GH2 Canon mod trying out GH2.

[Danielvilliers]

My advice to you would be to buy a Tamrom 17-50 Nikon mount. I see on ebay new ones for 350, and even better you could get a second hand in the range of $ 200/250. It is about the price of a prime lens. As stated above, because of the mechanical lever on the Nikon g lens you can use a Nikon adapter with iris control. I use this Tamron Nikon version on my gh2 without any problem and I am sure you will be able to resell it afterward if you decide to sell the gh2 afterward. Another solution is to get a nikon version of the tokina 11-16, because afterward you will be able to put it on your canons.

 

[Ben_B]

Since your kit lens is the 14-42mm, why bother with the tamron? Is that kit lens f/3.5 at 14mm? It's wider than the tamron and only half a stop slower...not a huge difference

 

[mcbob]

Yes, if you're using mostly f-mount glass, just get a single good-quality Nikon mount adapter with an aperture ring and you'll be golden.

 

[maranfilms]

Prepare for excitement, glory and get ready to dump the canons!

Why dump the Canons? I think your gonna be better off if you have both. There's still times when the canons are great. especially if you shoot stills to.

 

[M. Gilden]

Since your kit lens is the 14-42mm, why bother with the tamron? Is that kit lens f/3.5 at 14mm? It's wider than the tamron and only half a stop slower...not a huge difference

Well, the problem is that the zoom is not a constant aperture, so the video will noticeably flicker when zooming in/out during live event coverage. When shooting bands or events in dimly-lit halls, the ability to zoom + extra stop of light is totally necessary. What you describe is great if I only intend to use the wide angle as a prime. And if I were only shooting narratives I suppose.

That being said, is the kit lens really that good that you guys would recommend using it like that? My canon is 18mm F/3.5 at its widest point, and I still think the Tamron at 2.8 looks so much better. I'll have to play around when I get it.

Why dump the Canons? I think your gonna be better off if you have both. There's still times when the canons are great. especially if you shoot stills to.

Indeed. I have no intention of dumping all of my Canons. I'll probably sell one though, and then use the GH2 + t2i until the digic5 cameras are out. Then reevaluate the situation.

 

[Lpowell]

I've used a variety of Nikon F-mount lenses on both GH1 and GH2 cameras with excellent results. One thing to note is that the focus rings on Nikon lenses rotate in the opposite direction than Panasonic and Canon lenses. I happen to prefer the Nikon focus rotation for use with 15mm rails-mounted follow focus units. Here's a link to a discussion on video-friendly lenses for the GH2:

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/859/video-friendly-lenses-for-lumix-dslrs

Some find it convenient to use Nikon-to-M4/3 adapters with "Lock" rings to manually control lens aperture on Nikon G lenses. If your F-mount lens already has a manual aperture ring, an adapter with a lock ring is unnecessary and potentially unreliable, even if you don't intend to make use of it. With the GH2, you don't need anything more than a simple mount adapter to use Nikon AI and AF-D lenses.

As for the Lumix kit lenses, none of them work very well for video shooting. Iris and focus are electronically controlled by the camera and exposure can shift in visible steps unless you have everything locked down during a take. This is one of the main reasons I use Nikon manually operated lenses instead.

 

[Ben_B]

Well, the problem is that the zoom is not a constant aperture, so the video will noticeably flicker when zooming in/out during live event coverage. When shooting bands or events in dimly-lit halls, the ability to zoom + extra stop of light is totally necessary. What you describe is great if I only intend to use the wide angle as a prime. And if I were only shooting narratives I suppose.

That being said, is the kit lens really that good that you guys would recommend using it like that? My canon is 18mm F/3.5 at its widest point, and I still think the Tamron at 2.8 looks so much better. I'll have to play around when I get it.



Indeed. I have no intention of dumping all of my Canons. I'll probably sell one though, and then use the GH2 + t2i until the digic5 cameras are out. Then reevaluate the situation.

For events I like the 14-140mm, for run and gun b-roll ENG type work it's also a godsend. Yeah...I didn't realized you were talking about live event work..and no I'd say the optical quality on the 14-42 (a step down from the already meh 14-45) is probably not that great, especially open and full wide...though for video who knows it might be fine, and I don't (personally) think that highly of tamron anyway.

The lack of a fast wide angle is sort of the big downside with the m4/3rds cameras. For me the 20mm f/1.7 in low-light and the 7-14mm in daylight/narrative light work pretty well. Maybe look into some of the new X lenses? I haven't been following them much...

 

[Ralph B]

When you hack the GH2, I recommend the 'SANITY' patch for all around great performance.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?268039-Introducing-SANITY-the-Do-It-All-patch-for-GH2

 

[J Davis]

As for the Lumix kit lenses, none of them work very well for video shooting. Iris and focus are electronically controlled by the camera and exposure ...

