GH4 Leica SL vS GH4

A

andvx

Active member
Hi,
A few days ago Johnnie Behiri released a review and 4K video of the new Leica SL - https://www.cinema5d.com/leica-sl-review-part-1-hands-on-real-world-footage-in-4k/.

The video is extremely well done and both graded (https://vimeo.com/149700017) and ungraded (https://vimeo.com/149771657) versions are available.


I wanted to get your thoughts on two things:
  1. The quality of the video in comparison to what is achievable with the GH4
  2. What settings and LUTs would be required with the GH4 to achieve a similar or better final product


Thanks and Merry Christmas!
 
Wanna know the difference? You can buy 5 or 6 Gh4's for the price of the Leica. Hell, stitch the Gh4's together and have a 30k camera. With V-log no less.
 
andvx said:
I wanted to get your thoughts on two things:
  1. The quality of the video in comparison to what is achievable with the GH4
  2. What settings and LUTs would be required with the GH4 to achieve a similar or better final product
Thanks and Merry Christmas!
Click to expand...

Let me state up front that if I had the money, I would buy the SL in a heartbeat, despite the rather grinch-like review from the Camera Store. That being said, aside from the sensor differences (primarily size) there is the issue of the optics, which somehow few people seem to take into consideration in their discussion of cameras. Could you get the same results with the 14-42 GH4 kit lens and the GH4 compared to whatever was used on the Leica? :shocked: Not a serious question.

However, put some outstanding optics on the GH4 and the playing field would start to level a little bit. What this video has is excellent sharpness without the usual "electronic" look, which again I think comes down to two things, the optics and the sensor size allowing for a pleasant shallow DOF look.

As to the LUTs question, I can't yet comment as I'm still in my early stages of sorting out what works and what doesn't.

But given the close collaboration between Leica and Panasonic, I think it bodes well for the next generation of affordable cameras for us less wealthy individuals from my favorite camera company.

And Happy Holidays to you too.

P.S. I don't think any of this discussion should take away from us constantly striving to develop our skills and art with the tools we have. In the end, it's not the camera but the eye and mind behind it.
 
stoneinapond said:
Let me state up front that if I had the money, I would buy the SL in a heartbeat, despite the rather grinch-like review from the Camera Store. That being said, aside from the sensor differences (primarily size) there is the issue of the optics, which somehow few people seem to take into consideration in their discussion of cameras. Could you get the same results with the 14-42 GH4 kit lens and the GH4 compared to whatever was used on the Leica? :shocked: Not a serious question.

However, put some outstanding optics on the GH4 and the playing field would start to level a little bit. What this video has is excellent sharpness without the usual "electronic" look, which again I think comes down to two things, the optics and the sensor size allowing for a pleasant shallow DOF look.

As to the LUTs question, I can't yet comment as I'm still in my early stages of sorting out what works and what doesn't.

But given the close collaboration between Leica and Panasonic, I think it bodes well for the next generation of affordable cameras for us less wealthy individuals from my favorite camera company.

And Happy Holidays to you too.

P.S. I don't think any of this discussion should take away from us constantly striving to develop our skills and art with the tools we have. In the end, it's not the camera but the eye and mind behind it.
Click to expand...



Hi stone,
Thanks for your feedback.

stoneinapond said:
P.S. I don't think any of this discussion should take away from us constantly striving to develop our skills and art with the tools we have. In the end, it's not the camera but the eye and mind behind it.
Click to expand...

I feel this is the most important point. We shouldn't be swayed or discouraged from always developing our skills.



stoneinapond said:
However, put some outstanding optics on the GH4 and the playing field would start to level a little bit.
Click to expand...

Would you consider both the Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8 and Lumix 35-100 mm f/2.8 good pieces of glass? Would you need to step it up a bit with something link the Nocticron?



Thanks stone
 
andvx said:
35mm f/2.8 and Lumix 35-100 mm f/2.8 good pieces of glass? Would you need to step it up a bit with something link the Nocticron?
Click to expand...

