Is Panasonic 45-200 OK for video?
- Thread starter bbinnard
- Start date
ydgmdlu
Veteran
I don't see why you can't use it. Any lens that you can mount on the GH1 is "suitable for video." What does that phrase even mean? The only thing that a lens does is focus light onto the sensor. The only limitation of the lens might be autofocus performance. It might not be fast and/or quiet enough.
Well you are correct of course. I took my cue from the Panasonic website where the 45-200 was not listed as a GH1 accessory. This suggested to me that there was some reason Panasonic at least thought it wasn't a good choice for video. Maybe the auto-focus is too noisy. Maybe the lens isn't sufficiently sharp at typical video f-stops. I read somewhere that the GH1 release date was dictated by the time it took to optimize the 14-140 for both stills & video. Of course I have no idea if this is true, or what it really means. And I'm reluctant to buy the 45-200 and then find out there is some issue with it.
tflak
Veteran
With the 45-200, AF tracking is slower than the kit lens and it's noisier. Also, in FHD AF does not work - it records in MF. And the noise of the aperture in AE(Auto Exposure) could be recorded.
All that can be found here: http://panasonic.jp/support/global/cs/dsc/connect/g1.html
For outdoor animal photography you may want to consider holding out for the upcoming Panasonic 100-300 (4.0-5.6).
The 45-200 is faster than the kit lens, but you're not really picking up that much extra zoom with it. Plus the 45-200 has gotten so-so reviews. If you're willing to give up some of the auto features, the Olympus 50-200mm Zuiko Digital f/2.8-3.5 ED has gotten very good reviews and is much faster.
All that can be found here: http://panasonic.jp/support/global/cs/dsc/connect/g1.html
For outdoor animal photography you may want to consider holding out for the upcoming Panasonic 100-300 (4.0-5.6).
The 45-200 is faster than the kit lens, but you're not really picking up that much extra zoom with it. Plus the 45-200 has gotten so-so reviews. If you're willing to give up some of the auto features, the Olympus 50-200mm Zuiko Digital f/2.8-3.5 ED has gotten very good reviews and is much faster.
ydgmdlu
Veteran
I assume that it wasn't listed for the GH1 because the lens was released before the GH1 was released. Therefore, the lens was not optimized for video.
That could be it. It could also be the AF speed.
That couldn't be true because the video has lower resolution than the still photos. And what are "typical video f-stops"?
It is true, and it simply means:
1) The lens has an impressive zoom range for general purpose use.
2) The maximum aperture only changes a hair over a stop across the zoom range (very impressive for a 10x zoom).
3) The AF is fast and quiet.
Here's my point: If you only use lenses that have been "optimized" for video, then you are really closing yourself off to the possibilities of this camera. There are only a few lenses that have been "optimized" for video; you might as well not even use an interchangeable lens camera.
Here is a serious suggestion for you: Since most people here recommend that you shoot 720p as often as possible (in order to prevent the mud and rolling shutter issues in 1080p mode), you should try the digital zoom feature. At 2x digital zoom, what the camera seems to do is simply crop the sensor, so there is absolutely no noticeable loss in image quality. Your 14-140mm kit lens becomes a 28-280mm lens. No additional lens purchase necessary.
Very helpful feedback - many thanks. I was not aware that Panasonic was planning to release a 100 - 300 for the GH1. This might be my best bet in the long run. I'll need the lens before next April though.
I use my GH1 only in full HD (16x9) format because I decided to switch from still photography (I previously used a Sony DSC-R1) to a combination of still & video. What I do now is make Ken Burns type videos comprised of single still shots, panoramas, and videos that I show on my HDTV. (Excuse me for name dropping, but his work is what got me to switch formats. Plus I've run out of wall space at home.) I use Vegas to combine my stills, panoramas, and video clips, and render in full HD resolution. I use a PS3 game console to store the videos and show them at full HD 1080P resolution on my TV.
I'll be going to the Galapagos & Machu Pichu next spring and want to be able to capture both the animals and the Machu Pichu scenes with a minimum of equipment. I had planned on sticking with just the 14-140 because it works well and I like having to not change lenses (or carry one.) But I'm thinking a longer zoom would be better at the Gallapagos whereas the 14-140 should do well at Machu Pichu.
I am aware of the GH1's 720P format and have tried it. But I found that the difference between 720P and 1080P video (when seen on my 42" HDTV) is about the same as the difference between 720P and regular TV. That's just not acceptable (to me.) So I stick with full HD mode. A side benefit of the 16x9 format is it takes fewer shots to make a panorama. On a recent trip I made one that ended up being 42,000 pixels wide. (Turns out Vegas can't handle an image that wide: I had to break it up to get it into Vegas.)
