GH4 GH4 vs. Canon 5D Mk3 RAW
- Thread starter TheDingo
- Start date
Michael Erlewine
Well-known member
It is hard to compare. There are so many variables and settings. I have done tons of this, mostly comparing exotic lenses in still photography. There is no accounting for taste. I like it best when the poster tells me what they think about the comparison, what conclusions if any they draw from it. Otherwise I think as above: too many variables.
There will always be a plethora of variables, but at some point you just have to look at the finished image and see what you think for yourself. I am a little surprised at how close Mr. Reid was able to get the GH4 image to match the output 5D Mk3 RAW. This comparison makes me wonder about the dedicated GH4 SpeedBooster adapter that's coming from Metabones, as that might be the final piece in getting the most out of your GH4 camera.
Michael Erlewine
Well-known member
Speedboosters. I have two of them. Moreover, I worked with a forensic lens designed by Brian Caldwell years ago, the legendary Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 APO lens, which costs about five grand. More recently Caldwell designed the Speedboosters, which I agree give you more of a wide-angle view, so I am familiar with his work. If anyone could pull this off, he can.
However, at least with still camera lenses, I probably own every major close-up and teleconverter lens made for the Nikon system. I have yet to find any piece of glass that added to a very finely-tuned lens improves the overall performance. That is what makes a highly corrected lens what it is. You add more glass to it and you degrade it, at least in my experience. What Speedboosters do is give you a little faster aperture, but at the expense of the original lens.
With video it seems that entry level camcorder users tolerate lenses that we would never put on a high-end still camera, but that too seems to be changing. Good glass is becoming more available at a lower price.
As for what I think for myself of these comparisons, I wrote above that I think that another person's fine adjustments are just that. I am still a little new to video, but I am catching up. To me, they don't look very similar to one another.
However, at least with still camera lenses, I probably own every major close-up and teleconverter lens made for the Nikon system. I have yet to find any piece of glass that added to a very finely-tuned lens improves the overall performance. That is what makes a highly corrected lens what it is. You add more glass to it and you degrade it, at least in my experience. What Speedboosters do is give you a little faster aperture, but at the expense of the original lens.
With video it seems that entry level camcorder users tolerate lenses that we would never put on a high-end still camera, but that too seems to be changing. Good glass is becoming more available at a lower price.
As for what I think for myself of these comparisons, I wrote above that I think that another person's fine adjustments are just that. I am still a little new to video, but I am catching up. To me, they don't look very similar to one another.
Last edited:
I thought the hilights on the clouds in the 5D footage had more tone, but it was pretty subtle.
Andrius Simutis
Veteran
The GH4 does have that resolution and sharpness. I don't know if it's enough to convince me to get one though.
It's nice that we're at a point in this technology that we can have these options at these price points.
It's nice that we're at a point in this technology that we can have these options at these price points.
Erik Naso
Veteran
+1
Jaime Valles
Veteran
It's because nobody would ever downscale 4K footage to then upscale it again. That's the whole point of 4K; the ability to zoom in and reframe without a loss in resolution.
The way to compare a 1080 camera to a 4K camera is to do it two ways:
A) Downscale 4K to 1080 and compare to the other 1080 camera at 100%
B) Upscale the 1080 to 4K and compare to the other 4K camera at 100%
In version A the 4K downscaled to 1080 will look nice and sharp, but the differences between it and the 1080 camera will be subtle at best. In version B, however, the 4K camera will blow away the 1080 camera.
Andrius Simutis
Veteran
True, but the point of a test between two cameras is to compare how they perform against each other. In real world applications today, you are most likely going to be delivering in 1080 HD. You need to downscale your GH4 4k to HD. So now we should look at how the downscaled HD from 4k compares to HD from the other camera. To do that, it's nice to view 1:1 but also good to zoom in to see how things are doing on the pixel level, thus the 200% crop. That's a fair comparison for testing purposes. Zoom in on downscaled 4k compared to straight HD.
Obviously the other way, scaling up HD to match 4k is going to show the benefits of 4k delivery, but that's a different comparison for a different test for a different delivery on a different day that hasn't come yet.
Cosimo Bullo
Veteran
I agree. The GH4 shoots 4k, but most of us will be using that footage in 1080 timelines. What you can do with it in a 1080 timeline is what matters to me for now, so I think the test was correct and fair.
And great, by the way. The GH4 did much better than I thought it would. They're both plenty sharp and the 5d3 looked a little better to me, but I love shooting with the GH4 so much more because of the EVF, I'd choose it for most scenarios, all things being equal.
And great, by the way. The GH4 did much better than I thought it would. They're both plenty sharp and the 5d3 looked a little better to me, but I love shooting with the GH4 so much more because of the EVF, I'd choose it for most scenarios, all things being equal.
Jaime Valles
Veteran
Exactly.