Your post seems rather pointless unless your aim was to start an argument. I've had no issue with getting shallow depth of field with my 4/3 cameras and wider lenses has solved almost all FOV issues.
Last edited:
GH2 Philip Bloom Christmas Shootout
- Thread starter Boon
- Start date
Your post seems rather pointless unless your aim was to start an argument. I've had no issue with getting shallow depth of field with my 4/3 cameras and wider lenses has solved almost all FOV issues.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Please read this article on the myth of Canon depth of field vs GH2.
http://www.eoshd.com/content/4279/how-the-gh2-is-still-top-dog-for-video-quality
At least something came of it.
I am a little lost on Andrews calculation of 7mm's off, though. It's not an equal calculation of 1.86x in video mode that we got with the GH1 a while back.
He's saying that a 7mm would become a 14mm, which is around 1.86x, but a 32 becomes a 39. Maybe I've been calculating the FOV all wrong and not comparing enough.
Last edited:
Yeah, it's not a blanket 7mm off.
I use Abel Cine's FOV calculator and that shows a 1.4x crop factor when compared to S35 film at 16x9. Compared to Red it's 1.3x for the Red One/Scarlet and 1.5x for the Epic, also 1.3x for F3, F35, and 1.4x compared to Alexa. A lot of people compare 4/3 to FF (that's where the 2x crop factor came from when compared to the 5D), which is wrong because typically movies are not shot FF. Really, the crop factor isn't that bad.
http://www.abelcine.com/fov/
I use Abel Cine's FOV calculator and that shows a 1.4x crop factor when compared to S35 film at 16x9. Compared to Red it's 1.3x for the Red One/Scarlet and 1.5x for the Epic, also 1.3x for F3, F35, and 1.4x compared to Alexa. A lot of people compare 4/3 to FF (that's where the 2x crop factor came from when compared to the 5D), which is wrong because typically movies are not shot FF. Really, the crop factor isn't that bad.
http://www.abelcine.com/fov/
GH2's not up there, though. I wish we knew EXACTLY what the dimensions of a GH2 non ETC mode and ETC mode recorded frame was. That would help a TON in calculating the FOV to specifics.
simonpwood
Well-known member
Wow. That article really shows the extent of the crop factor on the GH2. I'll have to get some seriously wide and seriously fast lenses if I ever get one. The guy who wrote that article really loves his camera though; almost to the point of seeking validation.
BTW - like I say I like all of these cameras, including the GH2. There is no denying that the GH2 cameras resolution trumps the other Canons, and seems to be punching way above its weight with the large sensor video cameras.
However, looking at videos online you get a sense that shallow DOF is harder to attain, and the colors and the overall 'look' doesn't have the same 'mojo' as the canons.
Now maybe the DOF thing is simply that people have moved past it, or maybe that they simply don't have the choice of lenses for the M4/3.
The fact is that I thought long and hard about getting GH2, but eventually settled on a Canon. The main reason being that I have a collection of lenses that would work better with the more standard sized Canon sensor, but would be unacceptable cropped with the M4/3.
That said there seems to be more and more lenses available for the M4/3 format, but I imagine that a number of people would be reticent to invest in glass for a niche sensor size that is not supported by the majority of manufacturers.
Anyway, fun test, look forward to seeing more.
Use AF100. They both are m4/3.
In that article it's being compared to the 5D, which is a full frame sensor. For video, you don't want to compare to full frame. For stills, full frame is okay to compare, but not for video. Try the Abel Cine calculator linked to in a few posts back.
This is true. I struggle with it as well.
Arbitrary. Everything can be run through post. If I added a five pixel blur radius to GH2 footage and graded it, I bet you couldn't tel it from Canon footage, which can't touch Nikon for color representation to begin with.
Or maybe some people think it's not important in comparison to overall image clarity? DOF versus resolved Detail. I guess it's a choice, right? The good thing is that you actually can compose more than adequately with a GH2, as long as you have the glass to do so. You will never be able to find anymore clarity in a camera that doesn't resolve it to begin with.
But, of course, everyone should always make choices based on what they feel they need to be comfortable.
For some the dreamy low resolution but "shot wide open" look of Canons.
For others, the hyper resolute, slightly claustrophobic look of a GH2.
What will always remain a fact is garbage in, garbage out.
We do own a 5D, by the way.
