Yup. I found an old Olympus Zuiko 9-18mm zoom - unstabilized - that now can be employed (with adaptor) for handheld 4K video, using the unique perspective of an ultra wide-angle lens. This lens was the lightest and smallest ultrawide zoom 43 lens made by Olympus, and it is indeed small, not having to have OIS and not being very fast. The autofocus sounds like gears being mashed on an 18-wheeler, but it does the job to attain focus. I just never let it move during a shot.
Bolt on Minolta 50mm. Camera says: Change aperture? I hit the 50mm button. Double tap on the image to get focus magnification. Then shoot handheld with IS on my lens from 1979. So, I know that Olympus pioneered this tech, and Panasonic is late to the game, but this is pretty good tech. It's worth remembering that the reason I tried m43 in the first place was to use my old lenses.
http://www.personal-view.com/talks/uploads/FileUpload/26/d38b7016df3437b42f75f1aca3ca00.jpg
Panasonic sensor progress almost stopped.
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Panasonic-Lumix-GX80-GX85-sensor-review-Diminutive-design
I ran the GH4 clip (above) through NeatVideo and even still, I think the GX80 clip looks (a lot) better!
@Vesku We know two things are different in the GX85 relevant to IQ:
I guess the sensor is kind of new, albeit being 16mp. When the new 20mp Sony m4/3 sensor was first listed (IMX269), another 16mp sensor was also listed too (IMX159) - I guess that it is the GX85 sensor.
Don't know if this sensor was previously used in another camera, but for sure it is not the E-M5 mark I sensor (IMX109); don't know if there was some intermediate sensor numbers between these two.
I wonder how much the GX85 better high iso is the result of better in-camera processing and how much sensor itself. Can the GH4 4k video be as good when post processed heavily?
Is GX85 RAW photos better in high iso than GH4 RAW photos?
Rumors say the GH5 trusts heavy processing and not so superior sensor.
Very impressed with the noise compared to the GH4, even cropping the the frame to match the GH4, the noise is much controlled.
Yes, the crop factor is less in the GX85 in 4K. I think it is one of the reasons one can use EIS in 4K on the GX85 - there are extra pixels.
I agree that the GX85 clips have a different color look; more contrast and saturation in Standard, maybe a different calibration, but possibly also because of the crop there are less white reflectors in the more cropped (GH4) frame so average luminence is the same but the colored objects are more exposed. Certainly much less noise from the GX85.
GX85 versus the GH4 in low light - ISO 6400:
Exact same lighting and camera position, tungsten lighting source, AWB, f1.8, 1/60th, ISO 6400, Standard Profile, NR -2. Exposure using the Histogram in each camera was set to be equal by adjusting the light source (in fact, not different across cameras).
The GH4 is first in each sequence (you can see the change in crop).
No recompression - the 4K files uploaded underwent no adjustment in post, not even recompression. These are the files right out of the camera, just merged losslessly.
Technology advances.
Camera must not have both mic and phones jacks, but must have two full size locking USB 3.0 ports located on small addon inserted in flash mount, and support for standard audio devices (both phones and mikes).
I can sort of see the mic two ways. On the one hand, a lot of ppl record parallel audio, and even with a mic jack the audio would be low end. On the other hand, the electrical components needed for a basic audio jack are probably just a few dollars as the parts are used in everything from cell phones to refrigerators.
The sad truth is that if the cam had real USB power and a mic jack/16 bit pcm, it would be a freaking legend.
Looking over the samples of video, I would say that although there are tiny, tiny differences among the G7, GX85 and GH4, these aren't big differences. Anyone who wants to get into 4K video will have a great time with these cams, and the unlocked "G7 PV" is the best deal. If you need IS, there is the GX85 for just a few dollars more, and the price is going to come down, one would hope.
I think the real sleeper here IQ wise is the Sony A6300. This cam just pulls a bit more detail out of everything, and the difference is more noticeable than say the difference between a G7 and an NX500--the Samsung is very good, but not as good as the Sony, although, again, compared to what we had a few years ago this is a luxury of choices. Priced at a grand, the A6300 is a realistic alternative if you can deal with the annoying heat problems; lots of cams now for the budget film maker. Also it will be very interesting to see if the much delayed GH5 can outresolve the A6300--I would not bet on it.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!