GH5 Big Glass vs Small Glass

[joe12south]

I want to remind that the original intent was primarily a question as to why, not a discussion as to if.

But that presupposes that they do look different/better. In any case, the steps to ascertain "why" are basically the same as those to determine "if".

Now, that said, I've done a few more shoots and I can't shake it. My Sigma and Milvus lenses consistenly produce to me more pleasing images than my Lumix 12-35 or Voigtlander primes. I dunno. I am not running science charts here. They just look good. Maybe it has ZERO relation to the fact that they are FF lenses. Maybe it's just that they are better lenses and would be the same for a smaller m43 image circle, too.

So, you do realize that the Sigma 18-35 is not full frame? Maybe quality glass just looks good?

I hate to be unscientific as I know it exasperates our engineers, and I know there are a lot of variables. But some things seem to a recurring pattern here. To my eye, the BMD camera looks better than the GH5/GH5s hands down. S35 cameras often seem to look better to my eye than m43 cameras, I started noticing this years ago - I can usually spot it if I watch a video, but not always, but this relates to my work as well. But the FF glass on m43 closed the gap considerably which is what started this question for me - I have found using a Milvus on GH5 elevates it to near EVA1 levels (but not quite - the EVA1 still "wows" more consistently). But I honestly cannot say I can always tell in a controlled shoot-out, still grab, science chart. I don't think this invalidates that, and I don't think its placebo effect or a better DP or higher production value. I think overly controlled tests don't show the whole story, and while I think there's a scientific explanation I don't know it.

You're getting near the reason here, even as you discount it. If you're not seeing it in a controlled test, then other factors besides just the lens are at play.

I do think people more than video nerds notice because from my experience screening work to lay people, when I switched from native m43 glass to voigtlanders people noticed. They didn't know what they noticed and could NEVER pinpoint it like some could here, but they just knew it looked better. Same thing when I swapped to Milvus. I got comments noticing the difference but not knowing what. If I did an A/B test with those people they'd all fail, but if I show a video side by side they'll prefer the look of the one with the better glass as sort of a wholistic impression.

There are l differences in lenses. Some people prefer one look to another. No one can credibly argue otherwise. But that doesn't mean full frame looks inherently different or better than MFT native glass.

Ok - I am not trying to make an argument here, I am only looking for understanding. Maybe this recurring theme is all placebo and esoteric. My experience and eyes make me doubt that. But, it's besides the point. At least here, there seems to be no clear consensus on what might make a larger piece of glass better than a smaller piece of glass. Or a larger sensor better than a smaller sensor.

There are most definitely concrete reasons a larger sensor will yield a noticeably different image from a smaller sensor...unless a focal reducer is thrown in the mix.

As others have posited, perhaps its just as simple as Sigma 18-35 and Milvus Set > Voigtlander/Olympus/Lumix.

Bingo. They are both great lenses, and, again, the Sigma is not even full frame.

 

[combatentropy]

I know I owe the thread a full up with some side by sides when I get a chance (probably December!).

That's fine.

I think what you don't realize is the enormous curiosity you provoke, because your impression is not just a little different than mine but the polar opposite. Really your behavior would not need to be any different if you were deliberately trolling us. "The difference is world's apart, but I can't explain what it is, and also I don't have any pictures to prove it, but I will soon!"

You're welcome to post what you already have and what you say conveys the difference better: one whole video with one lens, another whole video with the other. But I already know that I'm going to watch it and not see a difference. And the differences you call out, I'm going to wonder whether it's the lens or something else that's different in the scene, like the lighting.

The reason I asked for a side-by-side comparison, complete with little arrows, is that maybe, just maybe, if I squint hard enough, with arrows and lots of description to help me, I will at least see what you're seeing.

 

[filmguy123]

But that presupposes that they do look different/better. In any case, the steps to ascertain "why" are basically the same as those to determine "if".

Exactly, that's what I was pointing out. I assumed it was a shared perspective I was pointing this out my mistake!

So, you do realize that the Sigma 18-35 is not full frame? Maybe quality glass just looks good?

Yes, but it's a quite large piece of glass and also generously covers the APS-C

You're getting near the reason here, even as you discount it. If you're not seeing it in a controlled test, then other factors besides just the lens are at play.

This is the crux of where this thread derailed, and where we strongly disagree. Those tests simply don't measure everything there is to measure about image representation. My "discounting" of this was not discounting - it was pointing out the inherent flaw that just because we don't have a scientific explanation today doesn't mean one does not exist or that aren't tests to test such.