This is starting to get way off topic, but still have to chime in. Voigtlander 25mm 0.95 on mft equals about 50mm f2 on FF sensor, which is very shallow dof in my opinion. Canon aps-c folks can use sigma 30mm f1.4 for similar fov and dof. But then again, voigt 25mm has silky smooth and long focus throw with zero breathing. Very nice lens for moving pictures. There is also that 12mm f1.4, t1.6 lens hitting markets soon. 24mm f2.8 in FF terms. You can't get that with aps-c without zeiss cine master primes. There are plenty fast lenses above 35mm, so no problems with micro four thirds here.
simonpwood
Well-known member
Sure. But the point is that the camera itself in the long run is the cheapest part of the equation, and will be obsolete in a few years. Not so with lenses. I have an old Rebel camera that is junk today, but the lenses will work with the modern Rebels. Likewise, I have some vintage nikons, I bought a couple from a guy who had used them on a 35mm adapter in the medieval age, and then used them on a Canon DSLR, and a Red One. They can also be used on the current crop of S35 cameras like the F3 and C300 (and presumably on the Epic, Alexa etc)? The same could not be said of M3/4 lenses.
So, if you start investing in expensive M3/4 Glass for the GH2 are you assured of those lenses being future proofed?
Like I say, no one is disputing the resolution of the GH2; its amazing. If they had that kind of power in a APS sized sensor the GH2 would be hands down the winner. The sensor size is the elephant in the room that GH2 owners seem to be avoiding, but not because of the size per se, but more to do with the investment in lenses that you will have to gamble with to get the most out of it (at least in the wider end).
So, if you start investing in expensive M3/4 Glass for the GH2 are you assured of those lenses being future proofed?
Like I say, no one is disputing the resolution of the GH2; its amazing. If they had that kind of power in a APS sized sensor the GH2 would be hands down the winner. The sensor size is the elephant in the room that GH2 owners seem to be avoiding, but not because of the size per se, but more to do with the investment in lenses that you will have to gamble with to get the most out of it (at least in the wider end).
I recently purchased a couple of GH2's after using the 5D Mark III for 3 years. I own 35 lenses as well as 3 anamorphics. I think there is a very filmlike quality to the GH2 (hacked) and as a mod on another forum it is the only camera I am currently recommending until Canon steps up to the plate. Like many people here I am tired of the slow, completely opaque response of Canon to the 5D crowd. The GH2 makes sense during the interim period before the arrival of the next generation and continues to evolve. What the GH2 has going for it beside the camera itself is also a thriving community, a great hack and a lack of certain typical Canon artifacts. We all know what they are. It looks great in many, many situations.
Having used the Gh2 for now however, I can say wholeheartedly that there is more than one elephant in the room. Fast, quality, wide angle lenses for this camera are rare in anything but world class PL flavors. Yes, there are a handful, but nothing like what is available for 5D users. It can be a problem sometimes, but there are solutions. I do wish that more of them were available and faster, so that I could at least have the CHOICE of narrow DOF in certain situations, but so be it.
However, there are two other elephants that I definitely see over and over again: noise in flat grey areas (especially in the shadows) - even at low ISO's. This is very strange but far more prevalent than people would like to admit. They prefer to call it "organic looking grain". The other one is very obviously - banding. I tremble when I see skies today, because I know I may be spending some serious time with the Sapphire Debanding plug-in later.
Someone listed the pros and cons of the GH2 the other day and talked about how they really weren't an issue with his workarounds. I am totally amazed that he forgot to mention these two last bugaboos. I am certain too that the size of the sensor has a part in it. A larger sensor would clearly compensate for them, though they might still be present, just less noticeable.
I think the GH2 is a great camera and holds up very well in the under 10K market. I have worked with some of it's bigger siblings and I can say though, that it does not really compare to a quality output from an Epic or the SLog of the F3, nor do I expect it to. I prefer to keep things in perspective.
I would prefer not going into a time consuming and defensive debate, being asked to provide lots of references and explaining my workflow, the patches I am using (Seaquake just so you know), etc.
I am just sharing my observations. Take it for whatever it's worth.
Having used the Gh2 for now however, I can say wholeheartedly that there is more than one elephant in the room. Fast, quality, wide angle lenses for this camera are rare in anything but world class PL flavors. Yes, there are a handful, but nothing like what is available for 5D users. It can be a problem sometimes, but there are solutions. I do wish that more of them were available and faster, so that I could at least have the CHOICE of narrow DOF in certain situations, but so be it.
However, there are two other elephants that I definitely see over and over again: noise in flat grey areas (especially in the shadows) - even at low ISO's. This is very strange but far more prevalent than people would like to admit. They prefer to call it "organic looking grain". The other one is very obviously - banding. I tremble when I see skies today, because I know I may be spending some serious time with the Sapphire Debanding plug-in later.
Someone listed the pros and cons of the GH2 the other day and talked about how they really weren't an issue with his workarounds. I am totally amazed that he forgot to mention these two last bugaboos. I am certain too that the size of the sensor has a part in it. A larger sensor would clearly compensate for them, though they might still be present, just less noticeable.
I think the GH2 is a great camera and holds up very well in the under 10K market. I have worked with some of it's bigger siblings and I can say though, that it does not really compare to a quality output from an Epic or the SLog of the F3, nor do I expect it to. I prefer to keep things in perspective.
I would prefer not going into a time consuming and defensive debate, being asked to provide lots of references and explaining my workflow, the patches I am using (Seaquake just so you know), etc.
I am just sharing my observations. Take it for whatever it's worth.
Last edited:
Again, you're comparing the GH2 to full frame, which makes the crop look worse than it actually is. Movies are not shot with full frame. If they were then you'd have to use a crop factor on all cameras besides the 5D, such as 1.4x on Super 35 film, 1.5x on the Alexa, F3, F35, FS100, 1.6x on the Red One and Scarlet, 1.4x on the Epic, and 2.1 on the AF100 and GH2. Looking at all those, yes the AF100 and GH2 have the most crop, but it's not that bad knowing they all have at least a 1.4x crop. The 5D is the exception, not the rule. We're talking about video here, so you start with Super 35 as the standard, as it's been for years.
Last edited:
I agree with you. As great of a lens the Voightlander 25mm f0.95 lens is (I own one) and as much as I'd like to have the Olympus 12mm f2 lens to get a wider FOV with my AF100 and GH2, I'm not sure investing in m4/3 glass is the right move for me personally, namely because what I really want is a Scarlet and you can't get m4/3 glass to work on a Scarlet. As far as future-proofing your lens set, it might be best to go with Nikon mount or PL mount. You can mount PL lenses to just about anything with an adapter (and maybe modification) and put Nikon glass on Canon and Sony E mounts. But you can't mount a Canon lens on a Nikon mount.
Last edited:
simonpwood
Well-known member
Yeah but that would be a compromise. No one is going to go out and buy a Scarlet, and then decide to buy an expensive M4/3 mount lens to use with it.
To put it into context: answer these 2 questions:
1) Do you see people requesting Canon to build a 4/3 sized camera?
2) Do you see people requesting Panasonic to build a APS sized camera?
So; where is the demand at? And which of the 2 scenarios is most likely to happen at some point in the future?
To put it into context: answer these 2 questions:
1) Do you see people requesting Canon to build a 4/3 sized camera?
2) Do you see people requesting Panasonic to build a APS sized camera?
So; where is the demand at? And which of the 2 scenarios is most likely to happen at some point in the future?
There is no mount for this, and you would not get electronic lens controls. Red is supporting full electronic lens controls for Canon L and Nikon.
I really prefer fully manual lenses and will use mostly PL or C-mount glass on a GH2. It is this easy adaptability that makes the GH2 a practical low cost option for me.
I will probably get the 14-140 Kit lens, but won't invest in 4/3 glass for the most part. Probably look for a PL solution for wide and fast.
Lenses are not investments for me, lenses are tools. If I would switch from micro four thirds, I would sell my lenses and buy more appropriate set for new system. Yes, 35mm PL-mount true cinema primes are future proof, produce beautiful images, fit cameras with zero wobble and are mechanically superior, but a set costs at least 15k and weight 1 kg per lens. Regarding the debate about 'crop factors' I see it like this: There are no wrong or correct crop factors, just different preferences to talk about field of view and depth of field. I have a background in still photography, been shooting since 2006 with a 5d and later with a d700, so FF 35mm is just the way I visualize fov and dof.
Last edited:
Ian-T
Veteran
As we've recently found out (thanks Kholi) you can kill one of those elephants by using NDs and shooting @ ISO 320 and above.
Sage
Well-known member
Just avoid 160, whatever ya do:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?270722-Iso-160
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?270722-Iso-160