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

@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). :(

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.

@alcomposer Well, the UHS-II are twice as fast as the UHS-I cards. If you look what Transcend writes on the cards regarding write speed: UHS-I: 90 BM/s and UHS-II: 180 MB/s, this is 100 % conform with my experiences. In so far are the USH-II cards definitively working in the GH5.

Just the difference between the UHS-II card from Transcend and the UHS-II card from Sandisk are, at least in my tests, not existing. Maybe they would show in other tests. In mine, they both cards were equally fast.

It fills the 2732-by-2048 resolution display on my 512GB 12.9" iPad Pro with 1440p setting.

Review

The GH5 is a video camera that happens to take still photos. The ISO performance for video has been dramatically improved, with noticeable and marked advancement in low light performance. Even at the highest ISO the GH5 can attain in video mode, ISO 12,800, footage looks "passable," whereas the GH4's maximum ISO of 6400 was best avoided with video. Apples to apples at ISO 6400, the GH5 blows its predecessor out of the water. There is also no longer an additional crop factor even when shooting 4K video, with the entire width of the sensor being utilized. This is a boon to wide-angle shooters.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-gh5/panasonic-gh5A.HTM

Filmed in V-Log L.

@Odur Loving the color in that San Paolo vid.

@Odur lots of outside filming, what ND's did you choose to use? Lovely video BTW! And how special is that event!

Fake leather cases

• http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-Genuine-Real-Leather-Half-Camera-Bottom-Case-For-Panasonic-Lumix-GH5-Coffee-/322569282185
• http://www.ebay.com/itm/Luxury-New-PU-Leather-Case-Camera-Bag-for-Panasonic-Lumix-GH5-Coffee-/371992468960

@alcomposer

Thank you. I've used ND8 and ND16 filters plus a polarized filter.