There are l differences in lenses. Some people prefer one look to another. No one can credibly argue otherwise. But that doesn't mean full frame looks inherently different or better than MFT native glass.

I didn't say it did - I asked why in my experience it did, presupposing this to be the case. As discovered, I think the jury is out on this one... and I'm not personally committed to the answer being A or B.

There are most definitely concrete reasons a larger sensor will yield a noticeably different image from a smaller sensor...unless a focal reducer is thrown in the mix.

There is a very long thread last year in which I made the observation that larger sensors seemed to yield a noticeably different aesthetic, and which with great fervor it was argued that they are equal.

Bingo. They are both great lenses, and, again, the Sigma is not even full frame.

Well, and this comes back to part of my point. I have some of the VERY best m43 lenses on the market. Voigtlander, some Olympus, the Leica / Nocitron. I have not tried the Veydra. So perhaps the bottom line is that IN THEORY m43/smaller glass are just as good as FF glass, but there is no native m43 glass available in the universe as good as what is out there in the larger glass world? And yes, I am well aware of the Sigma's image circle size - which is specifically why I included it. Even the Sigma renders a totally different image quality. The thread title was actually "Large glass VS small glass" and I did not intend to deduce it to only FF vs M43. I would certainly consider the Sigma a large piece of glass.

 

[filmguy123]

That's fine.

I think what you don't realize is the enormous curiosity you provoke, because your impression is not just a little different than mine but the polar opposite. Really your behavior would not need to be any different if you were deliberately trolling us. "The difference is world's apart, but I can't explain what it is, and also I don't have any pictures to prove it, but I will soon!"

You're welcome to post what you already have and what you say conveys the difference better: one whole video with one lens, another whole video with the other. But I already know that I'm going to watch it and not see a difference. And the differences you call out, I'm going to wonder whether it's the lens or something else that's different in the scene, like the lighting.

The reason I asked for a side-by-side comparison, complete with little arrows, is that maybe, just maybe, if I squint hard enough, with arrows and lots of description to help me, I will at least see what you're seeing.

Sure, except I've been on the forum for over a decade (before you even!) with 4000+ posts.

I would be surprised if you wouldn't see a difference!

And while I respect being eager to see something, my forum time is most often relegated to render times between edits. Much footage I take for work I can't just post up here. And adding another proper comparison shoot + edit/upload time, etc. to illustrate what I am talking about will take a significant portion of my day, time which I do not have. I am sure you can respect work and professional responsibilities taking precedence over a forums desire to see me try and defend something I actually have no need to defend. I'm just asking what may account for the differences I am seeing and anticipated the thread going a little different, but alas!

I actually don't think that a statement such as "The difference is world's apart, but I can't explain what it is" is terribly eggregious at all - it's been a statement of artists for centuries... and "I don't have any pictures to prove it, but I will soon!" is not what I said. I have no need to "prove" anything or defend myself at all. I am not even positing that there is a scientific difference between FF and M43 glass, I am merely sharing my observation that the FF glass which I have used looks miles better to my eye than the m43 glass I have used, and I have some of the best m43 glass on market, and asked if there is a reason large glass may be superior to m43 glass.

I seem to have inadvertently hit a button with some

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 will say that my favorite DPs that I know and that I've talked to all seem to "notice" difference in certain glass and sensors and be more sensitive to things that others seem to not notice. And honestly, maybe it can all be done in post now and there's some other explanation. Maybe. But then, everytime I watch a professional BTS the DPs are talking about why they chose X, Y, or Z lens for something.

On the other hand, while I'm not an engineer, if I had to theorize I'd say a larger lens or larger glass perhaps has more surface area to capture light which somehow allows for better rendition of micro contrast since more light was physically gathered. I mean, size of glass must matter at some point - no? If so, when/where is the tipping point?

And at the end of the day, if I'm perceiving something non-lens related, that would be great to learn! I like learning

 

[icarusfilm]

I think ultimately YOU need to like a lens. Who cares what other people think. You have to feel good about what you are seeing through the viewfinder or on the monitor.

QUOTE=filmguy123;1986773864]Sure, except I've been on the forum for over a decade (before you even!) with 4000+ posts.

I would be surprised if you wouldn't see a difference!

And while I respect being eager to see something, my forum time is most often relegated to render times between edits. Much footage I take for work I can't just post up here. And adding another proper comparison shoot + edit/upload time, etc. to illustrate what I am talking about will take a significant portion of my day, time which I do not have. I am sure you can respect work and professional responsibilities taking precedence over a forums desire to see me try and defend something I actually have no need to defend. I'm just asking what may account for the differences I am seeing and anticipated the thread going a little different, but alas!

