And this kind of artificial sharpening bothers me everytime... (Using a black satin filter it's not that bad actually) lol
GH4 (GH5) Is it me or the GH5 image is softer?
- Thread starter CustomerGH4
- Start date
And this kind of artificial sharpening bothers me everytime... (Using a black satin filter it's not that bad actually) lol
The NX1 footage looks terrible. The contrast is way too high so it's blowing out the highlights, and artificially looking sharper from the extra high contrast. Also the GH5 focus was off in a number of shots in this test.
You can certainly get better footage out of both cameras, but based on this test I would say the GH5 wins by a mile : Better highlights, better contrast, similar sharpness when the dang GH5 is focused properly.
Ken its only with long zoom wildlife i am totally unhappy with,if i say acceptable regarding wide lens work i would probobly say the same about an Arri Alexa if i could get one 
,i remember you praising up the RX10 iii when you first had one i am rather hard to please.
Gary no changes on noise reduction and i do not go below f8 if possible so do you think there is a chance my camera is not up to standard ? the 100-400mm was returned for checking and found to be in their words exceptable quality.
The https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDbUIfB5YUc did not mention four third cameras,i am confused at his results having seen pictures taken with Canon 600FD lenses and the amount of times photos can crop without loss.
Lpowell what lenses do you suggest and do you agree the Canon 100-400mk 11 would not work well on the GH5 ? i would not want a speedbooster to reduce focal length for my wildlife filming.
Dingo [wins by a mile] we see differently.
,i remember you praising up the RX10 iii when you first had one i am rather hard to please.Gary no changes on noise reduction and i do not go below f8 if possible so do you think there is a chance my camera is not up to standard ? the 100-400mm was returned for checking and found to be in their words exceptable quality.
The https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDbUIfB5YUc did not mention four third cameras,i am confused at his results having seen pictures taken with Canon 600FD lenses and the amount of times photos can crop without loss.
Lpowell what lenses do you suggest and do you agree the Canon 100-400mk 11 would not work well on the GH5 ? i would not want a speedbooster to reduce focal length for my wildlife filming.
Dingo [wins by a mile] we see differently.
Last edited:
That's the distinction I've been trying to make to Chris. Artificial sharpening is not the same as true resolution. Many people are fooled by the artificial sharpening into thinking they're seeing additional detail. They're not. That 'NX1 vs GH5' test was flawed on so many levels.
Ken its only with long zoom wildlife i am totally unhappy with,if i say acceptable regarding wide lens work i would probobly say the same about an Arri Alexa if i could get one
Gary no changes on noise reduction and i do not go below f8 if possible so do you think there is a chance my camera is not up to standard ? the 100-400mm was returned for checking and found to be in their words exceptable quality.
The https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDbUIfB5YUc did not mention four third cameras,i am confused at his results having seen pictures taken with Canon 600FD lenses and the amount of times photos can crop without loss.
Lpowell what lenses do you suggest and do you agree the Canon 100-400mk 11 would not work well on the GH5 ? i would not want a speedbooster to reduce focal length for my wildlife filming.
Dingo [wins by a mile] we see differently.
Chris, I still think the RX10iii is an excellent camera. It has, hands down, the best lens of any superzoom camera. I've never changed my opinion on that. However, with that said, there's zero doubt in my mind that the GH5 has more resolution than the RX10iii. The test I linked proved that. But that doesn't change my opinion of the RX10iii, it's still an excellent superzoom.
Cary Knoop
Veteran
It's the same principle, a full frame lens on a crop frame camera or a full frame lens on a m34 with a speed booster, or worse, a full frame lens with an passive adapter on a m43.
RX10 Thats good to hear Ken,i just dont get this Artificial sharpening if i film a scene with lets say with decreasing railings in the frame and one camera clearly resolves more of the railings that camera resolves more detail IMO,anyway all the best.
Peter Berry
Well-known member
GH4/Canon 100-400-II/Metabones T Smart adapter - S-AF somewhat slowish, very accurate. 4-stop OIS incredible. All hand-held, mostly @ 400mm, by a somewhat shakey 77 year old guy (me), on a beeezy day. Standard style -3 con, sat, NR, 0 sharp. The GH5 is even sharper with this rig, and 60p at half-speed would have been perfect for these hummers.
https://vimeo.com/208871044
Thank you for that It Looks realy good,You say AF is slow but does it work reasonable with the T Smart ? is this the adaptor http://www.wexphotographic.com/metabones-mkiv-smart-adapter-canon-ef-to-micro-four-thirds-1575324/?mkwid=9b50HdS3_dc&pcrid={adld}&kword=&match=be&plid={placement}&utm_sourc
Last edited:
Peter Berry
Well-known member
Thanks v652! The v.II 100-400's four-stop IS is by far the best I've used. I borrowed a v.I Canon 100-400 last year and thought it about equivalent to my old Panny 100-300 OIS - maybe two stops.