I use my GH1 only in full HD (16x9) format because I decided to switch from still photography (I previously used a Sony DSC-R1) to a combination of still & video. What I do now is make Ken Burns type videos comprised of single still shots, panoramas, and videos that I show on my HDTV. (Excuse me for name dropping, but his work is what got me to switch formats. Plus I've run out of wall space at home.) I use Vegas to combine my stills, panoramas, and video clips, and render in full HD resolution. I use a PS3 game console to store the videos and show them at full HD 1080P resolution on my TV.
I'll be going to the Galapagos & Machu Pichu next spring and want to be able to capture both the animals and the Machu Pichu scenes with a minimum of equipment. I had planned on sticking with just the 14-140 because it works well and I like having to not change lenses (or carry one.) But I'm thinking a longer zoom would be better at the Gallapagos whereas the 14-140 should do well at Machu Pichu.
I am aware of the GH1's 720P format and have tried it. But I found that the difference between 720P and 1080P video (when seen on my 42" HDTV) is about the same as the difference between 720P and regular TV. That's just not acceptable (to me.) So I stick with full HD mode. A side benefit of the 16x9 format is it takes fewer shots to make a panorama. On a recent trip I made one that ended up being 42,000 pixels wide. (Turns out Vegas can't handle an image that wide: I had to break it up to get it into Vegas.)
tflak
Veteran
Hey, Birk - have to admit to more than a little envy about your upcoming trips. Sounds fantastic. Personally, I'd be looking for some faster glass for those locales unless you're planning on avoiding low-light scenarios. Would hate to lose that once-in-a-lifetime shot of some exotic Galapagos creature because it refused to step out of the shadows. 
Or a low-light scene at Mach Pichu; lots of mist and clouds at times.
Have a PS3 myself that's hooked into a Sony SXRD 60" and only tried the GH1's 720p on there once - that was enough - very disappointing. Then again, I only watch DVDs if something's not available on Blu-ray.
Have you tried shooting RAW for your stills? I didn't understand what all the fuss was about until I shot some RAW and processed it. Have never shot anything but RAW since.
Also, Machu Pichu is an ideal place to do some quality time-lapse. You can get an inexpensive intervalometer for the GH1 and then shoot RAW at 4352 x 2448. Lots of Ken Burns possibilities at that size.
Or a low-light scene at Mach Pichu; lots of mist and clouds at times.Have a PS3 myself that's hooked into a Sony SXRD 60" and only tried the GH1's 720p on there once - that was enough - very disappointing. Then again, I only watch DVDs if something's not available on Blu-ray.
Have you tried shooting RAW for your stills? I didn't understand what all the fuss was about until I shot some RAW and processed it. Have never shot anything but RAW since.
Also, Machu Pichu is an ideal place to do some quality time-lapse. You can get an inexpensive intervalometer for the GH1 and then shoot RAW at 4352 x 2448. Lots of Ken Burns possibilities at that size.
Great tip about the time-lapse...I'll think seriously about that.
To answer your questions: no, I have never shot RAW. I mean not ever. It was never clear to me the extra hassle was worth it, and, even though memory cards are cheap now, on our last trip I had a total of about 10GB (on a 16GB card) which was mostly JPGs. I have no idea how much space RAW would have taken, but I think it's astronomically more.
I do understand the things you can do with raw images but so far I've had no problems with up-rezzing my JPGs to 300 dpi 30x40 TIFFs for 30x40" prints or 12x36" panoramas.
To answer your questions: no, I have never shot RAW. I mean not ever. It was never clear to me the extra hassle was worth it, and, even though memory cards are cheap now, on our last trip I had a total of about 10GB (on a 16GB card) which was mostly JPGs. I have no idea how much space RAW would have taken, but I think it's astronomically more.
I do understand the things you can do with raw images but so far I've had no problems with up-rezzing my JPGs to 300 dpi 30x40 TIFFs for 30x40" prints or 12x36" panoramas.
tflak
Veteran
You could fit 1240 RAW photos on that 16GB card.
For anyone interested in RAW, here are a couple of good videos explaining some of the advantages/capabilities.
http://library.creativecow.net/articles/harrington_richard/photoshop_camera_raw_1.php
http://library.creativecow.net/articles/harrington_richard/photoshop_camera_raw_2.php
They show Adobe Camera RAW, but the principles I would imagine are pretty similar between various apps that handle RAW.
For anyone interested in RAW, here are a couple of good videos explaining some of the advantages/capabilities.
http://library.creativecow.net/articles/harrington_richard/photoshop_camera_raw_1.php
http://library.creativecow.net/articles/harrington_richard/photoshop_camera_raw_2.php
They show Adobe Camera RAW, but the principles I would imagine are pretty similar between various apps that handle RAW.