Quantum Target wrote:
Holistic Photog wrote:
pannumon wrote:
2. 4Gb file limit. Is it really a problem if you lose 1-2 frames in an 1 hour video? I can see that it can be annoying if you want externally recorded audio to be synced exactly, but in reality I cannot see this as a problem. If you don't plan to do post-processing, is it a problem to share the video in two parts?
I could deal with dropped frames but yes, it is a problem. Fewer problems means less work, fewer opportunities for mistakes etc. I am not making movies but no. We want sessions to be unitary and fussing with the restart of recording in the middle of a session for 2 cameras (1 operator) is unwelcome.
3. 30min limit. Because EU taxation, this can be an issue. Personally, I would not have paid 100-200€ more for this camera to have no 30min limit.
I get it but the context is a US body. It is great that we can share info, technique, work product on a global basis so easily now. It certainly does complicate matters like this one! All in all, this is way better than the alternative.
4. Video AF. I think I'm the only person saying this, but it's a big step back from the good old GH1. I started a thread about this about a week ago. Still, this is not an issue after you have learned how the camera works.
From where I am right now, I don't believe there will be significant issues with AF. Esp. for my primary application. Will check out thread.
minute record limit before you have to hit the record button again. I believe the G85, the US version, is unlimited.
I will be getting US version so the 4G limit should be a non-issue on exFAT formatted cards.
Just to confirm, 4Gb limit has nothing to do with the 30min limit.
I get that.
Just to second that. The old bodies would split the clips into 4GB chunks regardless of file system.
Exactly. This is part of the reason for raising the issue.
I believe that on the older bodies, even if they accepted exFAT formatting and did unlimited recording, would still split the clips into 4GB chunks. However, I don't fully agree with the guy in the video. When I used AVCHD recording, I never lost a single frame between the clips. It was always completely seamless. MP4 may be different though.
It seems like the newer bodies (e.g. GX85 and G85) no longer do the 4GB split (but rather one long continuous clip), whether they have a 30 minute limit or not. So, again, the 30 minute limit on some European bodies has nothing to do with the old 4GB split.
I hope you are correct. However I will point out that you can only be correct when the media is formatted exFAT. If the media is formatted FAT32 the camera must honor the 4G file size limit of media file system and break up the recording regardless of it's ability to write to exFAT media a single 3 hour file or any file size larger than 4G. So, it is far more helpful and important to qualify reports with media format type etc.
Some additional thoughts:
Why do you need image stabilization? Will the camera stay on tripod or will there be additional person(s) taking the video?
"Need." One of those oh so ambiguous words! To sum it up, I don't want to end up with an inflexible, single purpose platform. The platform must meet the specified baseline needs and be useful in as broad a range of other contexts as possible. As our needs change the 'system' needs to be able to grow with us.
If you want easy workflow, just shoot 1080p.
Not clear how resolution simplifies workflow. Assuming native processing (no proxies) and adequate capability in the workstation and software of course. In terms of workflow on the capture side also, 4K or 1080p still have to be in focus, properly lit, framed, color balanced, etc. Of these, focus would seem to be the only part that would possibly be harder. I can't imagine that you are saying the G85 AF performs poorly at 4K and acceptably at 1080p! Makeup? Plastic surgery for 'talent'?
Do you have experience about lighting, and are there resources for setting it properly? If the lighting is not good, the video will look mediocre at best even when shot at 4k.
Agreed. I have a fair understanding of what will be needed for our initial locations. I expect that I will minimal supplementation of ambient lighting. I will have to verify this with the purchase of the first kit.
Have you considered getting few large-aperture primes instead of the kit lenses? Kit-lenses are slow (aperture-wise), and you need all the possible light to the sensor when shooting indoors (unless you set up additional lighting). I mean lenses like Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, Panasonic 25mm f/1.7, Sigma 30mm f/1.4, Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7, Sigma 60mm f/2.8... These are all affordable.
I have - some. The operating assumption is that we will end up with 2 kit lenses since there isn't likely another lower cost way to get 2 G85s with lenses. I don't think it makes too much sense to get the first camera with no kit lens (if that is even an option). If the kit lenses will give adequate performance great. If not, and depending on what we find we need to do in terms of supplemental lighting (cost) we will, at that time consider what additional lenses might be needed - both near and longer term. One of the biggest unknowns is framing. I haven't found a method that will allow me easily to translate G85 4K image/crop + focal length + distance into a width and height at that distance. It is a lot easier to do test clips in the actual setting and then everyone will be able to understand (image = 1Kwords).
