically to the side of the camera and a quarter of them required me to be near the subject (ie in front of the camera).
Of the shots where I used the articulating screen, 20 or so of them were just up/down tilting.
When I do outdoors shoots, this is not significantly different and the only “vanilla tripod shot” that I have is typically the establishing shot or a talking head video, which again, typically takes up less than 40% of the final runtime of any project I’m involved in.
What I don’t understand is this – why are people treating these cameras as pro/semi-pro tools, and somehow are *not* shooting with them in creative or unusual camera angles for significant portions of the final output result. What type of published media uses only this single static camera setup?
“a lav on the subject and an H1n in the pocket.”
Many would consider that a risky proposition: No monitoring, level adjustment, or control over roll…and the inherent potential problems of lavs..rustle etc.
As long as Panny doesn’t botch the input stage and/or recording format, decent on-board audio should be possible with simple Bechtek etc adapters. Maybe they could offer a more sensible add-on than that YAGH box was. Smaller balanced inputs like TA3 are another possibility…see BMD video assist 4k.
People who consider that a risky proposition simply haven’t tried it and/or have no experience with it.
If you set your levels properly and get mic placement worked out, there is very little to worry about with that method. You might require a boom and shotgun if you were doing dramatic work or action.
Most lav’s are omni-directional and the H1n is “clean enough” that you can get very usable sound from it even if levels drop a bit.
I use more elaborate setups for higher end work, but 90% of everything I do is quite sufficient to work well without any monitoring because of good preparation and has significantly cleaner audio from a lav + H1n in the pocket compared to… anything… directly into the camera.
On the other hand, when I go into more elaborate setups, the last thing I would do is record that into the camera. Adding a clean preamp is the first step in leaving behind a quick-n-dirty setup. Adding monitoring is one of secondary steps. I will usually add a secondary mic source before worrying about monitoring. I use level checks instead and… know my equipment… But camera audio is basically never going to be anywhere as clean as 24 bit, 96khz into the side of an H1n. I’ve done back-to-back with my Senn wireless direct into camera and into a preamp, then into camera. It’s decent with preamp/camera, but still nowhere near as clean.
In fact, I’d go as far as saying that anyone who is using expensive and elaborate audio equipment and recording directly into the camera is wasting their time and money.
My video work tends to include a small amount of indoor/studio (voiceover and acoustic/classical instruments with multi-source), outdoor single/dual subject run and gun, indoor interview style and talking head stuff. I do not do cinematic/dramatic work.
A friend of mine does work on a TV show and some cinema and he uses a similar setup, but he builds his own equipment. He records off a shotgun and boom directly into a field recorder on his hip, which has a wireless transmitter to another guy who monitors all of the audio feeds wirelessly, but does not record from the wireless signal. That is definitely doing it correctly, but is also definitely way, way, WAY beyond the scope of cameras like the GH4/GH5. They do shoot with some Sony A7s II, but their primary is a Red. Even the RED is just a small portion of their budget.
So you haven’t shot shows then?
I shoot theatrical performances for archival. One can not stop and re-start the camera once the show begins.
This also requires high quality audio be captured in camera.
I also shoot interviews that often run over an hour. I do not interrupt because of camera limitations and my client receives ONE file with clean audio.
My client once hired a photographer who turned in 12 video clips, and 12 audio clips for an hour interview. He was never hired again.
I use GH4 and YAGH. My interview mic is an MKH50 on a boom. If you want the best quality you have to pay for it.
Why does shooting theatrical performances require that high quality audio be captured in camera? Especially for long, unbroken video, syncing alternate audio tracks is super-easy. In fact, it’s probably not at all recommended either. You’d be much better off getting your audio source from closer to the source. If you’re filming theatrical, you’d be best off setting up a couple of H1n’s or something on a small pad of sound-absorbing foam sitting on the stage at the front corners, out of view. I’ve shot theatrical before and there’s no way I could get usable audio off an on-camera mic. When it was mic’d I pulled an audio feed off the mains up in the booth or from a recorder in front of a speaker (also a common setup for musical recording).
