GH4 Gh4 long lenses for wildlife
- Thread starter flinty
- Start date
There must be a technical reason i presume why neither of these manufactuars http://www.cameralabs.com/lenses/le...ur_Thirds_lenses/Recommended_MFT_lenses.shtml have brought out lenses with the varied reach of lenses like
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6548246179/sigma-50-500mm
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6548246179/sigma-50-500mm
steve phillipps
Veteran
steve phillipps
Veteran
For birds like the grebes in the film the best plan would be to find a place where they're used to people. Otherwise find a nest not too far from the bank and put a hide up. Or if neccessary use a floating hide like this one. The skill with wildlife filming is mostly on the wildlife and field side - the camera side is secondary. Trust me, putting bigger and bigger lenses on is not the answer!
Steve
Steve
Attachments
You have to know where people are filming before making these assumptions the Somerset reserves are mostly shallow ,filmig tame park birds is not always what is wanted,the nest in the film is only 40mtrs and it shows what 4000mm HD does and in all my many years of filming it is rare to find a clear view great crested grebe nest close up in clear view,the BBC wildlife camera people use cameras with immense reach.Getting close ups in HD has been no problem i simply want the best option for reasonable UHD close ups.
steve phillipps
Veteran
I have been one of the "BBC wildlife camera people" for nearly 20 years - and the default focal length through Super 16 and into 2/3" chips has been around 600mm (Canon 300 2.8 + 2x converter or Canon 150-600), and more recently Canon HJ40 and HJ18x28 which can both get you around 1000mm - but it's not ideal as the quality at the long end with the 2x converter drops, plus you get shake and haze issues - so even with these lenses we tend to still want / need to get close. Contrary to what most people think, the big focal lengths are most useful not for getting a frame-filling shot at a quarter of a mile away, they're used at much more sensible distances but allow us to get shots with an eye filling the frame, or a hoof etc. Again, trust me, longer focal length are not the answer - well not for serious work anyway.
Steve
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jd5KEESsAc Last year this nest was 50mtrs away at least and i would have been shot getting phsically any nearer,1000 mm would be no good at all,the Opteka 650-2600 looks the only real option at present for UHD .
resolution.
resolution.
steve phillipps
Veteran
Obviously depends what sort of quality is acceptable for your needs - for Youtube pretty much anything will do, prime time network TV has different requirements, horses for courses obviously. If great crested grebes were needed for a big TV project the first thing that would happen is the production team would scour the land in search of a nest the camera person could sit within 10m of for sure! I realise that for hobby shooters the situation is very different.
The Sigma 300-800 is the choice lens for Super 35 chips when it comes to stills lenses (see the recent "Life Story" series, couple of the behind the scenes things had one - in fact MY one that they had off me!) The HJ18 with a 35mm adapter like the IBE Optics one has been a mainstay too - but that's going to change now with the arrival of the Canon 50-1000 - exactly what we've been waiting for since the arrival of Super 35 chips and 4k. I'd be pretty certain that you that you won't find any Opteka 650-2600 in use for high end TV work.
Steve
The Sigma 300-800 is the choice lens for Super 35 chips when it comes to stills lenses (see the recent "Life Story" series, couple of the behind the scenes things had one - in fact MY one that they had off me!) The HJ18 with a 35mm adapter like the IBE Optics one has been a mainstay too - but that's going to change now with the arrival of the Canon 50-1000 - exactly what we've been waiting for since the arrival of Super 35 chips and 4k. I'd be pretty certain that you that you won't find any Opteka 650-2600 in use for high end TV work.
Steve
Attachments
You tube quality is not best quality admittedly,actualy https://vimeo.com/101511758 looks fairly good on my UHD 55" Samsung,not what i want now that i record mostly 4K,i watch a lot of tv the quality is not always that good IMO,https://vimeo.com/115346448 with films like that 1000mm was ok,i know nothing personaly about the Opteka and was only responding to what others have said.Gratefull for any help
Really Steve ....are you going bring in $140k cameras and $78k lenses into this discussion ???
I will contest that the GH4 with a vintage prime 600mm at 4K UHD at a 1500mm equivalent will out perform that 50-1000 with the 1.5x extender on any cam you want.
Here's a couple samples of mine with the older G6 in 1080-60p ETC. If the GH4 had been out I would have these exact same images in 4K.
https://vimeo.com/72396375 Luna Rosa - Americas Cup 34
https://vimeo.com/90916591 Bull Elk in slow motion
In neither case can you get any closer regardless of how good you think you might be. My images of the Americas Cup from the shore with the G6 and the 100-300 are better than any images ever shown from that event. Moving closer requires a helicopter or boat, both of which prevent creating these kinds of images. For critters in the wild, moving closer has them bolting and they are gone before you ever get setup. If you can stay 300-400 yards away you easily can film them in their natural state where they have no idea you're even there.