I want to also mention that I have a feeling the OP may misunderstand the "jitter" issue. It completely disappears if you turn off the OIS.
I understand jitter very well. I have a very deep background with servo systems, electronics, IT, embedded microcontrollers, etc. that goes back - Lord have mercy! - 40+ years! My concern with the test is that the jitter was constant - Indicating some issue with the lens OIS system - hence ?is this pervasive?. The probable cause was either improperly implemented / functioning dither or inadequate decoupling of supply voltages or a combination of the two. The Canon lens had no jitter with OIS on or off.
The Canon lens had no observable jitter and both compensated similarly for perturbations. It was clear to me that when the Canon lens was fully damping disturbances and stabilizing the image or times with no motion at all, the 14-150 experiencing the same disturbances (in practical terms) or none was was in constant oscillation in one axis only (this just occurred to me). This raises my confidence that the lens was defective - though there are still software and design issues that could cause it.
If the picture gets better with OIS off, you make my point and foil your own. OIS should not ADD movement - only dampen external disturbances. As with the Canon lens.
In other words, an OIS lens is ALWAYS more stable than an unstabilized lens. Even with any jitter, the footage is ALWAYS more stable than it would be if you turned off the OIS. But you'll now lose the benefit of the stabilization. You can just turn off the OIS on an unstabilized body and any jitter will disappear, but the actual shaking will be worse than the original jitter that you had with OIS. The actual shaking is due to handshake or wind, and the jitter is simply due to the fact that the OIS is not sufficient to counteract the shaking.
In other words, if the OP is thinking of getting a lens like the 14-150 without any stabilization to make the jitter go away, then that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.
In the YouTube video, the reason the camera is shaking on the tripod is due to the wind and the fact that the stabilization is not sufficient to counteract it (if it's even on). It's not due to the lens itself but due to the wind. An unstabilized lens would perform no better here.
Your assertion is far too broad - that an OIS system must improve in all cases. A stabilization system that is oscillating (malfunctioning) , as was the case in point, in fact must degrade the system especially when it is not being perturbed.
I don't know where you're getting this from. How do you know the stabilization system was oscillating? All of the observed movement in the video could have been due to the wind.
In this case we observed one system damping vibrations successfully and not introducing it's own and another that would dampen vibrations AND introduce it's own.
Again, I don't see how you could possibly know this. The issue is that at the extreme focal lengths that were being used in the video, wind could have caused all of that movement and far more. There's no reason to believe any additional movement was added by the OIS.
The only way to know is if the guy did one test video with OIS on and one with it off and compare them. But no such comparison was done.
Yes we use OIS to mitigate perturbations in unstable systems. When properly functioning they will reduce - though never eliminate it. The best they can achieve is to bring disturbances below perception ( image sensor and optical resolution) but never to zero - there is a distinct difference.
I don't understand where you picked up that I would consider an un-stabilized lens as an improvement.
Because I've had this conversation before about this issue and I've had people assume this. I was simply addressing it in case it came up.
There would be no way for me to know if you would think that, but I know it's something that some people think.
My concern was that Panasonic may not be careful enough with design and production and that such badly behaved lenses might be common fare.
The OIS on that lens is extremely effective for a lens that size (probably 3.5 to 4 stops). Believe me. The Canon lens is much larger and has greater room for much more robust mechanisms, a luxury Panasonic doesn't have.
I can tell you with complete certainty that Canon has actually never designed a lens of this size of the quality this Panasonic has, and not even close.
This lens is a 10x zoom that literally loses no quality throughout the zoom range, and it's tiny and feather light. Show me a Canon lens that comes close to this.
Furthermore, Canon has never put a stabilizer this effective in a lens this size. My take is that Canon needs to create monstrosities to achieve these levels of performance. I've never seen them do it when space was at such a premium.
End rant.
If that were the case I would move on to another brand. As it is, I fully intend to look for this oscillation in EVERY body and lens I acquire. It should NEVER be visible. Just like it isn't in the Canon lens.
QT