In fact, for theatrical – especially for archival, even when I was the only guy, I never shot single camera – because the longer the run, the more risky it is to run a single camera. Having a single file is handy, but not at all professional because professionals require redundancy. And once you have multi-cam, the in-camera audio is is going to get sync’d and is probably just going to be used to sync to a primary high quality audio file. It’s so counter-productive to try to put everything into a single device.
If your purpose is archival – ie for reviewing dailies from rehearsals and whatnot, quality audio in-camera is *not* your priority anyhow. You could just use a small camera with an ultra-wide sitting on the stage or better yet, off a cable hanging from the ceiling.
I just do not understand how you can be claiming to do serious video but not be able to sync multiple audio tracks to create a simple final mix. If the client doesn’t want his audio separate, then you sync it in post and prep a complete file for the client.
Especially for theatrical, if you’re just running a mic off the hotshoe or something, expecting quality audio from that is ludicrous. That shotgun might be suitable for an interview mic, but I can’t honestly believe that you’re using that for theatrical recording.
And I have a very hard time believing that the client would hire people without clearly explaining that they want their audio mixed in, then never using the guy again because he provided separate audio files.
Even without something like Pluraleyes, syncing 12 audio files with 12 video files is something like 5 minutes of work. What professional level client can’t handle that? What a joke.
Your story is questionable. Either you’re shooting quality production or you’re just shooting scratch video just for the sake of having something that could be reviewed and nobody’s ever going to watch it. In which case, your argument is meaningless.
I have lots of expectations for the GH5 as a filmmaker, but I think at some point we need to move to purpose build camcorders as these cameras are just not designed for a film workflow and have too many compromises.
In many respects Panasonic should actually not move too far forwards with the GH5 for filmmaking and instead offer a dedicated solution with the better quality, interchangeable lenses and a close to GH5 price so as a filmmaker you can afford to purchase the right tool for the job.
For instance, I have a GH4 but purchased an old AF100 and although the video is far inferior (not 4k), everything else about the camera is far ahead of the GH4 for filmmaking… no need for cages, dedicated buttons, SDI outs, a more sturdy and stable weight etc..
Yes, a proper camcorder design is important and more useful for some. The Sony FS5 is great now with the raw license is even better
I have the AF100 and to be frank I find it more of a hassle to shoot with than the GH4. No touchscreen, ISO/Gain is switchable, but only 3 options, rest through menu. Compared to a full range of values with just 1 button push and the scroll wheel with the GH4. White balance is again limited to 3 preset options and I find it more awkward to use than the GH4. If you need the SDI outputs then yeah it’s an advantage, but if not its taking up space. I’ve given up using the AF100 especially since the GH4r allows continuous recording. The only real advantage the AF100 had for me.
Interesting perspetive – thanks for sharing.
There are already a lot of choices for those who want a DSLR with a Super35 sensor in 4K (Sony, Nikon and soon Canon). So let’s keep the m4/3 on the GH5 for its benefits (long range zoom for instance). 5 axis stabilizer, less noise, 60p and a 150mb/s codec would be nice ! And even 6K, for cropping, if possible.
I really doubt it would do any res above 4K. 5-axis dual stabilisation – probably yes, more frame rates – possibly yes.
It’s looking like 6k will be a feature.
I think it would be easy for Panasonic to get a 5K or 6K video option. Better even it would be with a cinematic aspect ratio of 2.33 to 1. (instead of 16:9) That would also get rid of the 2.3 crop factor in 4K (GH4) and provide a bit more reasonable factor of 2. The crop factor was one of the things I did not like in the GH4. Camera’s like the Sony A6300 have a 1.5 crop factor and of course the A7S and other full frame camera’s have a crop factor of 1.
