Panasonic LUMIX GH5 for underwater video

[TimG 62]

Great post Davide! Thank you so much!

 

 

I've moved Davide's post to:

 

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=61438

 

Tim

[tt90 0]

anyone are using ikelite's gh5 housing? the price seems affordable .

[bubffm 178]

anyone are using ikelite's gh5 housing? the price seems affordable .

 

 

Yes, they're cheap. They look and work that way. Had a few occasions on dive boats with co-divers having problems with stuck buttons on their ikelite housings... If you want to save money over the Nauticam housing, I'd go for the Aquatica GH5 housing. They are build like a tank. Highly recommended. I would have taken one but it came out a bit late for some upcoming trips at that time...

[Lionfi2s 74]

One more vote for Nauticam over Ikelite. I ve used both and the extra money are worthy.

[Etc 11]

No way I would put a Pana GH5 into an Ikelite. Not even having a shower!!

[Steddy 2]

Hi all.

Now that everybody has had a good chance to get some experience with the gh5 i would like to hear if any of you have had to admit that the micro 4/3 sensor is just a bit too small to capture great photos with ambient light below 20 meters?

[Interceptor121 707]

Hi all.

Now that everybody has had a good chance to get some experience with the gh5 i would like to hear if any of you have had to admit that the micro 4/3 sensor is just a bit too small to capture great photos with ambient light below 20 meters?

I don’t think people that buy the GH5 do it to take deep water ambient light besides depending on light you can take pretty decent video at 25 meters without lights

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steddy 2]

I was affraid that you would say that.

I haven’t seen such videos, do you have a link to one i can see?

[Interceptor121 707]

I was affraid that you would say that.

I haven’t seen such videos, do you have a link to one i can see?

Look on youtube or vimeo

Am not sure the point you are trying ti make here

I have shot at 40 meters with a small sensor compact see Bianca B here

 

 

You take video typically at 1/50 shutter speed this means on a compact with f/2 you shoot at ISO 800 even at depth

On a mft with log mode your base ISO is 400 and even if you shoot one stop smaller f/4 or even two the camera works fine at ISO 3200

 

Consider that video has only 6 stops of dynamic range in HD and this is something even a tiny sensor can achieve

 

Different story if you print or display pictures on a retina 6k screen where clearly you need full frame but for video purpoae although large sensor is of course better for amatorial or semipro the cost is not worth it. Camera 2x price housing 1.5x price compared to GH5

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited June 3, 2018 by Interceptor121

[thetrickster 328]

i would like to hear if any of you have had to admit that the micro 4/3 sensor is just a bit too small to capture great photos with ambient light below 20 meters?

Firstly if you are looking at stills photography I don’t think the GH5 is the right choice. The other cameras have better flash sync speeds, builtin flashes, higher bit depth raw modes and higher Mp etc.

 

But sensor size and iso performance (I don’t think) is something to consider these days in m43 cameras. I remember thinking ISO800 was a high iso back with my E-1. These days it’s a non issue.

 

But is the m43 sensor too small for ambient shots? No way.

 

If anything it’s better, you gain a load of depth of field for free with m43, running the same settings as FF and also don’t have to worry so much about diffraction as you don’t need to run >f16 to get everything in focus.

 

Below is a single frame (not even a photo!) taken at 27m (f5.6, 30fps, 1/60th)

 

 

Nothing wrong (to me) shooting landscape at depth. :-)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Interceptor121 707]

Firstly if you are looking at stills photography I don’t think the GH5 is the right choice. The other cameras have better flash sync speeds, builtin flashes, higher bit depth raw modes and higher Mp etc.

 

But sensor size and iso performance (I don’t think) is something to consider these days in m43 cameras. I remember thinking ISO800 was a high iso back with my E-1. These days it’s a non issue.

 

But is the m43 sensor too small for ambient shots? No way.

 

If anything it’s better, you gain a load of depth of field for free with m43, running the same settings as FF and also don’t have to worry so much about diffraction as you don’t need to run >f16 to get everything in focus.

