I have been looking at a LOT of videos on quality, format, bit depth, etc.
I am still sorely tempted to get the GH5 Mk2, simply because it is such an easy and cheap fit for my kit, keeps the M43 dynamic alive and is enough to fix my immediate needs, but I have been caught up in the full frame thing.
For stills I know that for all my needs, M43 is not only adequate, but actually preferable to full frame. Massive expensive lenses on equally large and even more relatively expensive cameras is just not a good or logical road for me to take. A full frame 3:2 ratio camera for landscapes would be interesting, but I know that it is not needed.
For video, there are a few considerations.
For M43 I am pretty much sorted. The G9 is a match for a GH5.2 except for a few areas like VLOG-L (not the full thing and upgradeable), All-i (very big files), continues recording (the deal breaker) and a slightly contrasted look, but otherwise plenty and for my needs, really enough. What it lacks, the OSMO or EM1x provide to an extent, so I have to remember to hero these very capable cameras, because they all are. Indeed any of them can make professional content and regularly do. I have bought well so far.
So why an S5?
The S5 adds only what my M43 kit cannot and does it with minimum redundancy.
Very clean high ISO capture, 2 stop wider dynamic range, unlimited (to card/power) recording, the elusive and possibly irrelevant full frame look.
It seems that the S5 can produce very nice quality even in 1080, 420, 8-bit, LOG or Natural footage. Footage that has a certain something that (maybe) even M43, 10 bit, 422, 4k can only just match? Hard to be sure.
Richard Wong and Ryan Harris and many others can blow my mind with their M43 4k from even the older GH5, G85 or even G7’s, but the footage from the S5 just seems to be pro-grade with minimum effort. The S5 does not ever break 200 mbs, even in 10-bit and only has 8-bit continuous recording, but nobody I have come across has ever complained about the video (or stills) quality, even with the kit lens. My analogy of the quietly humming V8 compared to the screaming, turbo charged 4 cylinder holds true.
It seems to force limits that make practical sense to me. I would not shoot extended footage in 4k, 422, 10-bit, because, well, no-one would reward me for the massive files I would dump on them. It even crops to “super 35” with its 4k/50, but the ease with which it produces such beautiful footage is very, very appealing and the crop can even be useful. It has 10-bit 422 4k, as does the G9, so when I feel the best only will do, but again massive files, rare need.
So, if excellent 1080 is my ideal, then when I achieve that, 4k can even be up-scaled successfully from that.
The question of 1080 brings up the inevitable “future proofing” question, but I look at it this way;
If anyone is interested in my footage in 20 years time, the look, the fashions, the format and realistically the subject will all be 20+ years older, which like now, will look right for the time, but also, technology will likely allow for smart upsizing, 3D rendering or any other current fashion anyway so why make life unrealistically difficult now. We live in a “new only please” world. Archiving is for museums.
It is a bit like vacuum sealing all of your food, just in case, when you can buy fresh later anyway when your mood changes. I have seen digitally coloured black and white footage from the 1940’s that looked ok, so anything will be possible, if anyone cares. Technology will (or has) make most arguments against 1080 (or pixels, bit depth, formats etc) irrelevant quite soon. Recently Nasa enhanced an old medium format negative to show a whole face, hidden in shadow until now. What Nasa did this week, we will all be able to do in a few years.
The key is the quality of the captured footage, not necessarily the quantity. As I have written before, there are countless examples of very high quality video and movie footage taken in lower resolution formats, then upscaled (or not) without anyone ever noticing a difference. “The Rookie” for example is recorded in a 720 format, a very high quality 720, but 720 and Game of Thrones was filmed 1080 and up-scaled to 4k.
In my world, none of my few video clients have ever asked for 4k or if they have, it has often been based on misguided assumptions of required professionalism, something that they do not question on receipt of the footage. It is a bit like clients asking for high megapixel RAW files for magazine or online work, not realising, they have little clue what to do with them. My temptation is to shoot 1080 only, but the reality is, if 1080 is your intended output, 4k is still a useful recording format, because it allows you to crop to 1080 within the frame.
The G9 as a great example, has some very impressive options in 1080. It does 180 frame high speed (slo-mo), 10-bit, 422, 60p and even has focus shift (using 4k) and time lapse options. It also focusses faster and requires relatively little card speed or space. Going into 4k, it, like most cameras offers a much smaller range of options, topping out at a respectable 420, 10-bit, 60, but that is it. In 1080, you decide what you want, in 4k you chose from what you can.
The other advantage of course is, almost all slo-mo, time-lapse, long recording and other special effects from pro-am cameras, are limited to 1080/FHD. Even the GH6 is a powerhouse of slo-mo and other effects, but most are available only in 1080.
This file is a near impossible combination of M43 math (hand held 2000mm eq), software (for heavy De-hazing) and wet feet. In years to come, processing will make it even better.
The reality is, if you stick to a 1080 work flow with most modern video cameras, all of their best options are often unlimited and unrestricted. The rest of the world is not ready for your 6k RAW footage!
My hope with the S5, and my research seems to bare this out, is that the camera will produce superior 1080, which offers all of it’s sensor size benefits unconditionally, and from there I can do what I want.