During my last birds in flight shooting, the buffer of the GH5 ran full very fast and the emptying of the buffer, the storing on the SD card, took long in my eyes.

I use the UHS-I 128 GB Transcend (R95, W60), and the Sandisc Extreme 90 MB/s, also UHSI, cards.

For the 150 Mbit/s for 4K video of the GH5 these cards are by far fast enough But while taking picturs, the writing of the full buffer on the card seems to be a bottleneck.

Thats why I did a few tests:

• Frame size: 3:2 L mode, serial mode H, JPEG and RAW on. Elecronic shutter and after each test, I formated the cards again.
• What I did not expect was, that in my tests the ISO had an influence in the speed how fast the buffer was * * filled. Auto ISO was about 25-30% slower than a fixed ISO value.
• Those setting of course had no influence on how fast the cards rote the data from the buffer

I wanted to see how long it takes until the buffer is full and how long it takes to write it on the card. I am aware, that filling up the buffer has nothing to do with the SD cars used.

All results giving aer tendencies. There might be a few pictures more or less when you test or a second difference. But the overall resulty are clear.

Both cards had pretty much the same speed. Using AFS and MF, the buffer of the GH5 filled with 70 images in about 6 seconds, the writing on the card took 50 seconds, no matter if Jpeg and RAW was saved on the same card or on 2 different cards. AFC: 8 - 10 seconds to fill the buffer. Writing on card: 50 Sekunden.

I felt this is too long.

Then I have bought the UHS-II 64 GB Transcend card with R285 and W180 MB/s, which is about as fast a s a V30 card. Costs around 100 € at the moment.

Of course, the times the buffer filled up were the same. But writing the biffer on the card took only 27 seconds, compared to 50 seconds on the UHSI cards.

Better already.

Then I had a look at the UHSII Sandisk Extreme Pro, which, according to the sandisk website has these read/Write speeds:

• Read Speed: up to 300 MB/s*
• Write Speed: up to 260 MB/s*

Also about V30.

I bought the 64 GB version for about 130 €.

The tests showed, that the Tanscend and Sandisk UHSII cards have exactly the same speeds to write the buffer on the card. The Sandisk had no advantage, even though on the paper the Transcend was with 180 MB/s, compared to the 280 MB/s of the Sandisk, 100 MB/s slower. That had no effect in my tests.

• AFS + MF: 5-6 seconds to fill the buffer. Writing on card: 27 seconds.
• AFC: 8-10 seconds to fill the buffer. Writing on card: 27 Sekunden.

As written above, I thought the Sandisc would be faster than the Transcend, but it is not.

So, if you expect a write advandage of the Sandisk, you can save the 30 € and buy the Transcend. Same speeds.

A difference from the UHS-I cards to the UHS-II cards is, that during the process of writing the buffer on the cards, with the UHS-I card you can continue to take about 1 picture every 2 seconds, while with the UHS-II cards you can make 1 picture per second. So about twice as fast which is the same speed advantage as 50 to 27 when writing the buffer on the cards.

Then I did further tests, taking only RAW or only JPEG pictures, always MF and fixed ISO

UHS-I cards

Sandisk:

• only RAW: Buffer full after 9 seconds with 76 images, emptying the buffer: 39 seconds
• only JPEG: Buffer full after 22 seconds with 191 images, emptying the buffer: 18 seconds

Transcend:

• only RAW: Buffer full after 7 seconds with 66 images, emptying the buffer: 37 seconds
• only JPEG: Buffer full after 20 seconds with 191 images, emptying the buffer: 18 seconds

So again roughly the same speeds.

The UHS-II cards:

Sandisk:

• only RAW: Buffer full after 10 seconds with 80 images, emptying the buffer: 16 seconds
• only JPEG: The buffer did not fill up. After 30 seconds there were 260 images on the card and when I stopped, the buffer was empty.

Transcend

• only JPEG: Buffer full after 10 seconds with 80 images, emptying the buffer: 14 seconds
• only JPEG: Same as Sandisk: The buffer did not fill up. After 30 seconds there were 260 images on the card and when I stopped, the buffer was empty.