 

Below is a single frame (not even a photo!) taken at 27m (f5.6, 30fps, 1/60th)

 

 

Nothing wrong (to me) shooting landscape at depth. :-)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t even think this is fair te GH5 is good at stills too the OMD-EM1 mark II maybe has another stop of ISO but the GH5 has 13 stops of dynamic range and plenty color depth to compete with cropped sensor.

A lot of people out there have this as primary rig. Only Pros and people with deep pockets go for full frame and yes there is a difference but for plenty it is still fine

I have a Nikon D7100 a GH5 and am thinking of selling the D7100 because there is not much apart not doing low light photography

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steddy 2]

Good video, it was good to see the potential of the LX7 in real life.

 

I understand your confusion, i have not been very clear.

I am out looking to find out what i should buy.

I need minimum 60 fps and 2.7K in video (4K is ofcourse also very good) 10 bit is prefered.

But I also would like to print bigger pictures, jus as you mentioned.

I saw a picture once taken by a Canon 1dx M2 in ambient light and i loved it, but that camera i way out of my pocket.

So gh5 seemed to be a good alternativ.

I am just a bit concerned about its performance in ambient light around 25 meter.

 

I have also thought about waiting for a possible gh8 or something like that and then maybe buy a temperary camera until then.

Aahh just updated and saw your two answers :-)

[Steddy 2]

Hi Richard

 

Did you use the 14-42mm and the wwl-1 for that picture?

 

Best regards

Stefan

[thetrickster 328]

Hi Richard

 

Did you use the 14-42mm and the wwl-1 for that picture?

 

Best regards

Stefan

Yup. :-)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steddy 2]

Thank you both of you, for your answers they are very helpfull to me.

The gh5 looks more and more positive.

[Lionfi2s 74]

If you are really concerned so much about low light conditions there is always the GH5S option

[TaxiDiver14 133]

Down 20m with no lights better stay at home...

[Steddy 2]

Yup. :-)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Forgot to ask you Richard

 

Did you use a red filter?

[thetrickster 328]

Did you use a red filter?

No, no filters. I gave up on filters a while ago.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lutfu 118]

This is about 28 meters with 8mm lens

[Pajjpen 63]

Impressive, barely any noise what so ever. Did you denoise this? Do you remember your settings here?

This is about 28 meters with 8mm lens

Skickat från min VTR-L29 via Tapatalk

[dreifish 353]

First, I don't think crop sensors are a disadvantage in terms of noise performance underwater, because if shooting THE SAME DEPTH OF FIELD on a Full Frame sensor or a m4/3 one, your noise performance will be the same. Yes, a full frame sensor will have about a 2 stop advantage in terms of ISO performance over m4/3, but that's entirely negated by the fact that you need to shoot at a narroer aperture on full frame in order to keep your corners sharp. Basically, when using a full frame camera, I almost never shoot at anything below F8 for wide-angle. Usually at F11. With the GH5, I'm usually at F4 or F5.6. Which means my ISO is 200 or so on m4/3, and 800 or so on full frame. Guess what? That gives you basically identical noise performance.

 

A full frame camera will still have better dynamic range and higher resolution, but whether that matters largely depends on what you intend to do with the photos. Unless you're making really large prints, I think the GH5 is perfectly adequate for stills. About half the photos in my portfolio are taken with a GH4 and the other half with a Nikon D800 and Sony A7RII. I'd be surprised if many people would be able to guess which is which.

[Interceptor121 707]

First, I don't think crop sensors are a disadvantage in terms of noise performance underwater, because if shooting THE SAME DEPTH OF FIELD on a Full Frame sensor or a m4/3 one, your noise performance will be the same. Yes, a full frame sensor will have about a 2 stop advantage in terms of ISO performance over m4/3, but that's entirely negated by the fact that you need to shoot at a narroer aperture on full frame in order to keep your corners sharp. Basically, when using a full frame camera, I almost never shoot at anything below F8 for wide-angle. Usually at F11. With the GH5, I'm usually at F4 or F5.6. Which means my ISO is 200 or so on m4/3, and 800 or so on full frame. Guess what? That gives you basically identical noise performance.