I am not surprised nor disappointed that the GH5 will stick to the micro 4/3’s format. As others have said, there are other cameras that offer that type of sensor and there are advantages with micro 4/3’s. Given Panasonic’s investment in 4/3 lenses, did anyone really think they’d jeopardize that by giving the GH5 a larger sensor.
5 axis stabiliser would be a great feature, 422 colour would also be welcome. Better auto focus in 4K, 60p 4K and improvements in noise at higher ISO values are features most users would actually benefit from. 6K sounds cool in the marketing but unless it gives us better 4K from internal recording down sampling, real world applications could be limited for many users.
One big hope is that the unlimited recording of the GH4r is passed onto the GH5.
Definitely the only thing we miss is 12 bits to get the dynamic range we need to get closer to film grading to get back whites and blacks in the game. Could be achieved with 10bits encoding with log profile to mimic 12-14 bits. I own the NX1 and plead for h265. Amazing codec and transcoding into prores with free excellent apps until native editing becomes a reality is really zero hassle. Would allow the equivalent of 150 kb/s with 80kb/s on regular cards. Would make 1080/120 or 150,possible and gorgeous and 4K/24p shine. Of course the addition of a global shutter, integrated ND filters, internal stabiliser and let’s dream an integrated focal doubler would definitely make the GH5 THE mandatory indie camera. Am I talking about the GH6? 😉
I have owned and extensively used the (hacked) GH2, then the GH3 and finally the GH4. Great camera’s. My main objection however eventually turned out to be their low light performance, as I shoot indoors quite a lot. Even for the GH4, the darker areas in low light just become mushy and really noisy. So +3 stops or so in low light would be very desirable in a GH5. I now shoot with the A6300, and even above ISO 6400, the image very good in low light. It has a super 35 mm sensor, so I get a 1.5 crop factor instead of 2.3 (4K, GH4). Panasonic are you listening?
I bought the A6300 and sold the GH4 just a few days ago. The colour blocking with the Lumix after colour grading could be really bad (cyan and magenta patches) but to be honest the A6300 isn’t much better. On top of that the Sony’s rolling shutter problem is terrible. I can’t wait for the GH5 to arrive hopefully with 10 bit output and better ISO performance.
I have seen blocking artifacts in the shadows in the GH3/GH4 but not yet in my A6300. The effect you decribe is caused by the video encoder. I think the Sony XAVC 4K format on the A6300 is probably no different from the A7s/A7R formats, but I did not yet hear complaints
from those users. Alternatively one could use the 8bit 422 4K video outtput of the A6300 to record in Prores on an Atomos Ninja/Shogun etc. That should get rid of it.
If the GH5 has in body stabilization I will buy it. If it has IBS and they increase the stills megapixels to 20 megapixels, offer a better audio solution, and give us 120fps at 1080p and 60/48fps at 4K I will buy and be happy and continue to sing the praises of Panasonic.
My wish for the gh5 is: 4k 60/50p, +14fstop DR, usable v-log, internal 10bit 422, from the full m43 sensor with over sampling.
People don’t shoot 6k for 6k output. They will shoot 6k for 4k output, just like they shoot 2.7k or 4k for 1080p. They can move around the frame or down-size to improve overall video quality.
Do you even shoot video?
I don’t need Pro-Res. Apple is a PITA anyhow and have made that almost redundant.
NEEDS TO HAVE: clean, usable video (ie 4:2:2 and bayer stuff handled properly), FULLY ARTICULATING FLIPOUT SCREEN, high ISO performance
Get the basics right!
What I want from the GH5: Global Shutter. Sure, improve the low light and dynamic range. But, Global Shutter would put this camera ahead of everyone else. Just like Matt Frazer said; use an external recorder for 10 bit shooting.
Look’s like the 6K rumour is all make believe. 10 bit 4:2:2 apple pro res and a bit rate of 200mb/sec or better for 96 fps and 4K internal recording. Would have made this thing so great. 6K would have made this even less light sensitive if the rumoured 20 megapixel chip was installed.