If you ever bring that beast of a cam pictured through Utah, give me a shout. I've love to help you pack that pig up on the mountain to film some critters in super slow mo. Then we could compare the image of my setup with the GH4 and that one first hand
Cheers,
Pete
I will contest that the GH4 with a vintage prime 600mm at 4K UHD at a 1500mm equivalent will out perform that 50-1000 with the 1.5x extender on any cam you want.
Here's a couple samples of mine with the older G6 in 1080-60p ETC. If the GH4 had been out I would have these exact same images in 4K.
https://vimeo.com/72396375 Luna Rosa - Americas Cup 34
https://vimeo.com/90916591 Bull Elk in slow motion
In neither case can you get any closer regardless of how good you think you might be. My images of the Americas Cup from the shore with the G6 and the 100-300 are better than any images ever shown from that event. Moving closer requires a helicopter or boat, both of which prevent creating these kinds of images. For critters in the wild, moving closer has them bolting and they are gone before you ever get setup. If you can stay 300-400 yards away you easily can film them in their natural state where they have no idea you're even there.
If you ever bring that beast of a cam pictured through Utah, give me a shout. I've love to help you pack that pig up on the mountain to film some critters in super slow mo. Then we could compare the image of my setup with the GH4 and that one first hand
Cheers,
Pete
Really Steve ....are you going bring in $140k cameras and $78k lenses into this discussion ???
I will contest that the GH4 with a vintage prime 600mm at 4K UHD at a 1500mm equivalent will out perform that 50-1000 with the 1.5x extender on any cam you want.
Here's a couple samples of mine with the older G6 in 1080-60p ETC. If the GH4 had been out I would have these exact same images in 4K.
https://vimeo.com/72396375 Luna Rosa - Americas Cup 34
https://vimeo.com/90916591 Bull Elk in slow motion
In neither case can you get any closer regardless of how good you think you might be. My images of the Americas Cup from the shore with the G6 and the 100-300 are better than any images ever shown from that event. Moving closer requires a helicopter or boat, both of which prevent creating these kinds of images. For critters in the wild, moving closer has them bolting and they are gone before you ever get setup. If you can stay 300-400 yards away you easily can film them in their natural state where they have no idea you're even there.
If you ever bring that beast of a cam pictured through Utah, give me a shout. I've love to help you pack that pig up on the mountain to film some critters in super slow mo. Then we could compare the image of my setup with the GH4 and that one first hand
Cheers,
Pete
Real nice films,what Canon to four third adaptor do you use,and do you ever use extenders.https://vimeo.com/105780110 i would not have managed that modest footage with Steves huge lens.
Last edited:
Fran Guidry
Active member
ETC in 4K?
Fran
Fran
steve phillipps
Veteran
I only brought them up as the conversation went towards what BBC camera people use.
Not sure about the vintage 600mm vs the new Canon 20x - I've played with one but not shot with it yet as it's not properly out yet (or maybe only just). I know when I did lens tests for the BBC comparing the Sigma 300-800 against the HJ18 on the Epic the Sigma was slightly better, but not much, and that was with the HJ18 through a converter (admittedly. £4,0000 converter!) With the long ENG zooms like the HJ18 and 40 you really gotta love the versatility - it really trumps any slight difference in image quality (except in low light).
All I'm saying is that mega millimeters is not the answer for high quality footage. Other people may have their own experiences and all I can do is pass on how I shoot TV wildlife shows and how colleagues do.
Steve
stoneinapond
Veteran
Well, 4K is technically the same as 1080 ETC. It's a pixel per pixel image off the sensor. One is just bigger than the other. The reason I use 1080 ETC is to get 60p.
With that said, there is another piece to the puzzle that can be used. If you run 2x digital zoom in 4K you get almost a 5x crop of what ever lens you use and the image is quite pleasing. It allows you to keep a 4K final output but have roughly the same crop as 1080 ETC. Relative to anything you can get from any of the Canon camera's and even to some extent what you can get with any of the Sony's, it's better resolution. I think it's a viable option for when content is more important than absolute image quality. For us pixel peepers, these discussion of absolute image quality are important. For the average viewer of wildlife piece's, having content that fills the screen is where you get the 'ooohhh's and aaahhhh's" when projected on the big screen. I've had many of my shorts shown on the big screen and even a T3i with it's 3x digital crop zoom and the 600mm blows away the audience relative to the digiscoping setups many of the north american big game wildlife videographers have been using.
In the end of the day the GH4 is so loaded with options that it doubles or triples the usefulness of any other camera made right now. For 1080 distribution there is no camera at any price that can compete in this long range realm. If you add cost to the equation it's not even a discussion.