Both of these lenses are good. if you can't make great images with them, then it's not the fault of the equipment. I love the Nocticron, and it is a step up, but the comparison is flawed in that in the two lenses you specify are zooms (there will always be compromises involved because of their construction), while the Nocticron is a fixed lens and substantially faster. I don't do a lot of video with the Nocticron because I feel it needs support due to its focal length. Which leads us back to sensor size. The SL is the first full frame camera that has excited me and made me appreciate the full frame look. The Nocticron on a cropped sensor makes any wide shots in small spaces difficult, so I generally use it for photography, but your question has piqued my interest in trying some video with it.

Also we have to remember that lighting is just as important as optics and sensors. The video you linked to is well lit.
 
stoneinapond said:
Both of these lenses are good. if you can't make great images with them, then it's not the fault of the equipment. I love the Nocticron, and it is a step up, but the comparison is flawed in that in the two lenses you specify are zooms (there will always be compromises involved because of their construction), while the Nocticron is a fixed lens and substantially faster. I don't do a lot of video with the Nocticron because I feel it needs support due to its focal length. Which leads us back to sensor size. The SL is the first full frame camera that has excited me and made me appreciate the full frame look. The Nocticron on a cropped sensor makes any wide shots in small spaces difficult, so I generally use it for photography, but your question has piqued my interest in trying some video with it.

Also we have to remember that lighting is just as important as optics and sensors. The video you linked to is well lit.
Click to expand...



Thanks for the information stone.

Back to the original question, assuming equal cameraman talent, what would be required on the hardware/equipment side to create the same quality with a GH4? If you watch the ungraded version you can see how much work has been done post processing to make it look so much better, so the question more relates to filming in Cine-D, V-Log, or something similar to match the ungraded version before the post-processing magic happens.


I've seen many GH4 videos that have similar, if not better quality than the SL video.


And one more question:
  1. Given the full frame has DOF advantages and so forth. Besides a lens such as the Nocticron with a low aperture, what else can be used to manipulate the aperture to match a full frame? Can a metabones be used with a Panasonic Lumix lens to achieve this?


Thanks stone
 
andvx said:
Hi DLD,
From the reviews it does appear to be that 4K is shot in Super 35 crop and full frame is only achievable in HD.
Click to expand...

DLD and you are correct. However the Leica does support DCI, which the other similarly styled camera, the Sony A7r II does not appear to, although the later does use the entire width of its full frame sensor for UHD capture.

You cannot use a Lumix lens with a Metabones Speed Booster. That only works with lenses designed for a larger sensor size. However the Sigma 18-35 when used with a dumb adapter does render great images. I didn't like the results when paired with a Speed Booster.

I think V-Log L has a lot of promise, particularly in 10-bit HDMI output to an external recorder. Never did like Cinelike D, but then again that's simply a personal preference. V-Log needs care, but when you hit the sweet spot, I think it certainly
does great things for the GH4 image.
 
dustylense said:
Wanna know the difference? You can buy 5 or 6 Gh4's for the price of the Leica. Hell, stitch the Gh4's together and have a 30k camera. With V-log no less.
Click to expand...
You could also buy 10 or 15 G7s for that price. Lucky for us the FF sensor will most likely find it's way into an affordable Panasonic body. No end in site for the great tools available right now.
 
andvx said:
Thanks for the information stone.

Back to the original question, assuming equal cameraman talent, what would be required on the hardware/equipment side to create the same quality with a GH4? If you watch the ungraded version you can see how much work has been done post processing to make it look so much better, so the question more relates to filming in Cine-D, V-Log, or something similar to match the ungraded version before the post-processing magic happens....
Click to expand...
Leica SL's footage is notoriously super-flat. It's like you take a basic flat, then pound it with the hammer, then step on it a few times and only then you get a Leica SL flat.

