GH5 Let's talk glass... Large Sensor glass on GH5 vs Manual M43 - WOW.

F

filmguy123

Veteran
So I have an EVA1, GH5, GH5s. About a dozen m43 native lenses, my favorites being the Voigtlander manual non-electronic set. I've got a Sigma 18-35 that I'll use speedbooster onto the GH5s for lowlight stuff. On the EVA1 live the Zeiss Milvus, and Sigma when needed.

Until today.

When I thought, I'm just curious, I should play around today and shoot this whole event on a GH5 and Zeiss Milvus with the speedbooster.

HOLY COW.

This wasn't even a "good looking" event, it was sort of ugly and poorly lit and challenging on the fly b-roll stuff. The Milvus is next level on the GH5. It doesn't even look like a GH5. It looks "bigger". Richer. Smoother. Cleaner. Less sharp. Larger sensor. Whatever. It just looks a lot better.

I also tried out the Sigma, since I had only used it on GH5s in lowlight scenarios which don't really show it off. Not "Milvus level" but still - Much better / cleaner overall than any of the native stuff, including voigtlanders.

Now don't get me wrong, I love my voigts. And I don't just have voigts - I've got some nice glass in the nocitron 42.5, Olympus 75, Leica 50-200, Lumix 12-35, and others.

But none of them compare to the look of the Milvus on the GH5 which really just impressed me. It transformed the look of the camera. But then, the Sigma looked fantastic too.

So here's my big question: WHY?

I know they are great glass. But so are the Voigtlanders and the Nocitron 42.5, but they don't give this sort of smooth detail rendering. I posted a thread here perhaps last year asking about m43 glass and if it was as good as FF, just covering a smaller circle. The answer seemed to be "yup!" and if all else was equal some of that native m43 glass is true classics, etc.

But to my eye, what I saw today told a different story. My beloved Voigt 17.5 and 25 paled next to the Milvus 25mm f/1.4 on a speedbooster. I know it costs more, but it's also a giant metalic weather sealed lens covering a FF circle with the Zeiss name. Even the Sigma outperformed.

Is there something about "more" glass and these larger lenses that transform the way the light and image is rendered? Do bigger (and quality) FF lenses create better images if all else is equal?
 
Here's a video from a cinematographer whom I met years ago and has done some amazing TV commercials. I think you'll like the way he explains his technical videos.
There are other great cinematography techniques he shares on his channel.
Those clips in his videos are part of commercials he has done.

 
With non native M43 glass there won't be any distortion or CA correction going (and maybe probably other image manipulation?) on for a start. I've tried Several Canon FD lenses on my GH5 for stills and they were quite poor (mainly not very sharp) but this may be a 'nice' look on Video?
 
filmguy123 said:
So I have an EVA1, GH5, GH5s. About a dozen m43 native lenses, my favorites being the Voigtlander manual non-electronic set. I've got a Sigma 18-35 that I'll use speedbooster onto the GH5s for lowlight stuff. On the EVA1 live the Zeiss Milvus, and Sigma when needed.

Until today.

When I thought, I'm just curious, I should play around today and shoot this whole event on a GH5 and Zeiss Milvus with the speedbooster.

HOLY COW.

This wasn't even a "good looking" event, it was sort of ugly and poorly lit and challenging on the fly b-roll stuff. The Milvus is next level on the GH5. It doesn't even look like a GH5. It looks "bigger". Richer. Smoother. Cleaner. Less sharp. Larger sensor. Whatever. It just looks a lot better.

I also tried out the Sigma, since I had only used it on GH5s in lowlight scenarios which don't really show it off. Not "Milvus level" but still - Much better / cleaner overall than any of the native stuff, including voigtlanders.

Now don't get me wrong, I love my voigts. And I don't just have voigts - I've got some nice glass in the nocitron 42.5, Olympus 75, Leica 50-200, Lumix 12-35, and others.

But none of them compare to the look of the Milvus on the GH5 which really just impressed me. It transformed the look of the camera. But then, the Sigma looked fantastic too.

So here's my big question: WHY?