Thats the second time recently that I've read about this so I googled the panasonic 14-42mm to get to the bottom of this because my 14-42 has a focus ring. When I googled and clicked on images to take a look, it seems like there are two different versions. Mine looks like this with the focus ring on the outer and the larger inner ring is the zoom ring

So is this one pictured the normal version of this lens... or a newer version of this lens?

 

[Lpowell]

...I googled the panasonic 14-42mm to get to the bottom of this because my 14-42 has a focus ring.

Yes, all Lumix lenses have focus rings. What makes them undesirable for video is that the focus ring is not mechanically coupled to the lens' internal focusing mechanism. Instead of directly controlling lens focus, the ring spins freely and merely feeds rotational data to the camera. The camera controls the lens focus electronically at all times - even when you set it to "manual" focus mode.

 

[J Davis]

okay now I understand! Thanks for the explanation.

 

[M. Gilden]

stumbled upon this nice find from Mr. Bloom:
http://philipbloom.net/2010/12/17/ne-adaptor-for-using-you-canon-eos-lenses-on-gh1-gh2-af101/

Its not exactly cheap, but will take EOS lenses and give its own aperture control for just over $100.

I'm actually seeing tons of knock-off options on ebay for $60, but I'm not sure if they work as well- anyone have any experience with those?
Then I should be able to use my Tamron zoom on the GH2, which would be pretty great.


Meanwhile, what about the vintage glass that currently has an EOS adapter on it (for use in my canon)? I'm wondering, should I just get an EOS-to-M4/3s adapter and treat my vintage Nikons like EOS mounts (since they already have an adapter)? Or is it better to just buy a direct Nikon-to-M4/3s and take off the other adapter?

 

[fde101]

If your lenses have their own aperture rings on them and can be set manually on the lens itself, you don't need the fancy adaptors with the electronics or even mechanical control -- you just need the ring adaptors that physically mount the lens to the camera, and those are MUCH cheaper than the ones with the built-in iris or the electronics on them.

 

[Lpowell]

I'm wondering, should I just get an EOS-to-M4/3s adapter and treat my vintage Nikons like EOS mounts (since they already have an adapter)? Or is it better to just buy a direct Nikon-to-M4/3s and take off the other adapter?

Going Nikon -> EOS -> M4/3 is really asking for trouble. Of all the adapter types, the EOS attempts have been the most problematic. Also, when you use two adapters, you're much more likely to get rotational instability and infinity focus problems with the lens. It's really quite easy to find a decent Nikon -> M4/3 adapter, I'd suggest this one:

http://www.adorama.com/CZM43NK.html

 

[c3hammer]

There must be something in the water over here in the panny groups

For EOS lenses WITHOUT manual apurture control those look pretty good, but the blades are not at the flip point of the image and therefore they vignette on most lenses before you can stop them down much.

Just use F4 L glass wide open with ND filters

Cheers,
Pete

 

[M. Gilden]

If your lenses have their own aperture rings on them and can be set manually on the lens itself, you don't need the fancy adaptors with the electronics or even mechanical control -- you just need the ring adaptors that physically mount the lens to the camera, and those are MUCH cheaper than the ones with the built-in iris or the electronics on them.

That goes without saying.
But as I already mentioned, my favorite live event lens is a native EOS with electronic aperture control (unfortunately). So I'll either be stuck shooting wide open, using aftermarket aperture blades, or just leaving that lens on my Canons for now.
I asked about daisy chaining the vintage glass because then I could theoretically kill two birds with one stone and just get one adapter for now. But that brings us to the next post....

Going Nikon -> EOS -> M4/3 is really asking for trouble. Of all the adapter types, the EOS attempts have been the most problematic. Also, when you use two adapters, you're much more likely to get rotational instability and infinity focus problems with the lens.

I figured as much. Just thought I'd throw it out there as an idea, but the more I think about it, the more it seems like a bad one. Too many links in the chain to go wrong.

It's really quite easy to find a decent Nikon -> M4/3 adapter, I'd suggest this one:

http://www.adorama.com/CZM43NK.html

I'm pretty happy with the Fotodiox ones on my EOS cameras. I have one Bower one that I bought first and is excellent but cost me over $50. After hearing about the fotodiox for half the price and finding them work just as well, I don't think I could justify spending over $60 on the one you have listed here. Unless someone here has some bad experiences with Fotodiox on this mount?

There must be something in the water over here in the panny groups

For EOS lenses WITHOUT manual apurture control those look pretty good, but the blades are not at the flip point of the image and therefore they vignette on most lenses before you can stop them down much.

Yes, if you read Phillip's post on them, he says (as well as the manufacturer) not to stop it down past 6 levels, since it will start to vignette. Before that, he reports it working just fine (and there video samples to prove it).
But, I question how useful this really is compared to just a simple ring adapter. If I'm already going to buy Nikon-M4/3s adapters, I don't want to spend another $60-$120 just to get another adapter for a specific Tamron lens that I like to use. Its a shame as I think the GH2 would be better suited for those run-and-gun situations. But maybe I'll invest in more specific lenses for it down the road.