I actually don't think that a statement such as "The difference is world's apart, but I can't explain what it is" is terribly eggregious at all - it's been a statement of artists for centuries... and "I don't have any pictures to prove it, but I will soon!" is not what I said. I have no need to "prove" anything or defend myself at all. I am not even positing that there is a scientific difference between FF and M43 glass, I am merely sharing my observation that the FF glass which I have used looks miles better to my eye than the m43 glass I have used, and I have some of the best m43 glass on market, and asked if there is a reason large glass may be superior to m43 glass.

I seem to have inadvertently hit a button with some



I will say that my favorite DPs that I know and that I've talked to all seem to "notice" difference in certain glass and sensors and be more sensitive to things that others seem to not notice. And honestly, maybe it can all be done in post now and there's some other explanation. Maybe. But then, everytime I watch a professional BTS the DPs are talking about why they chose X, Y, or Z lens for something.

On the other hand, while I'm not an engineer, if I had to theorize I'd say a larger lens or larger glass perhaps has more surface area to capture light which somehow allows for better rendition of micro contrast since more light was physically gathered. I mean, size of glass must matter at some point - no? If so, when/where is the tipping point?

And at the end of the day, if I'm perceiving something non-lens related, that would be great to learn! I like learning [/QUOTE]

 

[fboonzaier]

I believe that all the charts in the world cannot get us beyond subjjectivity!...The why we love a certain image/lens more than others is hard to quantify (at least for me)...For example my "favorite" lenses are a set of Nikon AF-S ED lenses at 17-35, 28-70 & 80-200 all at F.2.8 and speedboosted down to around 1.5 (I think) with a XL Speedbooster. These lenses were used on the first 2 Bourne movies which is how I came to know about them. I do not zoom on them, but use them like infinitely adjustable Primes while shooting....and I use them over all my other lenses when possible or practical. I also own a full and prestine set of canon FDs with the original irritating chrome lock rings, a full set of SLRMagig hyper primes, a set of Tokinas , The Sigma 18-35 and a couple of Leica and Panny lenses....by any standards, any of the lenses are far more than up to to the task....yes, there are differences....to me how great is largely irrelevant, as it's first and foremost my eye that needs to be satisfied...but for whatever reason, the Nikons are and remain my favorites, and at the time of choosing them, it was between the Nikons and Zeiss....luckily for me, since then I've never given my decision a second thought!
,

 

[Thomas Smet]

I believe that all the charts in the world cannot get us beyond subjjectivity!...The why we love a certain image/lens more than others is hard to quantify (at least for me)...For example my "favorite" lenses are a set of Nikon AF-S ED lenses at 17-35, 28-70 & 80-200 all at F.2.8 and speedboosted down to around 1.5 (I think) with a XL Speedbooster. These lenses were used on the first 2 Bourne movies which is how I came to know about them. I do not zoom on them, but use them like infinitely adjustable Primes while shooting....and I use them over all my other lenses when possible or practical. I also own a full and prestine set of canon FDs with the original irritating chrome lock rings, a full set of SLRMagig hyper primes, a set of Tokinas , The Sigma 18-35 and a couple of Leica and Panny lenses....by any standards, any of the lenses are far more than up to to the task....yes, there are differences....to me how great is largely irrelevant, as it's first and foremost my eye that needs to be satisfied...but for whatever reason, the Nikons are and remain my favorites, and at the time of choosing them, it was between the Nikons and Zeiss....luckily for me, since then I've never given my decision a second thought!
,

f1.8

 

[fboonzaier]

Thanks!...still fast by any standards! And sharp accross the whole frame...full open my 25 mm Leica at l1.4 is for my purposes almost unusable...the DOF is just too shallow!

 

[wwjd]

I'd say my smaller aps-c Sigma looks "A LITTLE" better than my FULL FRAME Rokinon - but price/quality is a factor too. Betting a $30,000 pro cine lens looks "A LITTLE" better than my Sigma as well.

 

[OnSet]

.02 more cents...

While every viewer may possess different criteria for what 'looks best,' I think we've also gotten to the point in the thread where picking a definition for "big glass" would be helpful. Do we define it as larger front lens element? Or do we define it as larger area of coverage?

The physics of the lens is such that if there is a lens with a very large front element and it is being shot wide open, the bokeh will be different from that of a smaller front element lens, even if with same coverage and f/stop, because one aspect of bokeh is the combination of the 'more out of focus' light from the edges of the lens with the 'less out of focus' light from the center. Thus larger front elements will produce a slightly different bokeh.