I know they are great glass. But so are the Voigtlanders and the Nocitron 42.5, but they don't give this sort of smooth detail rendering. I posted a thread here perhaps last year asking about m43 glass and if it was as good as FF, just covering a smaller circle. The answer seemed to be "yup!" and if all else was equal some of that native m43 glass is true classics, etc.

But to my eye, what I saw today told a different story. My beloved Voigt 17.5 and 25 paled next to the Milvus 25mm f/1.4 on a speedbooster. I know it costs more, but it's also a giant metalic weather sealed lens covering a FF circle with the Zeiss name. Even the Sigma outperformed.

Is there something about "more" glass and these larger lenses that transform the way the light and image is rendered? Do bigger (and quality) FF lenses create better images if all else is equal?
Click to expand...

Character

Its hard to explain with specs or in scientific ways but lenses have a personality or character to them. I don't think it has as much to do with the lenses being FF lenses as it does the fact that it is a Zeiss lens. There is a reason why Zeiss can get as much $ as they do for their lenses when there are spec for spec much cheaper Canon or Nikon lenses. Those Canon/Nikon primes just don't have the same look and feel to them even though they might also be FF lenses.

The Voigtlanders are also great lenses but look at their price compared to a Zeiss prime. I don't think being built for a m43 mount really has anything to do with it. It all comes down to how meticulous that glass is crafted.

The Veydra lenses are crafted well and designed for m43 and may have character that better matches the Zeiss lenses. Haven't tried them myself but others seem to really like the image they render. Personally I'm a big fan of the Leica/Panasonic lenses like the 25mm f1.4 which I think has better character than any other m43 25mm lens out there. I bet if we could get that lens to remove all the in body corrections it would be even better. Can't wait to see how it does on the p4k since that camera shouldn't perform any image enhancement with native lenses.
 
This is going to sound crude but I do not think most of us know a good lens from a great lens. Resolution steals a lot of attention. Especially in video where in comparison to photography does not stress the optics due to pixel peeping end users. Same thing goes for cameras and images. Refined is the term I like to use. A lot of stuff can look good but the best stuff is more refined.

This stuff comes up a lot in the M4/3rds photo world as all in all, it is a pretty young system with a limited adoption compared to APS-C or FF. The lenses are nice but are they as refined as a lens from Canon or Zeiss that has been making them far longer for the most discriminating end users? Everything pretty much clears the bar for usability these days which is great though.

Maybe there is something to only using the center of the glass on a FF lens rather than the entire area which is helping as well.
 
I use the Nikon 17-35, 28-70 and 80-200 AFS ED lenses....all at 2.8 through the full range, and with a XL speed booster they come in at around 1.7 and I use them as if they are primes, IMO they are that good...they were used on the first 2 Bourne movies and yes you are right....the camera is unrecognizable from shooting with native glass...this is why the IQ discussions of cameras are so tiresome and why I collect lenses instead of cameras....IMO that's where the true image magic lies!
 
FWIW the buyer of my Zeiss Contax prime lens set has backed out of the deal. So my entire set is back up for sale. And these lenses look incredible with a SpeedBooster on the GH5.
 
The surprising part was even the Sigma 18-35 - Sigma, zoom! - renders a more impressive image than the Voigtlander primes. And I've always really liked those voigts. Which is why I've gotten curious as to if there's something just to the larger glass in general, even sans Zeiss quality. I mean, the m43 Voigtlander cost me more than the APS-C Sigma zoom.

Shirozina mentioned CA and distortion correction but I am referring strictly to native but non electronic glass like the voigts - so this shouldn't be relevant?

I don't have personal experience with the veydras unfortunately.

McGee - I've been shopping Leica Rs, in fact... but probably not until next year. Darn $$$.

David - PM sent
 
The modern sigmas are Zeiss like in their rendering it’s the microcontrast that makes the in focus parts of the Image „pop out“ of the OOF background

filmguy123 said:
The surprising part was even the Sigma 18-35 - Sigma, zoom! - renders a more impressive image than the Voigtlander primes. And I've always really liked those voigts. Which is why I've gotten curious as to if there's something just to the larger glass in general, even sans Zeiss quality. I mean, the m43 Voigtlander cost me more than the APS-C Sigma zoom.

Shirozina mentioned CA and distortion correction but I am referring strictly to native but non electronic glass like the voigts - so this shouldn't be relevant?

