1. Panasonic’s in-camera correction for lens aberrations is unacceptable.
Listen to what Roger Cicala has to say about the subject in his review of the Sony 24-105mm f/4 zoom back in February:
The simple fact is that Sony, more than any other company, is using electronic correction to a degree that we haven’t seen before. Some seem worked up about in-camera distortion and vignetting correction for reasons I don’t really understand. The bottom line is it allows the lenses to be smaller and makes it easier to manufacture the optics, which are good things.
As a matter of fact, all mirrorless manufacturers employ in-body correction, reducing not only complexity but also bringing down costs to the consumer.
2. GH5s footage suffers from hideously aggressive sharpening.
GH5s footage is constantly assailed as having excessive sharpening, but in fact, it’s got considerably less sharpening applied than either the a7 III or the X-H1 – as much as 75% less! Compare the X-H1 and a7 III, with a maximum of 17.0%, to the GH5s, with a maximum of just 6.2%: and those results are at factory default settings! What people may be seeing is a triple threat of compression, noise and sharpening.
Fuji X-H1: Sharpening in video is moderate and similar at both low and high ISO: 10.3% and 10.1% overshoot, respectively, along high-contrast edges, and 13.2% and 12.0% undershoot. Along low-contrast edges, video stills show 12.2% (low ISO) and 12.1% (high ISO) overshoot, and 17.0% and 13.8% undershoot, respectively.
Sony a7 III: Sharpening in video is moderate and similar at both low and high ISO: 10.3% and 10.1% overshoot, respectively, along high-contrast edges, and 13.2% and 12.0% undershoot. Along low-contrast edges, video stills show 12.2% (low ISO) and 12.1% (high ISO) overshoot, and 17.0% and 13.8% undershoot, respectively.
Lumix GH5s: Sharpening in video is mild: 4.4 percent overshoot and 2.6 percent undershoot at low ISO along high-contrast edges, and 1.2 percent and 0.7 percent, respectively, at high ISO. Along low-contrast edges, sharpening was 6.2 percent (overshoot) and 3.7 percent undershoot at low ISO, and 1.0 percent overshoot combined with 1.3 percent undershoot at high ISO.
3. Panasonic’s 10-bit codec is vastly superior to Sony’s 8-bit XAVC.
A forum member at a popular filmmaking website said he thought the 4:2:2 10-bit codec of the GH5 had significantly nicer tonal transitions than Sony’s 8-bit files, to which I replied that his claims were not supported by the facts. Another member, rushing to his defense wrote:
I figured it was worth reminding you that if he prefers the image, and thinks it’s far superior, it doesn’t matter how much you claim “the facts” say otherwise because, ya know, it boils down personal preference.
As well as a tirade of nasty personal attacks which aren’t worth repeating here.
I merely said that his assertion was unsupported by the facts – meaning that he hasn’t brought a shred of evidence to the table to back up his claims – a perfectly legitimate argument.
I did not say he wasn’t entitled to his own opinion. However, when he says that one codec has vastly nicer tonal transitions than another, that implies that the difference should be readily discernible to a casual observer.
I dispute his claim:
By the same token, if someone were to say that Earth is the largest planet in our solar system, they’re entitled to their delusion – but that doesn’t change the fact that Jupiter’s mass is 300 times greater.