If we assume that all smaller format lenses will have smaller front elements, then they will typically exhibit a slightly different bokeh.

There is also the issue that the larger the lens elements, the more critical and exacting the process of grinding them and getting them 'perfect.' Thus part of the reason why lens prices haven't dropped nearly as precipitously as camera prices...

But larger format (coverage at back of lens) doesn't necessarily require the elements to be huge -- it's also a function of lens design. I still have a Summilux 35/1.4 that I bought (used - camer with an M4) during the '70s. Covers 35FF sensor. Very small diameter, interestingly dreamy softness when wide open (liiks like a 1950's movie) -- but stop it down to 5.6 and it's far sharper than my sharpest Nikon prime (a 55 macro)... Two completely different looks from the same lens! But the point here is that smaller format doesn't necessarily mean a smaller front element.

Just to confuse the issue!

I also happen to have the same 3 nikon lenses as fboonzaier - though mine often feel like an un-matched set -- the 28-70 is about 2x as sharp and slightly more contrast than either the 17-35 or the 80-200. (Enough sharper that if I'm trying to match two angles for an interview I may choose to use the Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8 with the Nikon 80-200 2.8.)

 

[icarusfilm]

Let’s not forget the the some best full frame lenses are Leica M rangefinder lenses sporting front diameters of 43mm. So the „size“ of the lens has little to do withanything.

.02 more cents...

While every viewer may possess different criteria for what 'looks best,' I think we've also gotten to the point in the thread where picking a definition for "big glass" would be helpful. Do we define it as larger front lens element? Or do we define it as larger area of coverage?

The physics of the lens is such that if there is a lens with a very large front element and it is being shot wide open, the bokeh will be different from that of a smaller front element lens, even if with same coverage and f/stop, because one aspect of bokeh is the combination of the 'more out of focus' light from the edges of the lens with the 'less out of focus' light from the center. Thus larger front elements will produce a slightly different bokeh.

If we assume that all smaller format lenses will have smaller front elements, then they will typically exhibit a slightly different bokeh.

There is also the issue that the larger the lens elements, the more critical and exacting the process of grinding them and getting them 'perfect.' Thus part of the reason why lens prices haven't dropped nearly as precipitously as camera prices...

But larger format (coverage at back of lens) doesn't necessarily require the elements to be huge -- it's also a function of lens design. I still have a Summilux 35/1.4 that I bought (used - camer with an M4) during the '70s. Covers 35FF sensor. Very small diameter, interestingly dreamy softness when wide open (liiks like a 1950's movie) -- but stop it down to 5.6 and it's far sharper than my sharpest Nikon prime (a 55 macro)... Two completely different looks from the same lens! But the point here is that smaller format doesn't necessarily mean a smaller front element.

Just to confuse the issue!

I also happen to have the same 3 nikon lenses as fboonzaier - though mine often feel like an un-matched set -- the 28-70 is about 2x as sharp and slightly more contrast than either the 17-35 or the 80-200. (Enough sharper that if I'm trying to match two angles for an interview I may choose to use the Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8 with the Nikon 80-200 2.8.)

 

[joe12south]

Joe, The CZ 50 1.7 shouldn't flare like that so what adapter did you use as even with flocking light can still bounce off the material. I've got a couple of them and have had about 3 others pass through my hands over the years. 2.8 is the sweet spot for smooth Bokeh as under that it looks a bit busy. Stopped down to F8 on a full frame sensor like the Canon 5Ds or Sony A7r2/3 and they have astonishing resolution right into the corners ( better than the 1.4) but for video this is not a concern with 4k / 8mp. I must admit I haven't used it on M43 as the Sigma 18-35 covers it and I like the flexibility of zooms. They made an AE and MM version and in terms of outright resolution on high MP full frame sensors I found the MM versions better but again for video this shouldn't be an issue. I have used the 1.4 for video and have to say that wide open it was a bit on the soft side and I reckon a native M43 fast prime at the same speed would easily better it. Now if I wanted a flattering but detailed look from a 50mm lens I'd probably reach for my Leica 50mm F2 Summicron-R 2nd version.

The adapter is some cheap Amazon whatever - probably Fotasy or some other Chinese non-brand. If a different adapter would "fix" the image, I wouldn't want it, as the only reason I would pull one of my Contax out of the bag is to get those "flaws." Otherwise, I'd be better off using modern M43 glass with image stabilization, etc.