Flinty, I don't have any of the Canon lenses. I just posted those to show the options there that I know will work extremely well. I am using a Panasonic 100-300 and a Nikkor AIS ED 600mm f/5.6. As I said earlier in the thread I will be trying to pick up a Nikkor AIS ED 400mm f/3.5 to add a few stops of light gathering at dawn and dusk. I also use the $20 Fotodiox adaptors. They work just fine.
Cheers,
Pete
With that said, there is another piece to the puzzle that can be used. If you run 2x digital zoom in 4K you get almost a 5x crop of what ever lens you use and the image is quite pleasing. It allows you to keep a 4K final output but have roughly the same crop as 1080 ETC. Relative to anything you can get from any of the Canon camera's and even to some extent what you can get with any of the Sony's, it's better resolution. I think it's a viable option for when content is more important than absolute image quality. For us pixel peepers, these discussion of absolute image quality are important. For the average viewer of wildlife piece's, having content that fills the screen is where you get the 'ooohhh's and aaahhhh's" when projected on the big screen. I've had many of my shorts shown on the big screen and even a T3i with it's 3x digital crop zoom and the 600mm blows away the audience relative to the digiscoping setups many of the north american big game wildlife videographers have been using.
In the end of the day the GH4 is so loaded with options that it doubles or triples the usefulness of any other camera made right now. For 1080 distribution there is no camera at any price that can compete in this long range realm. If you add cost to the equation it's not even a discussion.
Flinty, I don't have any of the Canon lenses. I just posted those to show the options there that I know will work extremely well. I am using a Panasonic 100-300 and a Nikkor AIS ED 600mm f/5.6. As I said earlier in the thread I will be trying to pick up a Nikkor AIS ED 400mm f/3.5 to add a few stops of light gathering at dawn and dusk. I also use the $20 Fotodiox adaptors. They work just fine.
Cheers,
Pete
finally had an hour to go try to film a test today of the different modes.
https://vimeo.com/130388952
This is three clips. 4K UHD, 1080-60p ETC and 4K UHD 2x digital
Settings are as follows:
Panasonic 100-300 at 100mm
GH4
ISO 800
shutter 1/60th
CineV profile with all zeros
16-235 luminace
no iDynamic or iResolution
master pedestal 0
Put together in Vegas with no adjustments on a 4K UHD 30p timeline. There may be some frame blending on the 60p to 30p as I forgot to select 'disable resample' so it would take every other frame. I output to the sony XAVC-S 4K UHD codec and uploaded to vimeo.
If you download the original it should give you the full 4K file at about 150mbps. It's interesting how the brain perceives detail when the framing is so different. 4K original is obviously sharper, but the other two bring the detail closer and you get to see more. The 4K 2x is really nice, but has some serious mosquito noise in the shadows that you can't see unless you download the original.
anyway take it for what it's worth.
cheer,
pete
https://vimeo.com/130388952
This is three clips. 4K UHD, 1080-60p ETC and 4K UHD 2x digital
Settings are as follows:
Panasonic 100-300 at 100mm
GH4
ISO 800
shutter 1/60th
CineV profile with all zeros
16-235 luminace
no iDynamic or iResolution
master pedestal 0
Put together in Vegas with no adjustments on a 4K UHD 30p timeline. There may be some frame blending on the 60p to 30p as I forgot to select 'disable resample' so it would take every other frame. I output to the sony XAVC-S 4K UHD codec and uploaded to vimeo.
If you download the original it should give you the full 4K file at about 150mbps. It's interesting how the brain perceives detail when the framing is so different. 4K original is obviously sharper, but the other two bring the detail closer and you get to see more. The 4K 2x is really nice, but has some serious mosquito noise in the shadows that you can't see unless you download the original.
anyway take it for what it's worth.
cheer,
pete
Peter Berry
Well-known member
That's a great demo of 4K-2X dig. zoom! I've been likewise impressed with wildlife filming using this with both the 100-300 Panny and a 480mm/6.0 true apo triplet objective scope.
In-camera frame captures confirm on-the-fly well-done resampling of the 4K 1080x1920 "raw" dig. zoom frames to UHD dimensions, and the A-B comparisons I've made with 1080/ETC show smoother gradation and better sharpening tolerance without artifact, both in the stills and on my 55" UHD TV screen.
Pete
In-camera frame captures confirm on-the-fly well-done resampling of the 4K 1080x1920 "raw" dig. zoom frames to UHD dimensions, and the A-B comparisons I've made with 1080/ETC show smoother gradation and better sharpening tolerance without artifact, both in the stills and on my 55" UHD TV screen.
Pete
Lost you a wee bit there - do you think the 4k with digital zoom is better than the ETC mode in 1080 or vice versa?