Long gop. 100mbps or 150.

Panna mate. You should really push up you birates. Too much prossesing has get you out of Dynamic range.

Firts the 4:2:0 for better autofocus (prossesor problem) Now the dynamic range seems 1stop lower more like gh2.

Macroblocks still an issue.

put a mode with this settings:

2k 10 bit 4:2:2 24p 300mbps no autofocus h264 INTRAFRAME FOR GOD SAKE and no stabilization, zero, nada. ALL PROCESING FOR IMAGE CONTROL.

Panna, too much gimiks take away the sirious part of the camera image prossesing power should be on one mode all to that mode.

With that LSI you could even have 720p 4:4:4 24p if you like it and crop rhe sensor no stabilization no autofocus no extreme noise control. Just the beloved sensor character.

@paulhouston Ever since noticing the weirder discrepancies of the DXOmark tests, I've been suspicious of nebulous score values like we see on that page. I wouldn't put much weight on that. If you check the actual text of the review for IQ it's stated to be better than GH4 across the board: better high ISO noise, better resolution, better colour rendition.

In the comments someone asked about this inconsistency and a DPreview staff member replied "All of our reviews use 'point in time' scores, meaning that the scores are relative to other competitive products at the time the review is written. (Usually, when the camera is relatively new.) As a result, it's difficult do a direct scoring comparison between a camera released today and one released three years ago.

The GH4 probably scored a bit higher at the time because relative to competitive models it stood out more in those categories, whereas today there may be other products that compete more effectively in the same categories."

@jamesGH2 GH5 sensor stabilization is much better than a6500s.

@MikeLinn That GH4 vs GH5 test shows that the Dynamic Range on the GH5 is lower. Maybe it is operator error as the settings might have been different. If not then the AF is not the only big drawback on the GH5. I was willing to forget the AF debacle but the dynamic range in my view is a much more important metric. Now if the GH5 is shot on V-Log L then it may be a different story. I am keeping my GH4 for now. GH5 price now seems overly expensive and should have been $1500. The a6500 has better AF, sensor stab and better DR. Im a GH user since the GH2 but the GH5 is not making me drop $ just yet.

Another GH5 cage from former Motion9

http://seercam.com/product/cube-gh5/

@nobbystylus Cinematography or videography? Important distinction, unless you think Arri/Zeiss are going to start manufacturing autofocus lenses for the Alexa successor.

@nobbystylus Let me give you a point of view I grew up when SLR auto focus systems were in there infancy and many a pro would not use them for the same reasons cinematographers don't now. It virtually was the same argument. Those auto focus systems became so good few would choose manual focus over auto focus in the photography world today. I see that same paradigm shift coming to cinematography so it is in Panasonics best interests to improve. I also use AFS all the time with some buttons settings to control it but CAF is a no go with Panasonic but I hope that changes. I guess they know it's important now after all they don't make manual focus lenses.

I think that most people who have complained about the AF have also mentioned that the image quality is very nice. More people will probably be excited about the IQ after the higher bitrate modes are enabled later this year. In the meantime, it doesn't seem all that surprising that people expect a feature (that was hyped by the vendor to be very good) on an expensive camera to perform similarly to the same feature on a much cheaper camera (e.g. 70D).

Does anyone know of tests demonstrating that using an external recorder (e.g. Atmos Ninja Inferno) improves GH5 autofocus performance?

@aldolega Thx for you reply, I'm just looking for some ways that I didn't know before! I used to edit video smoothly (I used GH2 ~70Mbps) and I am new to 4K50p, and never thought that problem will happen...

I will consider to put more investment on my computer!!

@Eno... Have you owned Panasonics in this line? The lowest native setting is ISO 200. Not sure if they enabled extended lower ISO but if it's an option the quality and DR would be compromised anyways.