 

[joe12south]

There is a very long thread last year in which I made the observation that larger sensors seemed to yield a noticeably different aesthetic, and which with great fervor it was argued that they are equal.

Anyone who doesn't think sensor size is a visibly obvious factor is ignorant, or trolling, or both. The differing FOV and DOF (all other things being equal - I know it can be matched by changing other factors) is pronounced.

I have some of the VERY best m43 lenses on the market. Voigtlander, some Olympus, the Leica / Nocitron. I have not tried the Veydra. So perhaps the bottom line is that IN THEORY m43/smaller glass are just as good as FF glass, but there is no native m43 glass available in the universe as good as what is out there in the larger glass world?

It would be so very helpful if you could describe something, anything, specific about the difference. I own the Sigma 18-35 and I own the Nocticron 42.5 and if I spent even 5 minutes in Resolve matching the two I guarantee you couldn't tell the difference. I'd bet real money...like 3 good import beers worth of money.

 

[optitek]

You can achieve the same exact DOF, FOV, perspective compression, distortion, field curvature between 35mm and 16mm film. Steve Yedlin made a case for it with plenty of visual proof. You can certainly achieve the same between FF and 4/3. Except for specialty shots that are super wide maybe or have a super shallow DOF on FF like shot below f2. But these are, in reality few and far between. For general use they can be matched to the dot- nobody can tell....

 

[joe12south]

You can achieve the same exact DOF, FOV, perspective compression, distortion, field curvature between 35mm and 16mm film. Steve Yedlin made a case for it with plenty of visual proof. You can certainly achieve the same between FF and 4/3. Except for specialty shots that are super wide maybe or have a super shallow DOF on FF like shot below f2. But these are, in reality few and far between. For general use they can be matched to the dot- nobody can tell....

Again..."(all other things being equal - I know it can be matched by changing other factors)"
Let's not be pedantic, people. You put two cameras, one 35mm and one 16mm, in the same position with the same lens and aperture setting and they will yield dramatically different images. You put two cameras in the same position with two different (decent quality) lenses of the same focal length and aperture setting and they will yield similar images.

 

[combatentropy]

I've never seen anyone here dispute that. I have seen a thread a long time ago, where someone said that if you use match field of view and depth of field, then something still is different.

 

[optitek]

Again..."(all other things being equal - I know it can be matched by changing other factors)"
Let's not be pedantic, people. You put two cameras, one 35mm and one 16mm, in the same position with the same lens and aperture setting and they will yield dramatically different images. You put two cameras in the same position with two different (decent quality) lenses of the same focal length and aperture setting and they will yield similar images.

No kidding- you are just cropping the sensor(film gate) with the smaller format camera. Keep the same distance, match the field of view, use simple formula to compensate the f stop and voila, can't tell them apart anymore. It is not that complicated, really...

 

[joe12south]

No kidding- you are just cropping the sensor(film gate) with the smaller format camera. Keep the same distance, match the field of view, use simple formula to compensate the f stop and voila, can't tell them apart anymore. It is not that complicated, really...

While not complicated, realistic limitations often make it difficult to match the aesthetic. You can't get far enough away, you can't get enough light, etc. So, in practical terms, as I said, "all things being equal", a larger sensor does yield an image different enough that anyone can notice. (Notice I didn't say "better" image.)

 

[Shirozina]

While not complicated, realistic limitations often make it difficult to match the aesthetic. You can't get far enough away, you can't get enough light, etc. So, in practical terms, as I said, "all things being equal", a larger sensor does yield an image different enough that anyone can notice. (Notice I didn't say "better" image.)

With the risk of being pedantic what do you mean by 'all things being equal' ? as I'd take that to mean same camera to subject distance, same framing and same DOF

 

[joe12south]

With the risk of being pedantic what do you mean by 'all things being equal' ? as I'd take that to mean same camera to subject distance, same framing and same DOF

DOF isn't a setting, it is a result.

Set-up two cameras exactly the same:
- Same distance
- Same lens
- Same aperture
- Same ISO

Only difference is one is a 35mm size sensor, the other is M43. The exposure, FOV and DOF will be patently different. If you double (or half, depending on your perspective) the distance and the aperture on the M43 set-up you can match the FF, but this is often not practical. There's only so much room, lenses are only so fast. Enter focal reducers to make matching that look more practical.

This is all to say that when someone refers to the "full frame look" I know what they are referring to. It can be described and reproduced. It's a thing. When someone refers to a lens being "cinematic" I have no idea what they are talking about other than, possibly, flaws that they find aesthetically pleasing.