 

[Lpowell]

If I'm already going to buy Nikon-M4/3s adapters, I don't want to spend another $60-$120 just to get another adapter for a specific Tamron lens that I like to use. Its a shame as I think the GH2 would be better suited for those run-and-gun situations. But maybe I'll invest in more specific lenses for it down the road.

From the GH2's perspective, the world of lenses breaks down into a few simple categories:

0. Canon EOS lens - xxx alien species!
1. Nikon G lens (no aperture ring) - cannot mate with this
2. C-mount lens - back alley down low hook up
3. Everything else - match made in heaven

 

[M. Gilden]

From the GH2's perspective, the world of lenses breaks down into a few simple categories:

0. Canon EOS lens - xxx alien species!
1. Nikon G lens (no aperture ring) - cannot mate with this
2. C-mount lens - back alley down low hook up
3. Everything else - match made in heaven

Ok, so EOS is less than ideal. I get it- I'll stop trying.

C-mount is kind of interesting, but I don't understand why G lens with no aperture ring is a problem.
Didn't someone else in this thread say that the Nikon G was preferred because you CAN control the aperture with a mechanical connection?

Right now I'm comparing these adapters:
http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Adapter-cameras-Olympus-Panasonic/dp/B003Y2XN9G/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1323287444&sr=8-2
and
http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-adapter-Adapter-Olympus-Panasonic/dp/B003G49V70/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323287444&sr=8-1

It appears that the first one offers the ability to adjust aperture on G lenses for ~$2 more than the other.

For $2, it seems worth having that as an option in case I get my hands on some modern Nikon glass, but now I'm wondering if there is some reason to pick the other instead?

 

[Lpowell]

Didn't someone else in this thread say that the Nikon G was preferred because you CAN control the aperture with a mechanical connection?

Though some may enjoy fiddling with after-market aperture rings on Nikon -> M4/3 adapters, I have found them to be finicky and unreliable. The last thing I want during a shoot is to have to second-guess and make sure an uncalibrated adapter ring hasn't inadvertently screwed up my exposure settings. In my view, a well-built adapter should be nothing more complicated than a precisely machined spacer whose sole purpose is to provide a secure mechanical connection between camera and lens.

Moreover, no one I've ever talked to who shoots video on DSLR's actually appreciates the lack of manual aperture rings on modern auto-focus lenses. It's a cost-cutting compromise that restricts the lens to a particular manufacturer's electronic interface, and is nothing but a drawback for end users. Nikon has made a wide variety of superb AF-D lenses with both auto-focus and manual aperture rings. These are ideal investments for the future, as they can be readily adapted to work on Canon EOS, Sony NEX, and Panasonic GH cameras, as well as on modern Nikon DSLR's (though in manual-focus only on the consumer models).

 

[M. Gilden]

Though some may enjoy fiddling with after-market aperture rings on Nikon -> M4/3 adapters, I have found them to be finicky and unreliable. The last thing I want during a shoot is having to second-guess and make sure an uncalibrated adapter ring hasn't inadvertently screwed up my exposure settings.

Moreover, no one I've ever talked to who shoots video on DSLR's actually appreciates the lack of manual aperture rings on modern auto-focus lenses. It's a cost-cutting compromise that restricts the lens to a particular manufacturer's electronic interface, and is nothing but a drawback for end users. Nikon has made a wide variety of superb AF-D lenses with both auto-focus and manual aperture rings. These are ideal investments for the future, as they can be readily adapted to work on Canon EOS, Sony NEX, and Panasonic GH cameras, as well as on modern Nikon DSLR's (though in manual-focus only on the consumer models).

I think you misunderstood. No one is arguing that a manual aperture ring is better. If the lenses I am interested in adapting offered a manual aperture, this would be a no-brainier. But it is EXTREMELY hard to find vintage glass that is fast and wide, especially on a zoom level. That wasn't popular until more modern cropped sensors became the norm, and we had to go wider for the same FOV. Lenses like the Tamron 17-50, or Tokina 11-16 are prime examples of this. Lenses like this are not generally available with manual aperture control, so we are forced to deal with some sort of proprietary interface.

I own a Tamron in EOS mount that I was debating trying to get an adapter for, but someone here informed me that I'm better off getting the Nikon G version of the lens since the aperture can be controlled by a proper adapter. That is what I meant by someone said "Nikon G is preferred". I meant as opposed to other common modern lens mounts. I don't own any G glass at the moment, but I'm wondering if getting an adapter that has the optional control is a better investment just in case. Especially if it is a $2 difference in the case of Fotodiox.
Unless the version without the aperture control is preferred for some reason? Maybe more robust and solid build?