In any case, it'd be interesting to see if there's a similar camera from Panasonic. My prediction is it will be in the form of a camcorder, similar to AF-100 and similarly priced.
 
stoneinapond said:
You cannot use a Lumix lens with a Metabones Speed Booster. That only works with lenses designed for a larger sensor size. However the Sigma 18-35 when used with a dumb adapter does render great images. I didn't like the results when paired with a Speed Booster.
Click to expand...


The Sigma 18-35 looks interesting. Unfortunately it doesn't have IS and neither does the GH4. Besides this, reviews say it is ultra-sharp and the f/1.8 is great.

About this lens:
  1. Which adapter would you recommend?
  2. Would lens would you go with? They make them for Nikon, Pentax, Sony, etc?
  3. It looks like it's a constant f/1.8. This may be a silly question, but given the only way to control the aperture is via the GH4 and not the lens, if shooting indoors (interview for example) would an increase in aperture to something like 2.8-4.0 distort quality? What I am really asking is if aperture adjusted/controlled via the camera vs the lens makes a difference in quality?
 
andvx said:
The Sigma 18-35 looks interesting. Unfortunately it doesn't have IS and neither does the GH4. Besides this, reviews say it is ultra-sharp and the f/1.8 is great.

About this lens:
  1. Which adapter would you recommend?
  2. Would lens would you go with? They make them for Nikon, Pentax, Sony, etc?
  3. It looks like it's a constant f/1.8. This may be a silly question, but given the only way to control the aperture is via the GH4 and not the lens, if shooting indoors (interview for example) would an increase in aperture to something like 2.8-4.0 distort quality? What I am really asking is if aperture adjusted/controlled via the camera vs the lens makes a difference in quality?
Click to expand...

The lens is big and heavy. It can be used handheld and its heft helps a little to stabilize the set up, but it is really much better on some sort of support, in which case IS is not really an issue.

Questions 1 and 2. Go for the Nikon version and get a Metabones Nikon G lens to m43 adapter (if memory serves that's the right one. I'll check later). This allows manual clickless control of the Sigma.

Question 3. Part of that is answered above, but there is no degradation of image quality between the two different types of aperture control. They are both mechanical, except one is manually selected, the other using motors. There maybe the most infinitesimal difference in actual aperture size between the two but nothing that anyone could possibly notice. But no degradation. The other advantage of the manual adjustment in this case is the clickless functioning, which to my understanding cannot be done electronically on the GH4 or any other type of similar camera.
 
stoneinapond said:
The lens is big and heavy. It can be used handheld and its heft helps a little to stabilize the set up, but it is really much better on some sort of support, in which case IS is not really an issue.

Questions 1 and 2. Go for the Nikon version and get a Metabones Nikon G lens to m43 adapter (if memory serves that's the right one. I'll check later). This allows manual clickless control of the Sigma.

Question 3. Part of that is answered above, but there is no degradation of image quality between the two different types of aperture control. They are both mechanical, except one is manually selected, the other using motors. There maybe the most infinitesimal difference in actual aperture size between the two but nothing that anyone could possibly notice. But no degradation. The other advantage of the manual adjustment in this case is the clickless functioning, which to my understanding cannot be done electronically on the GH4 or any other type of similar camera.
Click to expand...


Hi stone,
Thanks for the information.
I went and tried a few lenses (12-35, 35-100, Sigma, Olympus, and of course the 42.5 Nocticron). There is no doubt the Nocticron stands on its own.

I settled with both of the 12-35 and 35-100 (f/2.8) lenses. They are both fine lenses and the OIS is a big one for me. I might have to return for the Nocticron though :) The Sigma is excellent also, and the Olympus is probably slightly sharper than the 12-35.

With the image quality of the 12-35 and 35-100 lenses, if the shots and video don't look the way I want them to, it comes down to my photographic ability, or lack of; not the equipment itself.



Thanks everyone for your contributions in this thread!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top