GH5 Big Glass vs Small Glass

filmguy123 said:
I think crops and even stills can often be deceiving. A 30 second cut with a dozen shots VS a 30 second cut with a dozen shots, but one FF and one native M43, gives a better impression of differences.
Click to expand...

--- if the two cameras were duct-taped together, getting the same shots at the same time.

If you run around with one lens, and then run around with another, then you are introducing lots of variables. Someone may think they like lens A, but really they like shirt A, lighting A, the half-stop underexposure you accidentally did on A, or something else unrelated.

It also makes it harder to tell that actually the lenses are identical for all intents and purposes.
 
Last edited:
Ive not read the whole thread. Some thoughts.

Back in the day I did a load of tests when considering selling my (645) Hasselblad digiback and sticking to Nikon FF for stills. (yes I was evaluating ''vista' as the smaller sensor option!)

I simply concluded that 80-2.8 on the hassy had the same look as the 50 at 2 with the Nikon. I sold the hasselblad.

I would suggest that there is no difference in daily use - ie a fast voigt 25 can certainly match a 50FF for look if you know the iris to select.

As we see with the previous Voigt vs Samyang test the Samyang has no magic, just terrible flare!

Pick the lenses that actually work!

-----------

Let us leave the 'real world' and geek out.

1) 'The label on the tin'
I think the first question is does a lens do what is says on the tin?
For example a lens may be sold as '24-f2.8' but actually be a 24.9-f3
An example is the nikon 70-200 zoom not having as much magnification as the canon 70-200 in the video linked in this thread http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...Most-PHOTOGRAPHERS-Get-WRONG-(also-for-Video) - in that situation the nikon glass is sold as 70-200 but is clearly more like a 70-180 at certain focus distances!

Broadly if a lens (even a 'prime') is not parfocal it is a mild zoom lens - zooming as you focus at different distances! So depending on focus distance its 'true FOV' changes and the bokeh character changes too.

So I guess that the 'label on the tin' is way off on many lenses at many focus distances.

Let us speculate about which lenses are less acurately marked? Well making small things is hard so I guess that many MFT lenses may be affected by 'generous' specs by the maker leading to a FF lens looking 'better'

--
2) 'Front element wrap'

Ive often wondered about this..
Consider a plate camera (the old ones with a bag over the head), not with a measely 10.8 inch negative, but with maybe a negative 100 by 80 inch negative, well the front element of that camera would be the size of a dustbin lid.
Lets try and match that to a MFT camera.
THe light is hitting this dustbin sized front element, the front element is so large that the MFT camera could be placed at either side of the front element. In fact that fron element is so large it would certainly see objects differently - it could almost see around the object - very different to the tiny MFT (or vista) camera lens combo.
Well Im speculating that front element size could affect the look of an image.
Pure speculation.

--
3) 'pancake'
Mivious, Stigma , cine glass and the like is huge (long) compared to a cheap (or even expensive) pancake lens, the front element is in a completely different place compared to the position of the sensor. Does this affect look? I guess it must - how - Im not sure.
 
Last edited:
Here on my thoughts on the size of glass.

No it doesn't really matter. What matters is the engineering and precision that goes into the design of the lens. The Olympus f1.2 primes don't look amazing because they are large. They look amazing because they are f1.2. f1.2 is extremely difficult to do well compared to f1.8. A lot of corners can be cut when designing a f1.8 lens and there is a larger threshold for error. f1.2 has an extremely small threshold for error and therefor requires better precision. We see this as well on Canon FF primes at f1.8, f1.4 and f1.2. The faster the lens the better optically it is at all f stops.

The physical size of the lens may be a by product of attempting to achieve better optical precision but it is not an absolute attribute of better glass. Plenty of large FF glass out there that looks horrible. Rokinon are the lenses that come to mind the most here. Plenty of tiny 46mm thread m43 lenses out there that look amazing like the Leica 25mm f1.4. Same physical size as some of the other m43 25mm f1.8 lenses but it was better engineered in order to achieve great results at f1.4. Having a skilled engineer like Leica give input on the design doesn't hurt either.

