How much does good glass on the GH1 really make a difference?

R

Revsta

Well-known member
I'm using FD primes right now, 50/1.4, 24/2.8 and 135/4. I wish I had something better don't get me wrong, but is the difference really discernible when using expensive primes? The reason I ask, is I'm going to be shooting a feature with this, and I'm debating whether renting good glass is worth the investment. So far, from looking at that music video shot on the FDs, the FDs should hold up fine.
 
Qualities of glass such as the contrast or flare resistance will show, yes. But sharpness? Not really, you'd have to really have a coke-bottle lens before it makes much of a difference in sharpness.
 
Uh Hi, I'm about to show some ignorance.

What can we do to improve the performance of glass that isn't spectacular at contrast and flare resistance? I know that using a lens hood helps, and watching your light sources...have a lens that flares bad? Don't shoot straight into the sun.

What about with filters. Can a high quality filter (Like a B+W or Hoya) help make up for less-stellar coatings on the front element of a lens? I guess the point of a high quality filter is to actually absorb as little light as possible while doing it's job, but still...
 
It's not just sharpness - contrast and flare can add up to a perception of softness as well - there are also lenses that have better microcontrast than others which can add to a perception of sharpness.

I personally think more testing needs to be done in terms of lens sharpness testing on the GH1 in video mode.

Barry has a great test thread on this but I think there is still some more room to test.

I can definitely see that some of my lenses are sharper than others (especially fast lenses wide open) on the GH1 in video mode...plus things like CA and coma are quite noticable and it all adds up.

My Canon 24mm f/1.4 @ 1.4 is pretty sharp, but the Canon 35mm f/2.8 Tilt Shfit at f/2.8 is much sharper on the GH1, and these are both high quality lenses - a 24mm f/1.4 is a pretty extreme lens, however, so I think sharpness issues are probably more noticeable on GH1 footage when you get into the realm of very fast, exotic lenses because they tend to have more compromises than moderate speed lenses - but my point is that even on very good lenses like the 24mm f/1.4 sharpness issues are noticeable on GH1 footage when shot wide open, so there is clearly a point at which even very good lenses produce an image where the GH1 can show its weaknesses in terms of sharpness.
 
One thing I've learned from my GH1 experience is to remain consistent with your lens choice if you use multiple lenses for a project. What I mean is: if you use Canon FD primes, try to shoot your project entirely on FD primes. Don't throw on a Minolta or a Nikon in the same scene. The contrast and color rendition can be completely different. I shot a short using Nikon primes (that I borrowed from somebody else), but for one scene I used my Olympus OM 28mm. It was a cheapie, and its contrast and sharpness were noticeably worse than the Nikons. I couldn't recognize this in the camera's LCD. So now I'm having to jump through hoops in color correction to get the Olympus footage to match.
 
thisisapocalypse said:
It's not just sharpness - contrast and flare can add up to a perception of softness as well - there are also lenses that have better microcontrast than others which can add to a perception of sharpness.

I personally think more testing needs to be done in terms of lens sharpness testing on the GH1 in video mode.
Click to expand...

There is also the issue of presentation image, display technology, size, and viewing distance.

At the moment, given I don't have the time to set up a detailed test... what I do is put a newspaper on the wall. Shoot it... look at the image on various sized displays, and various 'magnifications'... perhaps with a bit of unsharp masking as well...

I definitely have no interest in using a $1500 lens on the GH1 (there would be the small matter of wresting it from the Wife's cold dead fingers...), when it appears the stock lens, or other less expensive Nikons I have around, will do just as well for 99% of anything I would take, and how I would present the results.

The 'reason' I could see using an expensive lens has nothing, well almost nothing, to do with the 'resolving' power of the lens, but how good is its rectilinear correction. The bulging 'fisheye' look may be good for some, but perhaps in the one place I'm sort of a 'panties in a bunch' type, is in bowed 'straight' lines...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
There is also the issue of presentation image, display technology, size, and viewing distance.

At the moment, given I don't have the time to set up a detailed test... what I do is put a newspaper on the wall. Shoot it... look at the image on various sized displays, and various 'magnifications'... perhaps with a bit of unsharp masking as well...

I definitely have no interest in using a $1500 lens on the GH1 (there would be the small matter of wresting it from the Wife's cold dead fingers...), when it appears the stock lens, or other less expensive Nikons I have around, will do just as well for 99% of anything I would take, and how I would present the results.

The 'reason' I could see using an expensive lens has nothing, well almost nothing, to do with the 'resolving' power of the lens, but how good is its rectilinear correction. The bulging 'fisheye' look may be good for some, but perhaps in the one place I'm sort of a 'panties in a bunch' type, is in bowed 'straight' lines...
Click to expand...

I don't think there is much debate over the image that the kit lens delivers - it seems to be very good. But it's slow so using fast, expensive lenses on the GH1 definitely makes sense if your project calls for it, as many do. I agree with you on your point in doing ones best not to mix footage from different maker's lenses if at all possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top