GH3 7D to GH3? Keep lenses?

@Per Lichtman,

Thanks for your reply.

The G6 is looking extremely promising but I have two projects coming up that I need the new camera for and the G6 won't be released in time.

i think your right about cheap primes with adapters. I like the look some of the older primes have but as a lot of them do have a 'look' to them, do you find that if you don't have matched set you see the different looks in the footage?

Cheers
 
@vtwiz I've found that I can match footage rather well between almost all of the MD mount lenses I have bought, whether they be Minolta/Rokkor, Tokina or Elicar, as long as I don't emphasize the extremes. They vary the most when you get them wide open but if you step down a little bit they tend to get closer.

In terms of mixing them in with other lenses, I had a music video where I mixed them in with a much more expensive older Cooke PL (I think the same one that was used for the Christopher Reeve Superman movies) and made it work in the grading.

A matched set will of course always be closer - but I mix and match on a regular basis and make it work.

Here is what you may want to watch out for in terms of differences.

- Subtle color differences (though easy to find settings to match them and re-use): The Rokkor lenses and Canon lenses both look like they have a somewhat warmer color temperature than Panasonic Lumix lenses. Zeiss and Leica also have differences between each other.

- Bokeh: If you are shooting wide open, the bokeh varies greatly from one manufacturer to another (a Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 has more angular and defined bokeh vs the MD mount lenses I have tried so far, which tend to be rounded and smooth). Stop down if you want to de-emphasize this.

- Sharpness: Some of the older lenses are surprisingly sharp for video, especially stopped down, but many are very soft wide open. The Rokkor 58mm f/1.4 looks softer, has a lot of coma, etc. when shot at 1.4 and I tend to use that as an effect. But stopped down by a stop, it's like a different lens - massively increased sharpness, decreased coma, CA, etc.

So I guess the short answer is, unless your clients are pixel peepers, or your productions have really high budget, I would not worry about it too much in purchasing. Just take a little bit of time to test out your lenses before you take them out the first time and you should have an easy time. I had one informal shoot where I used 4 Minolta mount lenses outdoors, and when I watched the footage without the labeling, I had a heck of a time trying to guess which was which (except when a filter was used or a particularly extreme framing).
 
Thanks for your insight. Ill keep my eye out for some used Rokkors.


For shooting video, would the samyang or rokinon cine primes be much of an upgrade quality wise over the Panasonic 12-35 2.8?

I've heard that the Panasonic 12-35 can look rather clinical but surely this should be a good thing as is doesn't 'bake in' a particular look to your footage. With the clean 'clinical' look it should be easier to grade you footage to whatever look you like right?

PS. On my iPhone I tried to rate your post as helpful but it looks like I selected the wrong arrow and rated it as unhelpful. Sorry , is this fixable ?
 
@vtwiz I understand where you are coming from in terms of the way you look at shooting with a "character lens" vs. a "clinical lens" but the truth is that it is all a lot more complicated than that. :)

The Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 is a fully electronic lens that automatically performs certain digital processing in-camera. It is more difficult to manually focus and more prone to moire and aliasing and many have suggested that is due to the additional processing that happens because it is an electronic M43 lens. In other words, neither approach is "neutral" - you pick what is most important to you and go with it.

Now, the color difference between the two, I don't consider to be the biggest deal in the world (because you can do an awful lot in grading) but it is almost entirely a matter of personal taste, style and subject matter.

The bokeh has a different quality and that is not something that can currently be modified in post. You have to pick the look you want when you shoot. The Panasonic bokeh is often a bit harsher than many MF lenses, but I do not have experience shooting with the 12-35 specifically.

Now, just as neither approach is "neutral", neither is easier to grade. But if you want maximum detail (or don't mind using filter on-location), tend to grade sharp and/or don't want your colors to start off looking to warm, then the Panasonic lenses make a lot of sense in terms of image quality. With the other lenses you get easier focusing, often a bit less sharp image (though not necessarily less resolution), smoother bokeh and often a bit warmer colors. They are both good options and (once again) neither is neutral.

Also, a nice advantage of MF lenses is that they keep your focus point when you turn the camera off or switch batteries. The Panasonic 20 mm f/1.7 (at least) does not and it resets focus everytime I flash the firmware - making it of limited utility when I am trying to do comparison shots. :)

By the way, when I shoot "edgy" videos, I tend to either use Panasonic lenses or stop down my Tokina 28mm f/2.8. Those tend to give me enough sharpness to get the right feel to go with more ragged music (though if you throw on a Tiffen BlackProMist they can go much softer).