Rokinon is well loved by many for their unaltered organic look but that doesn't mean optical perfection. In fact they are very far away from optical perfection. The flare, the low contrast and the softness when shot wide open is not a quality lens designers aim for when they build lenses. Thats a lower quality look every modern lens manufacturer has tried hard to get away from and why f1.4 primes tend to cost a lot more from other manufacturers. Rokinon makes budget lenses which is a good thing. Clearly we needed Rokinon to provide options because nobody else did. I'm glad we have Rokinon but we need to not fool ourselves that they are in the same optical league as lenses that cost 2x, 3x or 4x as much. I'm not saying Rokinon is bad. I use them as well and know a lot of people that use them with great results. I'm saying optically they are not the sharpest tool in the shed. Its not even just about sharpness but about contrast, color, breathing, vignetting, corner softness and flare as well. A well engineered lens attempts to control all of those as much as possible. Rokinon gives us a creamy look at f1.4 and in a cine version and to many thats enough. Some of us however would not be caught dead using them wider than f2.8 or even f4. A friend of mine refuses to shoot Rokinons faster than f4 because they fall apart so badly. To me that doesn't exactly mean we bought a f1.4 lens. It means we bought a f2.8 lens that has a defect where it can open wider than it should. Other manufacturers could also create crappy f1.4 lenses that should have stopped at f1.8 but they try very hard to achieve certain quality standards and want to be known to have a usable f1.2 or f1.4.
 
I agree with what is being said recently, but we should be aware that this thread is fraying in two different directions:

I. Pointed at test charts and examined under a microscope, you will see better images from one lens over another, in certain simple, objective measurements: resolution, contrast, color neutrality, chromatic aberration, barrel distortion, vignetting, ghosting, etc. Less objective is the character of bokeh, but it is still clearly visible under the right circumstances: this lens's bokeh has rings around the edges, that lens's bokeh is soft around the edges; this lens's bokeh has 7 sides, that lens's bokeh has 13 sides. These differences are undisputed.

The value of these small differences, we might dispute. Knowing that no normal audience member will notice these fine distinctions, is it worth it to spend $10,000 on 35mm lens when you can get another 35mm lens for $1,000, or even $100? This is a question, though, that has been hashed out in other threads.

The other direction this thread is going, and how I thought it kind of started was:

II. Just running around shooting normal stuff, and watching it from normal viewing distances (like your TV in your living room), some people saying there is a palpable difference, that they have not yet nailed down:

filmguy123 said:
The best m43 glass is not matching up to FF glass. The images seem "smaller", less detailed, "cheaper".
Click to expand...

Batutta said:
I've always felt lenses with bigger glass rendered a more pleasing image. They way the light bounces around the lens shapes and distorts things in a more cinematic way.
Click to expand...

Both of you have warned us that you don't mean your words to be taken scientifically, you're reaching for the right words. But I am interested in figuring out what you're seeing, because I don't. I mean, the best I can think of is flare. Older lenses flare more than new lenses. We pros can notice and take a liking to flare. But again I think most audience members don't notice it and in fact find overused flare annoying.

I strongly suspect that your impressions are the result of your imagination --- though I am open to being disproved. But everything I've seen so far is that your comparisons are contaminated with a Boeing B-52 Stratofortress of variables, each of which is affecting the comparison. I'm especially suspicious of the power of suggestion, which is why scientists compare things "blind." It is well-established that if you tell someone something cost $100, they will think it's better than something that costs $10.

Finally, there is what reminds me of the Emperor's New Clothes. If one person says they see something, and you don't, it's hard to shake the thought that they just have a better eye than you, and you should never have got in this business in the first place, because you're an imposter.

"I see a huge difference in this lens! Don't you see how much more depth and aliveness is in it? You don't see it?"
"Uh . . . yeah . . . maybe . . . oh! . . . I think I see . . . something. Wait . . . no . . . yes . . ."
 