 

A full frame camera will still have better dynamic range and higher resolution, but whether that matters largely depends on what you intend to do with the photos. Unless you're making really large prints, I think the GH5 is perfectly adequate for stills. About half the photos in my portfolio are taken with a GH4 and the other half with a Nikon D800 and Sony A7RII. I'd be surprised if many people would be able to guess which is which.

Dreifish is spot on you have at least two stops benefit with full frame however where you shoot f/4 in a mft fisheye with ff you are qt f/8 negating the benefit for ambient light wide angle.

The resolution however is much better with full frame and this is something that doesn’t go away if you print. On a screen unless is 4K you don’t see the benefits and in video definitely you don’t see them.

As a paradox I have seen full frame having much better performance in macro because mft have quite a bit of diffraction from f/11 onwards and at f/16 most lenses are weak and become garbled at f/22. Full frame you keep sharpness until the smallest aperture and the resolution is amazing

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dreifish 353]

Dreifish is spot on you have at least two stops benefit with full frame however where you shoot f/4 in a mft fisheye with ff you are qt f/8 negating the benefit for ambient light wide angle.

The resolution however is much better with full frame and this is something that doesn’t go away if you print. On a screen unless is 4K you don’t see the benefits and in video definitely you don’t see them.

As a paradox I have seen full frame having much better performance in macro because mft have quite a bit of diffraction from f/11 onwards and at f/16 most lenses are weak and become garbled at f/22. Full frame you keep sharpness until the smallest aperture and the resolution is amazing

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But why would you shoot macro at F16 or F22 on m4/3? At F11 on m4/3, you get the same depth of field and diffraction characteristics as you would at F22 full-frame. Some full-frame sensors have more megapixels to crop into, but in actuality you get greater magnification in m4/3. 1:1 macro for m4/3 works out to filling the frame with a subject that would require 1:2 reproduction ratio on full frame to fill the frame. So in terms of detail, you should be able to extract more detail from small subjects with m4/3 than full frame simply because the pixel density is greater. Diffraction scales with depth of field, so it's ultimately equivalent for the same depth of field across different formats.

 

The main advantage I see for macro with full-frame cameras is actually faster focusing with less hunting at macro distances. And I think that's primarily an advantage with newer generation Nikon (and perhaps Canon -- I have no personal experience) bodies. The 90mm macro on Sony A7x bodies is also quite slow to focus, like the 45mm and 60mm macro lenses on m4/3.

[Interceptor121 707]

But why would you shoot macro at F16 or F22 on m4/3? At F11 on m4/3, you get the same depth of field and diffraction characteristics as you would at F22 full-frame. Some full-frame sensors have more megapixels to crop into, but in actuality you get greater magnification in m4/3. 1:1 macro for m4/3 works out to filling the frame with a subject that would require 1:2 reproduction ratio on full frame to fill the frame. So in terms of detail, you should be able to extract more detail from small subjects with m4/3 than full frame simply because the pixel density is greater. Diffraction scales with depth of field, so it's ultimately equivalent for the same depth of field across different formats.

 

The main advantage I see for macro with full-frame cameras is actually faster focusing with less hunting at macro distances. And I think that's primarily an advantage with newer generation Nikon (and perhaps Canon -- I have no personal experience) bodies. The 90mm macro on Sony A7x bodies is also quite slow to focus, like the 45mm and 60mm macro lenses on m4/3.

There are plenty of subjects that you need f/16 if you want to focus more than the eyes like pygmies, bobtail squid, shaun the sheep nudis and you can’t really work out with f/11 likewise you want more depth of field on a larger subject if you want to focus the whole fish I have plenty of examples where the same shot on the same subject looks better on a full frame but less so on ambient light wide angle

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk