@scot I agree with you on the need for separate mic and wind protection. And I am surprised too that Panasonic omitted the mic input or having a hot shoe mic (and also manual audio controls). They really were protecting their higher-level cameras. @Vesku I agree that the GH4 has good audio; one reason is you can control levels manually (turn off AGC). It is also clear that they cared about audio quality for that camera.

For fun, here is the H1 audio track used in the intro cut from the opera video:

@markr041 It has become pretty clear that wind, in camera stabilization and internal mics are not a good match. Which really presses the point of how important it is to include a mic port so you can get the mic isolated from the camera body and put foam or deadcat on the mic. You would have thought this was a great opportunity for Panasonic to sell there own external mic to non pros. Confront the issue and offer the solution. Hell they could have left the mic off all together and offered a sound kit that plugs in to camera. Instant secondary revenue stream could look something like the Tascam DR-10SG. Even with the sound issue I still love what's good about this camera till something better comes along. Just a heads up I wouldn't expect the GH5 to be immune to the same stabilization noise issue!

Here is my current foam. It had a second layer of rough foam and it was more effective.

GX85 may be mediocre but I think GH4 internal sound is quite good. Uncompressed 16bit 1500 kbits/s, no noise at all. I have recorded some concerts and listened with big surround system. The athmosphere and sound clarity is good and I can think being in the concert when listening. I also recorded an airshow where the F18 hornet went at near distance with after burners (very loud) and the sound was very realistic when listened at home. I have a home made foam cover in internal microphone so that the wind noise is minimal outdoors. The only issue is to record someone speaking when not near the camera.

When using a good mono mic we loose the atmosphere or stereo effect. It would be nice if the camera would have an internal mixer mixing external mono mic and internal stereo sound.

Here is what I do - A Zoom H1 with an XLR adaptor lets you get a clean audio mix straight from the soundboard - its invaluable for concerts and speeches - and you get to have a nice chat with the sound guy as you try to convince him to let you plug in. Having a live mic (as you did) for audience interaction (applause mostly) and ambient is nice for the final sound mix.

Finally got some time to get out and shoot... I'm liking this kit much better than the GH4 despite the audio handicap.

Can someone enlighten me why using a 64gb card AVC 1080 30P shows a recording time of 5h 43m and MP4 is 27m 09s while MP4 2160 30P is 1h 22m. Are the the non 4K modes still limited to 29m 59s (hint 720 30P is 29m 59s)? Also any opinions on which is better for 1080 MP4 or AVC and why?

How bad is the GX85 in-camera audio? This video compares the audio track from the camera to that from a Zoom H1 (with dead cat) recorded at an outdoors opera recital, with full orchestra. The concert sound was, of course, amplified, so mic placement is not the issue. What is the issue is wind noise and compression (AGC and the low audio bitrate (128 kbps). The H1 soundtrack is 24 bit, 48Hz and uncompressed (1560 kbps). The first clip is with in-camera audio; the second is the same clip with the H1 audio:

You will note that the H1 track is at a lower level; that is because it has the full dynamic range (the peak is -1.0 Db) while the in-camera audio is pumped up and leveled In-camera). How bad is the GX85 audio? Real bad.

@Vesku it's true it's hard to compare the GH4 and the GX85, but my impression is that both the G7 and GX85 are just incrementally better than the GH4--a small but significant difference, but small enough that it isn't a big deal.

@Vesku Yes, exactly the same lighting (controlled by LED array) and shutter, aperture, ISO (same lens). You could be right about other differences in the defaults of the two cameras. Anyway, what you see is what you get. I do not, however, see a difference in NR aggressiveness, as the resolution is at least as high from the GX85 (no obvious smearing, but clearly less noise).

On ML: It is a lot of work to catch relevant videos all around the internet. But with no comments, one cannot know whether the video is worth watching or not - what it is about. Not worth the effort to have to watch the video to find out. And, often no attribution is given for who authored the video, so viewers are misled (I have seen this many times here) as to who the author is. And since the author did not post it, one cannot have a dialogue with him or her. I think it is a questionable practice. I guess it is better than not having the videos (they are relevant), but more info is needed at a minimum.

@woolhats I am sorry you did not understand my criticism (see right above) - it is not about the videos "from" Linn (or whether they are "interesting"), but about the practice of dumping videos, with no information, authored by others. I did criticize the use of YouTube videos in general to compare video quality. You did say "I don't get it." You are correct, you don't. And, "static clips... from flowers" - nice phrase. I will be sure to look for your interesting dynamic "movies" at my neighborhood octaplex. I thought this forum was about camera learning, not a repository for art films, or for sneering.

@markr041..I dont get it. Why do jump on Mike Linn? He is only the messenger..He gives us interesting movies..at least as interesting movies as your static clips from museums and flowers.

@ DrDave First, "MikeLinn" just dumps videos all over this web site, without any comment about them. He shoots no videos, whoever he is. I now ignore them, since it is never clear what they are supposed to show and clearly have not been screened for usefulness or quality. Nor can (or does) Mr. Linn answer any questions about them. But I digress.

Second, I do not understand why anyone would use YouTube to make video comparisons. Not to mention that side-by-side views and added titles obviously further compress (degrade) video quality.

I posted a low light comparison of the GH4 and GX85 earlier, at ISO 6400 using the exact same lens and aperture. The video underwent no compression at all, by me. And you can download the original video. Then any compression or other artifacts are directly from the camera, not from YouTube or by the video preparer. So no confusion about what the camera actually produces.

GH4 first.

And I answer questions...

@MikeLinn I'm seeing some weird blockiness in that last vid....is it just me?