Last edited:
Bern Caughey said:
Jon,

What difference are you seeing between Panasonic’s 42.5/1.2, & Olympus’ 45/1.2?

I have Panasonic’s 12/1.4 & 42.5/1.2, but prefer the focus rings on my Olympus 25/1.2 & 12-100/4. Have considered replacing Panasonic 42.5/1.2 with Olympus’ 45/1.2 if only so the primes would should share a common filter size, but that’s a minor consideration, & I’d hate to lose Dual IS 2.
Click to expand...

For one thing, the Olympus sets resolution records and is already very sharp wide open, where I like to be - more so than the Nocticron. It also suffers less from vignetting than the Leica. Bokeh is subjective, but I prefer the Zuiko’s. I traded in my Nocticron and don’t regret it one bit. For a glimpse of what the Zuiko is capable of, skip ahead to 2:19.

https://youtu.be/kh9zovfWN_Y

And here’s an entire clip (all of one minute!) of the Olympus.

https://youtu.be/K-Dk_Te8pdA

Sorry for the OT
 
Last edited:
Image difference between the Olympus and Nocticron is very small. Price is about the same. For me the meaningful difference came down to the Nocticron having image stabilization.
 
filmguy123 said:
So let's talk glass and revist a thread I had posted some time ago. Can smaller M43 glass ever look as good or produce the same results as bigger glass? Do physics simply dictate that more surface areas = more light = different look?
Click to expand...

"Look as good ?"

You have to explain what that actually means TO YOU. You have to do it with pictures.

Look as good could mean anything.

I love m4/3 and shoot it a lot of different MFT glass (Olympus, Lumix, SLR Magic, Veydra, I even have MFT mounts for my CPs) Some of it's rubbish when you point it at a chart but breathtakingly beautiful when you use it in a scene.

So which good do you mean ?

Anamorphics are a great example of beautiful flaws. If you saw this you'd never even want to put them on a camera. Very soft on the edges, geomtery is all out of whack.
https://vimeo.com/33825502

And yet shot the same day on a human face they become move more interesting and cinematic.

https://vimeo.com/33835190

Anamorphic lenses tend to have what i think of as "beautiful flaws"

Meanwhile, I think this article aligns with what I see...comparing a 135 format Zeiss CP lens set and MFT native lenses on an mft camera...give you this...

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/03/veydra-cine-mini-prime-mtf-optical-bench-tests/

"If you’re a CP.2 fan, you’re going to have to talk about the look of the lenses, or how they handle, or something similar to explain why you like them. Because, to be quite blunt, the Veydras just kick some serious resolution butt in this comparison."

I've always prefered to use native lenses. As mentioned here earlier, having a larger image circle means more stray light bouncing around behind the lens between the rear optic and the senor, usually lowering contrast and causing weird flares. Most of the time it's not sharper like for like.

Yeah, I'm looking at the low con image which looks like the hot window to camera right which is OUT OF FRAME in the mushy flare'd version is causing a veiling flare and milking the blacks. That's a typical side effect of using larger image circles than the target sensor / mount. And it's generally NOT a beuatiful flaw. It just looks bad. Mushy and milky.

It's not caused by the point source in the middle of the shot. You'd probably find if you flagged the lens it would go away (but that lens is pretty unflattering to me)

Oh, and a big vote for the Olympus Pro Primes. The 1.2 Pro's are some stunning lenses. More to come there.

JB

edit - here's some recent stills using the 1.2 Pros
https://flic.kr/p/PdAJ2X
https://flic.kr/p/2bA5mBk
https://flic.kr/p/2bSGTjy
https://flic.kr/p/2aGD28q
https://flic.kr/p/2bJ6Ajs
https://flic.kr/p/2aGD2Gm
https://flic.kr/p/2937cU9
 
Last edited:
someone said that image quality of the Nocticron and the Olympus 45mm are about the same, but they obviously haven't shot with both like I have; nor have they examined lab tests, which show that the Olympus is much sharper wide open than the Nocticron - in fact, it's one of the sharpest lenses in the m4/3 system; and there's no point in spending the money on either of these if you're not shooting wide open. Vignetting is pretty huge on the Nocticron - 54% wide open as a matter of fact. The Olympus is around 30% or so wide open. So, image quality is not about the same with either lens, nor is actual light gathering ability. I've shot both handheld and struggle to see any difference OIS makes, though I'm sure the Leica must have an edge there. When the Leica was released, it sold for $1,600.00 USD, which was a complete ripoff.
 
