Jump to content


Photo

Panasonic GH5 or Sony A7sii?


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Austin Pink

Austin Pink

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 August 2017 - 06:02 PM

Hey guys,

   I know this is the Panasonic subgroup so I might be guilty of sampling bias, BUT I'm looking for a new camera body in the price point of around $2000. This is for a wide variety of applications including short narrative, documentary, music video, stills etc. Just an all around camera to play around with that is of semi-professional quality. After some research and discussion, I think I'm between the GH5 and A7sii. Does anyone have any opinions or recommendations of which they think is better? Thanks a lot!


  • 0


Support Cinematography.com and buy gear using our Amazon links!
PANASONIC LUMIX GH5 Body 4K Mirrorless Camera, 20.3 Megapixels, Dual I.S. 2.0, 4K 422 10-bit, Full Size HDMI Out, 3 Inch Touch LCD, DC-GH5KBODY (USA Black)

#2 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 998 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 07 August 2017 - 09:09 PM

Doesn't the GH5 have 10bit and the a7s only 8bit? Also GH5 has that nice thicker ergonomic body and smaller sensor so not as many lenses will vignette on it. If they are the same price, to me it isn't even a contest.


  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19561 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 August 2017 - 09:15 PM

Depends on how much low-light photography you are planning, that's the one area where the Sony A7Sii has an advantage. Otherwise the GH5 seems more adaptable to shooting video, recording audio, and doing post work.
  • 0

#4 Austin Pink

Austin Pink

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 August 2017 - 09:21 PM

Yeah that sensor on the a7sii is definitely attractive. But I can't say I have a particular need for that degree of low-light capability. The GH5 is also cheaper, which is a consideration. Is there any potential drawback with a micro four thirds sensor, specifically in terms of buying lenses?


  • 0

#5 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 998 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 07 August 2017 - 09:34 PM

One drawback of a smaller sensor is less bokeh. However depending on the job that could be a plus. At times I feel smaller sensors lack a bit of flesh to them. Less "3-dimensional quality".


  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19561 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 August 2017 - 10:14 PM

Not sure what "less bokeh" means. With a smaller sensor, you get more depth of field on average because you are using shorter focal lengths to get the same field of view as when using a larger sensor. However, if you can find fast-enough lenses, you can open up the iris more to get a shallow-focus look (and larger bokeh patterns of circles.) And faster lenses will help compensate for the less sensitive sensor.
  • 0

#7 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 998 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 07 August 2017 - 10:20 PM

With a smaller sensor, you get more depth of field on average because you are using shorter focal lengths to get the same field of view as when using a larger sensor.

It means just that.

 

For instance I just tried a new digiprime I bought which mark T1.6 at the aperture's widest point, but on a 2/3 sensor 1.6 looks like 4 in terms of DoF. I'm a junkie for extreme bokeh. I personally can't find too many lenses faster than 1.6, but then again I'm currently on a camera sensor old enough to drive...


  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19561 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 August 2017 - 10:23 PM

I think one of Steve Yedlin's video demos puts to rest the notion that larger formats somehow have a different dimensionality -- once you match field of view, distance, and depth of field between formats, it's hard to tell them apart. The extra "depth" of large formats is mainly a combination of a typically shallower depth of field combined with increased detail in the subject (but even that has limits depending on how the image is displayed). So once you match depth of field by stopping down on the larger formats or opening up on the smaller ones, you get a similar look assuming that other factors are similar.

Of course you have the practical limits of how fast the lenses you can find are, so if you like the look of f/1.4 Master Primes on a Super-35 camera, it's hard to find even faster lenses for smaller formats to match that look.

(I typed this before I saw your reply.)
  • 0

#9 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 998 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 07 August 2017 - 10:30 PM

Which at the end of the day, the format grabbing different statistics out of the lenses is a plus in itself on top of the additional detail you mentioned. You can absolutely achieve the stats of a standard speed lens on S35, but then we get into price. A single Cp2 super speed prime is $3000 used, or $100 a day, and if our guy here only has 2 grand to blow on the camera things start getting tricky.


  • 0



Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

CineTape

CineLab

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Technodolly

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks