# Panasonic Lumix GH4 ...



## Sella174 (Feb 7, 2014)

Well, well, well. How is Canon going to keep their video crowd happy now?

Personally, I foresee problems for our favourite camera company: they've already "alienated" the stills-only crowd with the insistence on more and more (crippled) video features, and now Panasonic has released a full-featured video-optimized DSLM camera that's surely going to draw videographers by the thousands.

And not to mention the mirrorless issue.


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 7, 2014)

not to forget, that the lens argument pro Canon is getting weaker with all those releases of HQ MFT glass from Pana, Oly, and others...


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 7, 2014)

Plus support for old MF lenses, including "native" focus peaking!


----------



## Drizzt321 (Feb 7, 2014)

Here's some editorial (plus full press release) from Cinema5d

Personally, especially with the accessory, it puts even more high quality film making and experimentation into the hands of more people, and that's a good thing. I'm kind of wondering if maybe this camera will take over from the 5d2/5d3 for when they need a camera for small spaces, or one that may be damaged/destroyed. Especially with pro features like timecode, HD-SDI out, and XLR.


----------



## preppyak (Feb 7, 2014)

If it weren't for Magic Lantern, Canon would probably be dead in the water in the consumer/amateur video space right now. Raw recording on the 5DII/5DIII with a full-frame sensor is the only thing that the other manufacturers can't offer.

But with the BMPCC, the GH4, whatever Sony responds with; I just dont' see how the "advanced video features" the 7DII is supposed to have can match up. Hell, i dont even see how Canon can release enough features to match the GH3, let alone the GH4. For a company that thinks video is the future, they are way behind the competition.

Also, the GH4 photo specs are great. I'm not a huge fan of their lens lineup, but, 1/250th flash sync, 200,000 shutter, 49pt AF, weather resistant, 8-12fps bursts...it's basically the specs a 7DII would have, and it's go pro video capability.

As someone who owns a 60D and a GH2, I can say that my future in the Canon lineup becomes less likely as each new camera is released. 2014 is gonna be a big year for Canon


----------



## tron (Feb 7, 2014)

I feel the temperature rising although it is still Winter ;D


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 8, 2014)

preppyak said:


> If it weren't for Magic Lantern, Canon would probably ...



I think this places Canon firmly between a rock and a hard place. ML has shown what the Canon cameras can do, but if Canon now releases updated firmware in response to the GH4 that officially enables these features, then people are going to be pretty miffed.

On the other hand, if Canon doesn't release the 7DII now with equal specs to the GH4, plus the neat-o attachments, then people are going to be equally miffed.



preppyak said:


> 2014 is gonna be a big year for Canon.



You got that right ... because it could also be the a fail year.


----------



## tron (Feb 8, 2014)

2014 could be an indifferent year. 

Now 2015 ... (this is a rumors site after all ) ;D


----------



## 100 (Feb 8, 2014)

With every high specked camera of their competitors people on fora like this start a “how’s Canon gonna keep up with that discussion”. 
At the end of every year for the last decade or so Canon turns out to be the market leader.
A more realistic question might be: “Is this camera good enough to really change anything?”
Based on historic facts up till 2013: Probably not.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 8, 2014)

100 said:


> At the end of every year for the last decade or so Canon turns out to be the market leader.



True, because Canon never really had any serious competition, because the technology that the competition is betting their companies on, has only matured sufficiently now.



100 said:


> A more realistic question might be: “Is this camera good enough to really change anything?”



Absolutely. A Canon camera out-of-the-box is not sufficient for current video standards. It requires MagicLantern, which is a third-party, unofficial hack.



100 said:


> Based on historic facts up till 2013: Probably not.



Well, the dinosaurs said the same thing ... up till 65 million years ago.

However, and more relevant, companies like Corona felt the same way, but then went from top of their industry and highly profitable to completely bankrupt in roughly two years ... because of the new technology of their competitors.


----------



## 100 (Feb 8, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > A more realistic question might be: “Is this camera good enough to really change anything?”
> ...



Not sufficient for (wannabe) pro film makers on an tight budget maybe, but that’s a niche market. The profit on DSLR’s for Canon is in the consumer market. The vast majority of people buying Canon DSLR’s don’t even know Magic Lantern exist. They use their camera’s to capture personal memories and share them with friends and relatives. They don’t care about raw video, they don’t care about 4k, the are not into color grading, etc. 
They care about things like image stabilization and quick and accurate AF for video. Put your finger on the touchscreen where you want to focus and the camera needs to deliver right away. That’s what most people want from their out of the box Canon camera’s. That’s why Canon comes up with things like the dual pixel technology of the 70D. 



Sella174 said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > Based on historic facts up till 2013: Probably not.
> ...



The dinosaurs didn’t die out because another species came up with a game changer. They didn’t make a fatal mistake, they just got unlucky. 
That doesn’t mean Canon can’t go broke, they can if they make enough, or big enough mistakes. Up till now they have proven to be a pretty good judge on what the market wants/needs and I see no indications they suddenly lost that ability. It’s not about technology (the 1DC was the first DSLR with 4k video). It’s about profit margins. Canon can put it in low(er) end bodies if the need to, but they make less money if they do so. The market has to force them and that only happens if they lose market share.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 8, 2014)

100 said:


> The vast majority of people buying Canon DSLR’s ... use their camera’s to capture personal memories and share them with friends and relatives. They don’t care about raw video, they don’t care about 4k, the are not into color grading, etc. They care about things like image stabilization and quick and accurate AF for video. Put your finger on the touchscreen where you want to focus and the camera needs to deliver right away. That’s what most people want from their out of the box ... camera’s.



Gee, in that case, even Olympus beats Canon hands down ... especially since Canon camera do not have built-in social networking abilities, i.e. post on the fly to facebook. And let's not even mention Samsung!


----------



## 100 (Feb 8, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > The vast majority of people buying Canon DSLR’s ... use their camera’s to capture personal memories and share them with friends and relatives. They don’t care about raw video, they don’t care about 4k, the are not into color grading, etc. They care about things like image stabilization and quick and accurate AF for video. Put your finger on the touchscreen where you want to focus and the camera needs to deliver right away. That’s what most people want from their out of the box ... camera’s.
> ...



If other out of the box cameras are superior to the ones Canon produces, why don’t these manufacturers have the biggest market share? 
You can speculate all you want, just look at market shares. Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, Fuji… Even together they are nowhere near Canon on the market share front.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 9, 2014)

100 said:


> If other out of the box cameras are superior to the ones Canon produces, why don’t these manufacturers have the biggest market share?



Because marketing counts 90% and product only 5% ... Microsoft proved this when the launched Windows 95: people who did not even own a computer bought the product, because the ad campaign said "it will change your life!" But back to the point, go on the micro-4/3 forums and you'll read pages upon pages of people griping about the poor marketing by Olympus and Panasonic.


----------



## 100 (Feb 9, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > If other out of the box cameras are superior to the ones Canon produces, why don’t these manufacturers have the biggest market share?
> ...



If marketing counts for 90% and product for 5% just apply that to your opening statement:

_Personally, I foresee problems for our favourite camera company: they've already "alienated" the stills-only crowd with the insistence on more and more (crippled) video features, and now Panasonic has released a full-featured video-optimized DSLM camera that's surely going to draw videographers by the thousands._

Aren’t “features” about product?
Not a word about marketing, so why exactly do you foresee problems for Canon?


----------



## tron (Feb 10, 2014)

Now that I think about it, there is a feature missing from the panasonic. A... full frame sensor... ;D


----------



## leGreve (Feb 10, 2014)

tron said:


> Now that I think about it, there is a feature missing from the panasonic. A... full frame sensor... ;D



Which you need for what? On paper (and in the example video) the GH4 delivers far more than the 5D mk III gives now.
I'd gladly make the switcht to Panasonic when Metabones get the Speed Booster done. This price point is ridiculously low for its capability.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 10, 2014)

leGreve said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Now that I think about it, there is a feature missing from the panasonic. A... full frame sensor... ;D
> ...



Shallow DOF


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 10, 2014)

100 said:


> Not a word about marketing, so why exactly do you foresee problems for Canon?



Marketing sells products to the masses; whereas actual ability of the product sells it to professionals. So, although Canon might still sell twenty EOS 5DIII cameras for every Panasonic GH4 sold, the long-term sustainability lies is who are the buyers. The masses are fickle; and professionals are loyally demanding.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 10, 2014)

J.R. said:


> Shallow DOF



I've seen too many crappy photos due to too shallow DoF to rate that as a plus for "full frame".


----------



## J.R. (Feb 10, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Shallow DOF
> ...



Crappy photos are the result of crappy photographers and sensor size has nothing to do with crappy photos ... Too bad you have too many of such to deal with ... Your loss! 

BTW, some people never miss something they never have.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Feb 10, 2014)

J.R. said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



LOL. nice.


----------



## sjschall (Feb 10, 2014)

Samsung continues to "out-spec" Apple, yet iPhones are still very strong in the market and don't show signs of slowing down. Sometimes it's more than specs alone. I use Canon DSLRs without magic lantern for video and continue to get footage that holds up in "today's standards". Build quality, lens choices, ergonomics, reliability, robustness of firmware, support, these things all matter too.


----------



## 100 (Feb 10, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > Not a word about marketing, so why exactly do you foresee problems for Canon?
> ...



Does that answer my question? 
Again, why exactly do you foresee problems for Canon if you say they keep outselling Panasonic 20 to 1? 
First it was about features, then about marketing, now it is about “long-term sustainability”? 
If the masses really are that fickle, please tell me why Canons market share hasn’t changed more than a view percent over the last decade? Quit sustainable I would say. If you want to talk about sustainability you have to look beyond single bodies. Look at the system, the variety of lenses, the Cinema EOS line, all those third party manufacturers creating specific products for Canon gear, etc.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 11, 2014)

100 said:


> ...



It's obvious we do not agree. It's obvious you have some vested interested in maintaining the _status quo_. It should also be obvious that I am tired of Canon, just as I am of the opinion that most of their products are tired or fundamentally wrong. So, we'll never see eye to eye on anything. Leave it there.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 11, 2014)

J.R. said:


> ...



Apparently you misunderstood my post. Oh, well ...


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Feb 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Just out of curiosity, what is it about the canon ecosystem that is stopping you from producing the images you want/need? Or the other way to look at the question could be in what ways is canon gear getting in your way when picture making? Honestly not trying to be antagonistic and would really like a genuine response. 

My other curiosity is in your list of gear. If those specific items are not enough, it doesn't appear as though you have given a shot to any of the updated/higher spec'd stuff to be able to make the types of assessments or blanket generalizations about the company that have been made.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I understood your post quite well enough. Quite frankly, I am unable to understand your constant moaning that Canon is not offering the camera specced the way you want it at the price you want. 



Sella174 said:


> For the type of photography that I do, an xxxD is more than adequate.



Canon products are used by thousands of professionals who create awesome images. In the above quote, you fairly concede that the Canon products that you own also work well enough for you but still you end up on this forum constantly whining and complaining and predicting doom for Canon. You also conveniently ignore all facts and figures that are thrown in your face by various posters. 

The market never lies, if you think it does it is entirely your own problem. 

Another one of the ABC brigade that joins my ignore list ...


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 11, 2014)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Just out of curiosity, what is it about the canon ecosystem that is stopping you from producing the images you want/need? Or the other way to look at the question could be in what ways is canon gear getting in your way when picture making? *Honestly not trying to be antagonistic and would really like a genuine response.*
> 
> My other curiosity is in your list of gear. If those specific items are not enough, it doesn't appear as though you have given a shot to any of the updated/higher spec'd stuff to be able to make the types of assessments or blanket generalizations about the company that have been made.



Fair enough, so here goes nothing ...

I do not feel that my current Canon equipment "gets in the way" of my photography; in fact, most of it works quite well and the deficiencies are compensated for by other methods. However, technology is moving forward and, as you've probably noticed, all of my gear is pretty old. This has led to the situation where some of it needs to be replaced due to simple wear and tear taking its toll. But this is the rub ... do I replace it with the same old (in terms of time and/or technology) item or do I purchase the latest equivalent offering from Canon?

If, for example, I go with the former option - which, incidentally, is sometimes the _only_ option, as with the 50mm macro - and I cannot help but feel that Canon has somehow relegated photographers like me to the fringe of their business model, as in we're not very important anymore. It makes me feel neglected within the Canon "ecosystem" - yes, I need a hug! It also means that any deficiencies with the item will still be there, in spite of technological advances overall. In a way, technologically, Canon is then keeping me back twenty years.

For the latter option of purchasing the latest, the obvious question is whether or not the latest in fact represents an actual improvement within my field/interest of photography. It is a well-known fact that Canon is really pushing the video functionality of their DSLR cameras. Great, if you want it. I am a stills only photographer; video holds very little fascination for me. So, honestly, what has Canon recently done to truly advance stills photography? Sure, the newer cameras have more megapixels and stops more dynamic range than my sorry relics, but personally I am not pushing the envelope and half a stop of more DR would be totally lost on me. Hey, I am that guy for whom sharpness isn't everything. (To others: Yeah, pounce on this one.)

One of the accusations flung my way by fellow CR members, is that I want everything for nothing. But that is not true. I have no problem with what Canon is asking for their new non-L, IS enabled primes. What I would like is a non-IS version as well, so that I do not end up paying for functionality that I do not need or want. My reason for this is first of all choice, but second and in my opinion very important is the fact that these days companies tend to use the inclusion of features as a means to increase the profit margin - coupled with an all-or-nothing product. In my opinion, this is wrong ... but, hey, sheep are there to be sheared.

Only, alas, no new 50mm macro with IS ... which I probably _would have bought_ without question, gripe or reservation. Seems this focal length is not important to Canon anymore. Hey, know what? I bought both the 50mm f/1.4 and the 40mm f/2.8 in the past. Only, since none of my cameras feature AFMA, both lenses were pretty much useless.

So why do I gripe? I gripe because I have invested somewhat in the Canon "ecosystem" back then and now it has evolved in a direction I do not wish to travel. I gripe because Canon is ignoring the advances digital has brought to stills photography. I gripe because Canon is the only choice in photographic equipment for us here in Africa and thus I gripe because I'm kind of stuck with the brand ... for the moment.

As an aside, but still with Canon ... and my "blanket generalizations". In my business I require medium volume printers. Canon does make some that fit the bill, but they're also all multi-function devices ... which I do not need. The next jump up are those really huge high volume machines which are truly overkill. I see a definite parallel between the camera side and the printer side of Canon's business. OK, so it's just me ... and I still need a hug!


----------



## 100 (Feb 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



You ran out of arguments so now I have “some vested interested in maintaining the status quo”? 

I’m just stating facts. Canon is market leader, has been market leader for a long time and their market share has been about the same for the last decade or so. 
You’re not happy with what Canon has to offer at this moment in time. That’s fine. We all have different wants, needs and budgets. If Canon doesn’t offer what you want/need, jump ship to a manufacturer that that does. Just don’t project your personal opinion on other Canon customers because the facts up till now show no significant shifts in market shares between brands. 

The only logical conclusion is Canon does enough to keep their customers, both professional and non-professional. They could do better from the customers point of view. Most of us would like more and better features for less money. Canon has the technology, but it would cut into their profit margins, so as long as their customers don’t run away in large amounts they have no need to do so. 

I would be happy if other brands gain market share at the expense of Canon because it would force Canon to give us more for less. If only all those unhappy customers would start buying other brands instead of complaining about Canon on internet fora.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 10, 2014)

Just got an email from B&H with the price for Panasonic GH4 - US$ 1699 - that's US$ 1869 with shipping and customs (for me) for body only ... and if you also want the interface unit with 2-Channel XLR Inputs, than the price is US$3299 (i.e. US$ 3603 with shipping & customs)   
Last week when I had severe GAS (before I knew about its price tag), I was thinking about pre-ordering the GH4 ... but now, no way ... freaking quarter size sensor (of my Sony a7 or the 6D), costs the same as a full frame camera    ... the Sony a6000 which will be released around the same time (with some awesome features and a much bigger sensor), is costing only US$648.
But this is a worrying sign, coz if a micro four thirds camera like the GH4 is going to cost this much, what will Canon/Nikon charge for 7D MK II/D400 :-\


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 10, 2014)

tron said:


> Now that I think about it, there is a feature missing from the panasonic. A... full frame sensor... ;D



Yup, that's one big factor keeping me away from Fuji (or any compact system really), a good telephoto lens is the other. (Since telephoto applications work well with crop sensors all I need is a high quality 400mm lens to go with the XT-1 and I'm sold on that setup.)
Bottom line, I know they're going to have to upgrade to full frame to stay competitive eventually, and when they do it's not going to be compatible with their current lenses, so the whole system is just a bad long term investment.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Mar 10, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Just got an email from B&H with the price for Panasonic GH4 - US$ 1699 - that's US$ 1869 with shipping and customs (for me) for body only ... and if you also want the interface unit with 2-Channel XLR Inputs, than the price is US$3299 (i.e. US$ 3603 with shipping & customs)
> Last week when I had severe GAS (before I knew about its price tag), I was thinking about pre-ordering the GH4 ... but now, no way ... freaking quarter size sensor (of my Sony a7 or the 6D), costs the same as a full frame camera    ... the Sony a6000 which will be released around the same time (with some awesome features and a much bigger sensor), is costing only US$648.
> But this is a worrying sign, coz if a micro four thirds camera like the GH4 is going to cost this much, what will Canon/Nikon charge for 7D MK II/D400 :-\



Had the same feeling when I opened up that email this morning. I would've actually considered it just out of value and curiosity had it been lower.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 10, 2014)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Just got an email from B&H with the price for Panasonic GH4 - US$ 1699 - that's US$ 1869 with shipping and customs (for me) for body only ... and if you also want the interface unit with 2-Channel XLR Inputs, than the price is US$3299 (i.e. US$ 3603 with shipping & customs)
> ...


+1 ... if it was about or under $1000, I would have bought it, coz I recently came across a small camera store in our local mall, there are lots of used lenses for the micro four thirds cameras, for really cheap prices ... so I was thinking about messing around with a few of those lenses, especially since the GH4 has inbuilt image stabilization and some very good features ... but despite its very good features, I don't think it is worth $1869.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Mar 10, 2014)

Good point re the m43 lens prices. I was actually considering it since speed boosters have been surfacing for EF to m43 on eBay.


----------