Last edited:
jonpais said:
someone said that image quality of the Nocticron and the Olympus 45mm are about the same, but they obviously haven't shot with both like I have; nor have they examined lab tests, which show that the Olympus is much sharper wide open than the Nocticron - in fact, it's one of the sharpest lenses in the m4/3 system; and there's no point in spending the money on either of these if you're not shooting wide open. Vignetting is pretty huge on the Nocticron - 54% wide open as a matter of fact. The Olympus is around 30% or so wide open. So, image quality is not about the same with either lens, nor is actual light gathering ability. I've shot both handheld and struggle to see any difference OIS makes, though I'm sure the Leica must have an edge there. When the Leica was released, it sold for $1,600.00 USD, which was a complete ripoff.
Click to expand...
Actually, I read all of the reviews and then I tested both. I did not find the PQ differences meaningful in real world images. I rarely shoot actual moving subjects at less than f/2 (and usually f/2.8) as not only is pulling focus silly hard, but I find the look fetishistic. Image stabilization and an aperture ring are more impactful for my work.

It's personal choice. You have to stretch to consider either of these lenses anything short of excellent.
 
When going micro 4/3 I tested a ton of glass. I also found the Olympus delivered a slightly better image but the real draw was the manual focusing was way better. Ultimately I went with Voigtlander because of the manual declicked aperure but optically the Olympus 45mm is as good as things get.


jonpais said:
someone said that image quality of the Nocticron and the Olympus 45mm are about the same, but they obviously haven't shot with both like I have; nor have they examined lab tests, which show that the Olympus is much sharper wide open than the Nocticron - in fact, it's one of the sharpest lenses in the m4/3 system; and there's no point in spending the money on either of these if you're not shooting wide open. Vignetting is pretty huge on the Nocticron - 54% wide open as a matter of fact. The Olympus is around 30% or so wide open. So, image quality is not about the same with either lens, nor is actual light gathering ability. I've shot both handheld and struggle to see any difference OIS makes, though I'm sure the Leica must have an edge there. When the Leica was released, it sold for $1,600.00 USD, which was a complete ripoff.
Click to expand...
 
I must admit, there is something to be said for the character (flaws) of certain old glass\. This afternoon I was shooting with a pristine Lumix lens and then towards the end I pulled out an old Contax lens and ended-up with my favorite stuff from the day.

eva_contax.jpg


eva_contax_2.jpg
 
Nice shots. I also live the Contax lenses, used a set for five years professionally. I still have a Zeiss 28mm f/2 I live to use.
Cheers
 
joe12south said:
I must admit, there is something to be said for the character (flaws) of certain old glass\. This afternoon I was shooting with a pristine Lumix lens and then towards the end I pulled out an old Contax lens and ended-up with my favorite stuff from the day.
Click to expand...

Very nice.
 
Well these are Contax Zeiss lenses some of the finest glass you could get your hands on in the early 90s not some crappy soviet garbage glass from the 60es.
 
icarusfilm said:
Well these are Contax Zeiss lenses some of the finest glass you could get your hands on in the early 90s not some crappy soviet garbage glass from the 60es.
Click to expand...
True, but if you were simply to compare specs, I have several native Lumix lenses that would trounce both of my Contax lenes

I could soften and flare those lenses to get a similar look - and sometimes that's the way to go (when I need autofocus, for example) - but sometimes it's nice to get it straight out of the lens, sometimes it's nice to just see what happens. And sometimes I need to remind myself of this. I spend a lot of time with charts getting to know my gear, sometimes it's good to get them out in the real world and just see what happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top