EDIT: I have no idea whether marking a comment as "unhelpful" is easy to fix or not but I'll try to contact a mod. :)
 
OK, so i sold all my Canon gear including lenses. My thinking now is to buy the GH3 in kit form with the 12-35 2.8. My reasoning for this is that while I will use this camera for work purposes (TVC's, Interviews and corporates) I will also use it for stills and the AF will come in handy. Also, I'm thinking that the lens (focus and aperture) can be controlled via WiFi when mounted to the GH3 and this could come in handy when the camera is on the end of my 6ft Jib. Please correct me if you think I'm coming at this the wrong way or the 12-35 is a terrible lens for video......

Next up, I'm looking at a few of the Rokinon Cine primes. I really want a few primes for their quality and speed (T1.5 apertures) and coming from a broadcast camera background, would like the manual iris control as well as the lens interfacing with my Follow Focus without additional lens gears. My other thinking is that by the time I buy the 3 primes (14mm, 24mm, 35mm) I could be buying this Nikon 17 - 35mm 2.8 (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Nikon-Ni...933&pid=100015&prg=1006&rk=1&sd=330853800939&) which while slower at f2.8, will have the benefit of covering all three of the primes focal lengths thus not swapping out lenses so much especially when I'm operating on my own 'Run n Gun' style. Also, I'm only guessing but the Nikon may be optically on par with the budget Rokinon lenses???

I'm still thinking I want my video lenses to be Full frame compatible for future proofing and I also see myself getting the EF to m43 Speedbooster when released to get the S35 DOF look on the GH3.

So many options, which ones to take?!
 
Last edited:
@vtwiz Which is more important to the work you would be doing: wider aperture or not swapping lenses? I would answer that before you complicate it with the rest of the details. :)
 
I have gh3 now and was thinking about a zoom for it. Given extra stuff one needs to have (xlr mixer, evf with peaking), it seems to me that compactness is lost anyway. Thus i was thinking of buying 24-104/4 EF + passive adapter and for some time substitute apperture with a variable ND. Late i plan to add Speedboster and Rokkinon cine lenses (24,35,85).

Ps. I like m43 lenses but investing in them is not really future proof. Also consider the fact that Panasonic do not make much progress with their AF100, it looks as if abandoned. Whereas Canon EF is used on Blackmagic, Red and Canon C series.

pps. 24-105/4 + Speedboster estimated price is not that much more expensive as Panasonic 12-35/2.8
 
@den59 I was all set to tell you to spring for a 24-70mm f/2.8 L when I realized that it had been discontinued and the version II rev. was over $1,000 than you planned to spend.

I will say that if you happen to be able to find 24-70mm f/2.8 L for a similar price that I think you'd be happier.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Here are some of the reasons that a 24-70mm (v1) is superior to the 24-105mm f/4

- You gain an extra stop wide open.
- The IS on the other lens won't help you with a passive adapter.
- It has superior corner and mid-frame rendering with less CA at the same focal length and aperture as the 24-105 throughout the entire aperture and focal range (especially stopped down). Sometimes the 24-70mm at f/2.8 outperforms in those areas on a 24-105mm at f/4.0.

Here are some of the arguments in favor of the 24-105.
- Weight is about a third lower.
- Long end extends further into the telephoto range.

Just food for thought.
 
Per Lichtman said:
Here are some of the reasons that a 24-70mm (v1) is superior to the 24-105mm f/4

- You gain an extra stop wide open.
- The IS on the other lens won't help you with a passive adapter.
- It has superior corner and mid-frame rendering with less CA at the same focal length and aperture as the 24-105 throughout the entire aperture and focal range (especially stopped down). Sometimes the 24-70mm at f/2.8 outperforms in those areas on a 24-105mm at f/4.0.

Here are some of the arguments in favor of the 24-105.
- Weight is about a third lower.
- Long end extends further into the telephoto range.

Just food for thought.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your advice.
Since i plan to use active adaptor later (Metabones Speedboster) and do mainly run-n-gun i think a longer reach (24-105) and IS are rather important for me.
In any case, i'll keep in mind that 24-70 v1.

Regards,
Denis.
 
den59 said:
Thanks for your advice.
Since i plan to use active adaptor later (Metabones Speedboster) and do mainly run-n-gun i think a longer reach (24-105) and IS are rather important for me.
In any case, i'll keep in mind that 24-70 v1.

Regards,
Denis.
Click to expand...

Does SB enable IS on all lenses that have it?!
 
Is far as I know, the Optical IS in Canon lenses is all done from within the actual lens. As long as the lens has a power source from the camera (which it must if you can control iris from the camera via the adaptor) then the IS should function.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top