@joe1946

Yet the latest Adobe Premiere Pro does not even see those files (you get a green mesh when trying to put them on a new timeline). :(

BTW the GH5 6K photo mode videos play in 2880p 5K on youtube. https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4278/34663699043_da18502194_z.jpg

@caveport that work sounds like ENG work, which is really cool. Remember b-mount ENG lenses can fit on MFT as well :-)

GH5 has different sensor readout speed (rolling shutter) in high iso and low iso when taking photos with silent e-shutter.

iso100-iso800 e-shutter sensor reading about 1/50s, good.

iso1000 and higher e-shutter sensor reading about 1/22s, bad.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59729984

It's not about price. You probably don't need the kind of camera I need. Try doing a tracking shot with a zoom & focus pull on a dslr or a Sony a7rii. Try doing a shoot with live action sport where you are on-air. I could go on but we obviously work in very different areas.

Cinema camera means FORM FACTOR. Useable controls on a body designed for the job of shooting moving images. NOT a tiny still camera.

"Looking at content shot with GH5 it is clear that there is serious potential for this platform to become a contender as a cinematic solution. With a future body that has more DR (14+ stops) and RAW external option (or internal) I actually don't know what would be missing."

It would be missing out on a shape that works for shooting moving images in a professional situation, like having to complete over 40 different shot setups a day. If you still don't understand, then I suggest you may be a hobbyist with unfulfilled dreams, after all, you DID use the word cinematic after saying you don't know what a cinema camera is!!!

@alcomposer "It is clear that M43 is not going Full-Frame, and hardly capable of going s35. (even though technically possible)." So how is it possible to cover a sensor bigger than the image circle produced by the lens? Also it's good to keep in mind that M43 was always designed for lightweight consumer still cameras. It was never intended to be used for a moving image format. Judging by your comments, I think you need a proper cinema style camera and give up using still cameras as they will NEVER have the form factor and features of dedicated cinema cameras. You would then be safe in the knowledge that all your 'e-waste' (actually old-fashioned real hard rubbish) could be fitted to cameras and used forever. Personally I use old Pentax 35mm lenses on my GH4 and never paid more than $100 for some exceptional glass. Also "Yes the GH5 is amazing, but currently to compete in cinema land the camera needs to have 14 stops of dynamic range, & RAW option (even if external)." It is NOT a cinema camera. If you want it to be you will be forever frustrated. Buy the right tool for the job.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev

I am simply wanting to know if the Panasonic M43 glass I purchase today will be usable tomorrow (and in a few years) on new GH6 etc.

This is exactly the reason why many people I personally know have moved to Sony, as e-mount is supported very well, and has a great ecosystem of camera bodies.

You can purchase a a7rii and have a fantastic photographic camera, and also do lots of great video work on it. Then if you feel like it you can rent - or purchase an FS5/7 which also gives you 14stops of DR and great video output.

e-mount also will allow full-frame video (which is a direction that Sony has stated they are going).

I would like to see this sort of commitment to M43, as it would allow me to make informed decisions on my camera system purchases.

With the introduction of the EVA1 we see that Panasonic is very interested in competing with Canon C200 etc. Yet there is no apex cinema centric product in M43 system.

Yes the GH5 is amazing, but currently to compete in cinema land the camera needs to have 14 stops of dynamic range, & RAW option (even if external).

These two aspects present in a M43 body would make purchasing decisions much easier.

I personally do not understand why there is not a GH5 Pro, and if I do use 'logic' to understand the current issues of the M43 platform then it makes it even more apparent that there is very small chance that M43 will be around much longer.

Samsung NX is completely different issue. NX1 was full-frame, and did not have any 'technological' issues to overcome, that was a company decision to restructure and put more resources into mobile phone development.

Sony e-mount platform is ready 'technologically' to go 8K Full-Frame tomorrow. Even the concept of 8K Full-Frame is 100% due to current sensor technology and utilising current platform strengths.

It is clear that M43 is not going Full-Frame, and hardly capable of going s35. (even though technically possible).

I have said this before- but it is very sad that M43 is not supported better, and that an eco-system is not created that allows the benefits of a smaller sensor (but not a tiny sensor) to shine.