Download the original camera files here to look at them properly away from YT compression hell!! www.dropbox.com/sh/u61v6jproj1t2t4/AABBoCdvjKDinovljNnNb4Cea?dl=0 or from we.tl/Lg136O7UcM
Philip Bloom You know, it's fantastic (insert some speech about how the camera doesn't make good films, film makers make good films here.) I just got off a media job at a church where they had an fs100. I could deal with pro-sumer 2010, but going back to consumer 2010 has definitely made me start saving some cash.
Watching on my phone, and if you cross your eyes of the twin image to overlap the images in the middle and then slightly tilt your head, it creates a stereogram 3D image! I’m surprised but it works!
The A7S II was looking like the champ until you showed the Cinelike D on the GH5S. The GH5S still isn't for me though. I can't wait to see if and when the A7S III comes out.
Still waiting. If the A7SIII doesn’t have 10bit it won’t cometary to the GH5s. And once you normalize V-Log it looks just as good as CineD. And you can easily push the GH5s to 5.000 ASA without any noise issues.
Matthew G. Garcia it looked good but don’t forget that’s the worst lighting to shoot under. You can always make it look like that from log easily enough! :)
I take it it you didn't read in the beginning text, the description or in the pinned comment that I have given you the original camera files to download to see properly?
Actually with a Sony a7r iii i’m soooo happy with this baby. I wanted to give it a try with gh5 but i just need a Full Frame, so now that i see this i’m happy with my choice. Thank you Master Philip.
Philip Bloom next time you come to Portugal i have to be there ;) I didn’t had the chance but my video did and i know you saw it... i went a little crazy when i knew you saw my video. Cheers 🥂
Philip Bloom: Really hope you are feeling better! Thank you so much for this test - these are all cameras under consideration at the moment for heavy low light shooting along with full daylight. Each would require an ecosystem shift from long history with Nikon so much money at stake (yes, not withstanding adapters with existing Nikkor glass). Needless to say an eye is also cast to the horizon waiting for the expected A7S III to announce too. Ugh.
thank you for the original native files and for doing this test. i was actually underwhelmed by the gh5s.. looking at the native files, it is pretty damn noisy! and that nasty pattern noise seems to reach quite high in the IRE scale. i can even see it in cinelike d. i was expecting a super clean iso400 file but it's shockingly swarmed with noise. i was so prepared to buy it, now im having second thoughts. thanks again for the native files!
Thanks for the test and the download files. It may be the dullest video ever but its a good test, much appreciated. I hope you dont mind me saying but I would like to suggest including a person face on a corner to see how skin tones are render with iso increments. Just a suggestion for future tests. Thans again for your video.
That is very beneficial. In fact, it showed me in a way that despite the fact that A7SII has higher ISO that everyone talks about, but that does not necessarily mean better picture. Instead, a relatively less ISO, with more details in the picture is a better combination and creates a much more beautiful picture/video. I am somehow impressed with the A7RIII. Thanks for the great video and effort
Am I the only one who see the GH5s quality image better than Sony in low light?....I don't know if it is due to the lens, but both Sony cameras in this test (7rIII and 7sII) seem to be out of focus mean while the detail captured by the GH5s is outstanding, the image is crisp, and damned clear (look at the water)! Even though you can push the Sony cameras to higher ISO than the GH5s, the final result, in my opinion, give a winner that is the Panasonic camera. May be I am wrong, just an opinion. I own two Sony cameras (RX 100 mk5 and alpha6000) and a Panasonic FZ1000,so I have no specific interest by saying what I am saying. Any way, thanks to Philip for this really intriguing test! -Luca
I'm surprised to see better color reproduction on the 5s than on the a7sii. Its less "sharp" looking that the other GH cameras instead there is more details. I wholeheartedly welcome that. I own an a7s and it shifts colors very randomly. With cinelike D it just killed sony with consistent color. I love how it didn't bleed the color of the sky onto the bridge and the water. ITS A BIG PLUS for me. GH series censors has come a long way. I am definitely going to replace my Sony with this 5s.
Hi Phillip. I can still remember the tests you did with a Sony FS 100 and Sony FS700. I was blown away by the FS700'S slow motion performance and other features of that camera, the price for me was too much. I feel privileged to own a GH5s packed with incredible features at such a cheaper price point. I came up from the GH2 to GH5s. I did not want IBIS. I could not get on with the GH3 & GH4. Now we have cameras with so many pro features at a great price point. Nice test
Innnteresting. The GH5s only looks good till about 6,400 (which is still quite respectable), as opposed to the 102,000 of the α7s, but I find that the GH5s actually looks much better in that low range (200 to 6,400) than the α7s. Especially in Cinelike! I was surprised at how much better the GH5s looked in Cine.
Please don't judge image quality other than ISO performance, this was SO unscientific and especially as it was non matched glass. I just wanted to show ISO performance.
Mm! Fair enough. I *think* the difference I'm seeing is from ISO performance, though, as there's a switch in quality from the two cameras without either of them changing glass. Could be wrong! But it seems like the Sony does fantastically at its native and above while having a hard time with lower ISOs, while the Panasonic isn't nearly as good at boosting past its native. Again, I could be misreading the causality, and I appreciate your encouragement of mitigating hyperbole and sweeping, declarative statements. Especially in a prevailing paradigm of "SONY BLOWWWWWS PANASONIC OUT OF THE WATER, MUST WATCH" video titles.
should someone just explain to me somebody correctly what ISO numbers of 6400, or just bestfals 12800 are needed, I certainly notice, in most cases, ISO values are far below .... looks even more natural ...
Thanks Philip!! I don't know how this stuff looked on your monitors, but after RU-vid did it's magic, I'm still pretty impressed with that A7Riii. Looks quite nice to me (and the GH5s isn't bad). Maybe I'll download your files to see what they actually look like.
I may get one but want to wait for even more improvements. Holding on to my money until I see the camera that I will happy with. Technology is moving so fast that cameras depreciate in value so fast. Bring on 8K Panasonic GH6 LOL
Awesome video Philip! Even though you say it's a dull video, I still find it extremely entertaining and educational. But, I still will stick with my A7S. :P Keep the content coming man! :)
Thanks for the comparison! Do you have any advice for Sony Alpha users shooting video in low light at 120fps? Picture profile recommendations? Appreciate your time, cheers!
I could see that the DR on the A7S2 was quite good even at high ISOs. But the most important takeaway for me is that picture profile makes a huge difference.
I am purchasing the GH5s Tomorrow. I just purchased a GH4 last week (New), 4 years after it's release. I chose the GH4 over the GH5 due to wanting a Voigtlander 10.5mm F/0.95 lens and other needed items. When I received my GH4 it had a fault so it's on it's way back for a refund. I now want the GH5s & Love it's spec & performance. Manual focus Problems with the GH4 The EVF of my GH4 has a "smearing" appearance towards the edges of the frame & the centre is not sharp, if the eye is not held exactly centred and/or the dioptre adjustment is a bit off. Even When I adjust the dioptre wheel "smearing" is still visible in the EVF viewfinder. Apparently the glass is too soft or has not been hard coated. That is what I have heard. The preview/review image on my GH4's EVF is not really sharp on my GH4, making accurate focus determination before or after capture very difficult. I can still remember when you did a GH2 test. I still have 2 GH2's and love manual focusing on hat camera. I can also remember your test with the Sony FS700 4K. I loved the slow mo on that camera
At the very least the GH5 is King of Low Light in m43 cameras! I'd like to have it for my nature work, but think my GH5 will have to do (and overall it's doing quite fine) for now...budget considerations, eating other than Ramen...that sort of stuff figures into this decision. And wanting to get the DJI P4 Pro with CrystalSky monitor has much to do with it, as well! Thanks for your fine work as always, Philip.
A big factor is you can pop the XL speedbooster on the gh5 and then you have a stop and a half advantage on the gh5s So then you would be comparing 128000 on the Sony and around 4900 on the gh5 and getting the same exposure (if both with FF lenses at same f stop) So that is a big advantage for the m43 system.
the a7r3 doesn't have a s good as low light/high ISO performance as the a7s2. but yes that is an option if that is your camera. (that will give you about 1 stop of added performance on the sony, not quite as much as the gh5 1.5 stops with the XL booster, but it still would help.)
yes half stop but anyway i choosed A7RIII (not a7SII) because i don't need high iso when shooting but need best AF. The only thing i still need with A7RIII is Slog3 4K 10 bit with better Mbits/s and 50P to match FS7 quality. I hope Sony could answer this by firmware... we could dream.... one more thing when pluging smallHD 501 (external monitor) on A7RIII face dectection can't run in 4K! it is a big mistake sony.
Hey Philip, Thanks so much for making this comparison. It was really helpful to see how all the cameras compared. Do you by any chance think one day, Sony and Canon will remove the record limit on these hybrid cameras? I'm currently using the Canon T3i and Canon 7D with VAF filters, Magic Lantern, and the Continuous Record feature. I really find this feature essential when shooting events. I really like that Panasonic has removed the record limit for the GH5/GH5s. I'm still confused how they were able to do this with the price point, even though I watched the interview with the CEO. But it would be great if each company could do this. I'm curious to read your thoughts on this. Again, thanks for this video, it was really helpful. Cheers! - Paul
PaulHarwood856 hard to say. I doubt it as long as that EU tax rule exists. Panny sell the gh5 and 5s as primarily video cameras so they get taxed higher as they have no limit
i dont get these tests. You should compensate with aperture for the exposure. Raising iso also raises noise in the shadows, but when you overexpose you will not be able to see it. Can someone do a proper test where exposure will be constant, and do a crop in in some area so that we can actually see the noise pattern , because youtube just destroys it.
its very very simple, pay attention the opening bit where is staying original files are available for download I also state this in the description and comments. You will also notice that it wasn't until the TOP end the I actually reached exposure for most of them
i did download them , that is beside the point that the high iso examples are basically far more exposed than lower iso examples. For a good comparison, histogram/waveform should be constant, that way we could see where exactly the noise starts and in what pattern. If we just everexpose the footage and bring it back in post it will be clean , but rarely will we have the chance to do it. In almost all tests i have seen , when people raise iso they don't close down the aperture , and it just makes no sense to me. We all know that exposing to the right gets rid of most of the noise. So my opinion, the only true way for comparing noise in different ISO and cameras is exposing every shot the same way.
Oh wow, the GH5s is awesome, to most it might look too washed out but the vlog looks great for post productio in an editor and grading color with, absolutely fantastic camera. Make me think of what you get from a Red, not as good but dang its close enough for the price. I am impressed with the ISO bumping on the Sony A7SII but it doesn't impress me as much as the quality out of the GH5s. You can shoot in the day to create a night scene if you know what your doing. For most other stuff the both cameras will shoot what you need. It blows my mind that Panasonic of all companies is making something so awesome as this when it comes to a video camera. . . . . SOLD
great comparison, thanks! Was the A7s2 focused slightly further away? the brickwork on the lock was so mushy, compared to the gh5s... Hope I don't have to consider changing right now...! :)
You *are* using a sigma lens. So did you match the F number of the lenses while considering the extra stop on the GH5 from the metabones booster? Not doing so (matching the F numbers blindly) would give the GH5 an incorrect advantage for the purpose of comparison. Still thanks for disclosing the setup. The results are not surprising, although I expected the noise gap to be a lot bigger between the two.
Gh5s seems to hold better detail in the water and low lights whilst 5he A7sii has a more natural colour space. Richmond is the perfect spot to test all your cameras specs. Cheers mate.
On GH-series footage I always have the feeling that even if you dial back noise reduction in camera settings there's still some noise reduction that kicks in at higher ISO values that has the obvious downside of making the image softer
The GH5s and A7R III are much, much clearer, detailed video. I think the GH5s wins. I'm wondering if the A7S II wasn't focused correctly or had bad glass it did so poorly.
David Pennington I have stated in the opening text and in description this is a low light comparison only. You mustn’t compare image quality as things like sensor size etc with DOF will confuse things. Many people have done image comparison tests...this is not one of them.
Between A7iii and A7Riii general advice seems to be to get A7iii for better low light and marginally better autofocus and perhaps video quality. I think I'm going for the A7Riii though, because A7iii video specs are getting outdated pretty fast already and A7Riii is more future proof for me for the 42 megapixels... Cause I will get a second camera for better video down the line (A7Siii for example), and until that A7Riii will do perfectly well. So this is just my preference right now, but even I would suggest A7iii as a first choice for anyone. A7Sii I don't know... A7iii is almost as good in low light and shoots better stills.
Would really love to see a low light comparison of these cameras as used for photography. I need to take a ton of lowlight shots of crowds in concert settings. Canon 5d Mark 3 just doesn't quite get to the level I need. Sony's A7sii is a lowlight beast, but the crazy low MP is an issue. How does the A7rii or the A6500 compare to the quality of the 5DM3?
Yes the GH5s does much better (as expected) than both Sonys, which lose so much sharpness and color too at high ISO. Too bad the GH5s does not do well with still photography. The GH5s is such an improvement over the GH5 for low light and skin color (especially in 10bit). It looks like it was shot in 8bit 420 here, or am I wrong?
Looks like my A7RIII isn’t just a 42MP stills monster. The GH5s Cinelike is amazing, but the A7RIII does really well, much more than I would ever need it for in terms of video
Sony is notorious for producing awful highlight roll-off (the weird banding you see in areas that are being blown out). Once you see it, you can't un-see it...
More than happy with the a7R III, and the fact that it has IBIS, way better AF, and its a 42 MP stills camera it is a solid all around camera. You will find it in a comparison video for almost any category, because it really does it all. I think the three best hybrid cameras out there are the 80D budget, GH5 mid range, and the a7R III is the current top choice. Sure there are a lot of specialty cases for other cameras, but these three can shoot great video and pictures. Keep in mind these are all photo cameras, as in they doraw pictures, and compressed video. If you are looking for a video camera, and super 35 camera will be a much better choice with raw video.
So, I thought the A7R III was for photography mainly and the upcoming A7S III for video? Like all previous models? When I see video footage of the A7S II and A7R II I like the A7SII much better (although hte A7R II video is already better than, let's say, Canon 5D IV imo).
The a7s is a variant of the a7r. It just puts a lower megapixel sensor in, which in return does two things; 1 it increases the pixel size, which improves low light, and 2 it reduces the amount of data it needs to downsampled to get to 4k video. This can improve the quality of video, but computational photography has improved so much, that you get less and less improvements. The processing Sony is doing in the a7r III is amazing, and I bet you will only gain a stop of performance in a7s III, but lose all the still photography uses.
most people will talk about how crop sensors have less DOF but the upside is they get more in focus @ the same F stop.. The water just looks so much better on the GH5s imo
Tim Renner because it’s more in focus? That’s ridiculous am afraid! This is an iso test and you are comparing the WATER!! If I was doing a water comparison (who does that?) then I would stop down on the A7Sii to make everything in focus. Slightly bizarre comment really!!
Philip Bloom an unscientific test comparing iso ranges but commenting on dof between crop and full frame at the same fstop is blasphemy. I'm merely commenting that what you lose in bokeh goodness you get make up for in focus range
When color corrected the GH5s looks much better in color quality and sharper than the A7SII. Not boasting but I can say I have a very good eye for color and sharpness. High end production companies are choosing the GH5s for this reason. The low light performance is amazing on the GH5s
Sort of unrelated question; Which slide plate setup (brand, type etc) do you recommend for easily moving a rig from tripod to slider etc? Keep up the good work.
Philip, Thank you for providing the download files! I hope I get to meet you one day. I know how much effort it is to create all these videos for us and I really do appreciate the time you put in so we can learn and grow in film making. Thanks again!
6400 seems useable on GH5S, which is crazy. The Sony seems to be maybe two stops better, so it is clearly better choice if you want to shoot unlit on native glas. Makes me think of my old 5dmkii that was barely useable over 1600 even if it was full frame. Sensor tech has improved much.
I think, for me the point is.....what lighting conditions are you shooting in that require you to shoot in ISOs higher than 6400? I shoot with both the GH5, A7S II and A7RII ...I have to say that having shot ALOT on the first two and a little on the later, the Gh5 knocks the Sony camera out of the water completely. It's nice to have the low light capability of the Sony camera up your sleeve but I find that in practice I almost never need it. I'm also finding I now get sharper stills from the 6K photo mode on GH5 that I do from my full frame Sony cameras. Might just sell them both and get another Gh5 and a G9!
What on earth are you talking about? I own both cameras-why would I be ‘butt hurt’? What does that even mean? This is a thread for video professionals-perhaps you could entertain yourself with a Thomas the Tank Engine one instead?
Philip what`s going on with GH5 codec? Notice how jittery the moving objects are on the left (watch the jet). Was it compression issues on RU-vid or anything else?
Thanks for the test. I may be being dumb and have missed something but if you're using a metabones on the Sigma doesn't that give the GH5s an extra stop immediately? Did you compensate for that? Sorry if I'm being dense.
no I use the sigma only on one test with the a7r3. basically I got the focus mucked up when I did it against the a7s2. anyway at this point you have seen the gh5s perform that one was more to see how good the a7r3 was
Might be more of a lens thing, but the Sony seems to hold details better, like the bridge walkway railings) the gh5 cinelike seems to be a great codec, would have to see how well it holds up to grading (seeing as the Sony log is well documented now)
i think you missed focus on the cinelike D and the cine 2. cinema. it starts out blurry and stays blurry. the vlog vs. s log 2 s, is more of a fair test.
Thanks for clarification! I still think the low light performance is exceptional for micro four thirds...makes me wonder what cameras performance will be in like 5 or 10 years :)
just look how the colors get shifted. the improvement of sony A7siii color is amazing. it would make sense, to compare A7Siii SGamut SLog2 and the GH5S CINE D
I actually preferred the image in the cinelike D test (probably just a personal preference, and love of over-saturated photos/videos) That being said, in every other test, the sonys were much better in the high iso range detail wise. If I were to buy one or the other, it would be the panasonic simply because all my glass is m4/3s and it would be to expensive to switch - However If that wasn't a concern and I didn't already have m4/3 bodies/lenses, I would probably go for one of the sonys.
Steve as a documentary filmmaker I do. I was filming street cats in Greece two weeks ago with the A7R3 at 25,600 and it came out great. No other way to capture them.
So I would imagine that if you had the GH5s on that same shoot you would have been able to get even better footage at a lower ISO (6400 or 12800 perhaps)?
Also, keep in mind that you don't always want to shoot everything at 1.4, so having high ISO's allows you to control your dof more, rather than having it dictated by the lighting conditions.
ISO comparisons are all well and good, but perhaps we should remember that when recording the same shot - with the same depth of field - the m43 camera will be operating at two stops numerically smaller f-stop and ISO than the full frame camera.
That's a Tony Northrup-smelling myth. The f-stop and ISO don't change based on sensor size. The noise performance of a smaller sensor is generally worse, but that assumes all factors are equal other than sensor size. Clearly, the GH5s has a host of modern technical advances in its sensor design and beats the full-frame Sony hands down when not in crippling V-Log mode. The Cine-D test on the GH5s here beats all the Sony camera shots, hands down. Big sensor size reduces photon noise and that's about it, but also adds noise from the extra heat produced, plus that higher MP count means more severe rolling shutter and more processing power required to scale the raw data down to 4K, so on full-frame Sony cams, battery life is garbage and overheating is a real risk.
@@Stephen.Bingham Incorrect. f-stop has nothing to do with the sensor size. ISO is a light sensitivity rating which also has nothing to do with sensor size. What you're saying is not "an unavoidable physical fact" because both, by definition, have nothing to do with sensor size. You're staying mental shortcuts for calculating photon noise as if they're facts rather than noise equivalence shortcuts.
@@JodyBruchonThe point is that the area of a camera’s entrance aperture, f-stop and sensor size are not independent variables. You can change two but not three.
@@Stephen.Bingham You said "when recording the same shot - with the same depth of field - the m43 camera will be operating at two stops numerically smaller f-stop and ISO than the full frame camera." That is the only thing I am addressing here, and neither of your assertions is correct. f/2.8 is f/2.8 regardless of sensor size. ISO 200 is ISO 200 regardless of sensor size. A correct version of what you seem to be trying to get at is " this camera has a 2.0x crop sensor relative to full-frame, so it will have 2^2=4x more noise when reproducing a shot with identical depth of field, exposure, and field of view, because the surface area of the resampled pixels is 1/4 that of the full-frame sensor, raising the photon noise by the same factor." This is technically correct if all factors other than sensor size are identical, ignoring the changes required to match the same field of view. However, this is not correct in most practical terms for two equally important reasons: (a) it is only sometimes true that the two sensors being compared are technologically equal, and (b) all of this rests on the assumption that an identical field of view, depth of field, and level of exposure would be wanted in the first place. With MFT (2.0x crop) sensors, it is common to simply halve the focal length to get the equivalent field of view, maintaining the same f-stop (so the same amount of light is seen for that field of view) but doubling the depth of field. Shallow depth of field is usually a bad thing, and it's a major problem with larger sensors that the user must constantly fight to keep things in focus, even in portrait photography. Thus, the reverse of your assertion is also true: for a full-frame sensor to achieve the same deeper focus depth as a MFT sensor for the same field of view and exposure, the full-frame camera must drop to 1/4 the total light intake (f/2.8 -> f/5.6) to match the MFT camera's DoF at half the focal length. Of course, the larger sensor will normally result in a 4x less noisy picture...until the ISO has to be cranked from 200 to 800 to compensate for the tighter aperture, and for some strange reason, full-frame cameras tend to fall apart faster at higher ISOs than micro four-thirds cameras, despite the larger sensor size. When the way the shot is taken is modified to suit the sensibilities of the smaller MFT sensor, the shot tends to be anywhere from equally good to noticeably superior on the MFT sensor. Greater focus depth means far less focus misses, but the 2x crop doesn't eliminate portrait-like subject separation as an option when it's actually important. The GH5s in particular has a sensor which is slightly larger than the MFT standard, so it can capture slightly more field of view than a G7, GH4, GH5, etc., plus it doesn't have to use a center crop for 4K like the G7. Full-frame sensors also suffer from heat issues that MFT sensors simply don't. Especially at high ISO, this added heat causes worsening noise performance over time, stealing some of that big-sensor advantage away, especially for long shoots.
Wow a7r MK3 really got better with video and noise since i own a7r MK2 even the noise starts creeping in at ISO 800. I really satisfied with the a7s MK2 video quality especially in low light. Using 35mm f1,4 zeiss in very dark rooftop condition my friend holding just a firework stick, i set the ISO 25600, a little noise reduction in davinci, color grading, sharpen it and i awe-amazed by the result.
I always wonder about the sony colors: there is always this violet color cast. I really tried hard grading results from my sony A7RII but its hard to get nice natural looking colors: the A7RIII seems to have the same problem.
So what exactly is the point of cranking up the iso without ajusting aperture and thereby producing a strangly overlit nightshot? Who does that? Also, I think it would be more relevant to see what the best possible image looks like that each camera can produce in low light. And that would be a 10bit 422 codec on the GH5s. Plus, its really hard to tell which camera has the more accurate color reproduction if all we see is orange streetlights. Thanks anyway for the effort.
nordfresse i do ask the same. usually you compair the noise level by adjusting the aperture. however that may be because bloom needs to upload something from time to time so he did it quick and dirty :D but of course we are asking to get better impressions
Tim Kyle am I people now? When did I multiply? This is how I did my quick test. That would be a different and additional test and this was all I had time for thanks.
Philip Bloom I'm just referring to how people do these iso tests. Almost everyone increases the ISO a stop rather than adjusting the aperture to compensate. I assumed there was a reason behind it, perhaps? This is why I just said I was curious.
Could you please, give me and advice? I like low light images of Sony and Panasonic much more than Canon, but why do Sony and Panasonic make such good images with such low mp? DC-GH5S has just 10.28mp and A7SII 12.2mp
The low megapixel count reduces readout and processing time and power needed. A 4K frame is really just an 8MP photo. Reducing 16MP to 8MP requires the camera processor to resample the image--averaging fractional pixels together to convert to a lower resolution, i.e. if your sensor is 5000 pixels wide and 4K is 4000 pixels wide, 1 target pixel is composed of 5/4 or 1.25 source pixels, and that math takes a lot of CPU work across millions of pixels. Having a sensor that's 4K wide already means that the math either doesn't have to be done, or has less source pixels to work across, so it gets done a lot faster. The readout speed is also faster because a line is 4000 pixels instead of 5000-7000, so the rolling shutter effect is greatly reduced.