I don't have personal experience with the veydras unfortunately.

McGee - I've been shopping Leica Rs, in fact... but probably not until next year. Darn $$$.

David - PM sent
Click to expand...
 
filmguy123 said:
The surprising part was even the Sigma 18-35 - Sigma, zoom! - renders a more impressive image than the Voigtlander primes. And I've always really liked those voigts. Which is why I've gotten curious as to if there's something just to the larger glass in general, even sans Zeiss quality. I mean, the m43 Voigtlander cost me more than the APS-C Sigma zoom.

Shirozina mentioned CA and distortion correction but I am referring strictly to native but non electronic glass like the voigts - so this shouldn't be relevant?

I don't have personal experience with the veydras unfortunately.

McGee - I've been shopping Leica Rs, in fact... but probably not until next year. Darn $$$.

David - PM sent
Click to expand...

The Sigmas are a freak of nature and look much better than they should for the price. Not only is it rare to have a f1.8 zoom but it’s rare for a zoom to look exceptionally good wide open.

There is a darn good reason why everybody and their brother, sister and dog own a Sigma. Well except for me. I don’t think it’s just because of the low light either. They are just that good of glass. Well worth every single penny if one is ok with a very limited zoom range. And yes it is even better than some primes.

Keep in mind the Sigma is not even a FF lens.
 
Yeah the 18-35 punches way above it's weight class and has been an exceptional purchase. Honestly if I had to go back to Papau New Guinea for island hopping i could get by extremely well with a GH5, Speedbooster, Sigma 18-35, 4 batteries, 2 dual USB chargers, zeiss wipes, GH5 audio unit, small mic, and a few little odds and ends. All in a shoulder camera bag like the ThinkTank Spectral.

The point is, the sigma essentially replaces the Voigt 10.5, 17.5, 25 primes on a GH5 which are the workhorse. It's just crazy to think wit skill, you could get extremely high quality video results that no one would EVER guess fit into a shoulder sling bag.
 
filmguy123 said:
So I have an EVA1, GH5, GH5s. About a dozen m43 native lenses, my favorites being the Voigtlander manual non-electronic set. I've got a Sigma 18-35 that I'll use speedbooster onto the GH5s for lowlight stuff. On the EVA1 live the Zeiss Milvus, and Sigma when needed.

Until today.

When I thought, I'm just curious, I should play around today and shoot this whole event on a GH5 and Zeiss Milvus with the speedbooster.

HOLY COW.

This wasn't even a "good looking" event, it was sort of ugly and poorly lit and challenging on the fly b-roll stuff. The Milvus is next level on the GH5. It doesn't even look like a GH5. It looks "bigger". Richer. Smoother. Cleaner. Less sharp. Larger sensor. Whatever. It just looks a lot better.

I also tried out the Sigma, since I had only used it on GH5s in lowlight scenarios which don't really show it off. Not "Milvus level" but still - Much better / cleaner overall than any of the native stuff, including voigtlanders.

Now don't get me wrong, I love my voigts. And I don't just have voigts - I've got some nice glass in the nocitron 42.5, Olympus 75, Leica 50-200, Lumix 12-35, and others.

But none of them compare to the look of the Milvus on the GH5 which really just impressed me. It transformed the look of the camera. But then, the Sigma looked fantastic too.

So here's my big question: WHY?

I know they are great glass. But so are the Voigtlanders and the Nocitron 42.5, but they don't give this sort of smooth detail rendering. I posted a thread here perhaps last year asking about m43 glass and if it was as good as FF, just covering a smaller circle. The answer seemed to be "yup!" and if all else was equal some of that native m43 glass is true classics, etc.

But to my eye, what I saw today told a different story. My beloved Voigt 17.5 and 25 paled next to the Milvus 25mm f/1.4 on a speedbooster. I know it costs more, but it's also a giant metalic weather sealed lens covering a FF circle with the Zeiss name. Even the Sigma outperformed.

Is there something about "more" glass and these larger lenses that transform the way the light and image is rendered? Do bigger (and quality) FF lenses create better images if all else is equal?
Click to expand...

Could you post a few screenshots comparing the Milvus to other lenses, so we can see what your words are referring to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top