Peter Berry
Well-known member
Thanks Flinty. Not familiar with the Mk IV Metabones smart adapter, but it looks identical to the T Smart, and prob. the latest version, and same functions. The S-AF is prob. 1/4-1/3 sec,. an it def. helps to start with focus inside target w/ MF ring to prevent running out to infinity, then back - especially with closer targets.
Chris, not to belabor the point, but here are more shots taken with the GH5 and the very same lens you have, the 100-400. Why are they so much sharper and more detailed than yours? I deliberately picked subject content that's just what you shoot. This makes no sense to me, especially since there are so many videos with the GH5 & 100-400 lens that are just like the ones below. I could fill up pages with these examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_uBa4CoT00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlFJSNxyX6g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpWj4d7Vvbk (forget the lower resolution, slow motions shots here)
My lens came back today checked as ok,i did a quick test the RX10 sadly is sharper more detail,i will pump up the sharpness to plus 5 for wildlife if i am not happy i may give up on micro four thirds altogether for wildlife fiming.Ken the first two films you showed look ok but the subjects were close and its difficult to judge the camera lens performance ,the third one looked average.
Last edited:
Chris, yes, the subjects in the first two were close, but only because they were brought in close as the result of the 400mm reach of the 100-400 lens. These two videos, on both my 5K IMac and on my UHD OLED TV, were far better than 'OK', they were razor sharp. My point is, that for what ever reason, they (and many other GH5/100-400 videos on YouTube) were much more detailed and sharper than your videos (not just your A/B), from this same lens. I'm at a loss to understand why, particularly in light of your lens being checked out as OK.
If I was getting your results, I'd probably be using the RX10iii too.
My A/B tests with my RX10iii, prior to selling it, mirrored exactly the professional A/Bs of these two cameras I linked to before. A properly functioning GH5, with the proper settings, should absolutely outperform the RX10iii. Again, that takes nothing away from the superb lens of the RX10iii.
If I was getting your results, I'd probably be using the RX10iii too.
My A/B tests with my RX10iii, prior to selling it, mirrored exactly the professional A/Bs of these two cameras I linked to before. A properly functioning GH5, with the proper settings, should absolutely outperform the RX10iii. Again, that takes nothing away from the superb lens of the RX10iii.
Cary Knoop
Veteran
I just went through a little test (actually more like an ordeal of bit depths, levels and codec limitations) using the GH5 with the Leica/Panasonic 100-400mm in 6K on an 8K YouTube frame.
Last edited:
Cary Knoop
Veteran
What could cause it is a too narrow aperture, too low of a contrast due to extreme profile settings, or too low a shutter speed when having atmospheric distortions.
But it seems all of those things are not applicable, however I do see almost everything in focus in the provided videos which would indicate to me a narrow aperture.
And perhaps there is a perception difference: sharpness is not equivalent to resolution, in fact sharpening destroys resolution.
In nature not too many things are actually sharp!
I received the GH5 yesterday and now I am doing tests with default settings (using natural profile) but if it is similar to all other Lumix cameras the sharpness will probably go down to -4 or -5.
Here is an example where the GH5 looks sharper than in comparison the Canon 5D Mark IV but at 0:36 you can clearly see sharpening between the black and white on the 400% magnified triangle for the GH5!
Perhaps the GH5 and lens is better but the sharpening for the GH5 should be down to have a real comparison. Also the Canon lens should be set at f/5.6 to have full equivalence.
Last edited:
Its a fact i have tried all the settings possible to get good results including P mode,i dont know why makers have a P mode if it cant give good results.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture#/media/File:Jonquil_flowers_at_f5.jpg the narrow aperture looks sharpest to me there.
Last edited:
https://vimeo.com/217303644/settings this morning 413-5-2017
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3Q8NYi4BuKZd0s1dGc0czdqZzA And here is a folder of photos i took today.Two RX10 the rest GH5.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3Q8NYi4BuKZd0s1dGc0czdqZzA And here is a folder of photos i took today.Two RX10 the rest GH5.
I'd have to say, in general, I prefer the Panasonic depiction with the exception of the additional noise in one of the 500% blowups. I agree there is additional sharpening on the GH5, but I'm also seeing additional detail. I totally agree that sharpening and detail are two different things.