GH4 Rather disappointed with the detail

14-140mm II is very sharp lens for a "super zoom". It has still bad OIS jittering when shooting video hand held. It has also much diffraction softness with small apertures.
 
I watched your video in 4K on my 4K monitor. They look sharp to me. The 14-140 is a good all around lens with it's focal range. But if you want to step up the game, get a 12-35, 35-100 and the 100-400. Also, sit back off your monitor. Watch your stuff like you would watch TV and stop getting nose grease on your monitor.
 
dustylense said:
I watched your video in 4K on my 4K monitor. They look sharp to me. The 14-140 is a good all around lens with it's focal range. But if you want to step up the game, get a 12-35, 35-100 and the 100-400. Also, sit back off your monitor. Watch your stuff like you would watch TV and stop getting nose grease on your monitor.
Click to expand...
Well i have been watching my 4K films on my tv for 2 years sitting back like i WATCH TV,my video looks sharp of course,but i started this thread saying i was surprised my FZ1000 is sharper than the GH4 with the 14-140mm lens,i have a 45-200mm now but not tested it yet and a 100-4000mm on order,12-35 and 35-100mm are not needed for for what i film mostly.
 
I don't know that I would call the 14-140mm a particularly sharp lens. But, I do think it has what I would call, a "modern look". I have used it in sort of low budget run-n-gun exterior situations with good results. And many times I will use a Hollywood Blackmagic 1/8 filter on it to try and match the look of my old Zeiss lenses. All in all it's a pretty useful lens in certain situations. I will say that it's my only native M4/3 lens, which came with my original GH1 kit.
 
flinty said:
Well i have been watching my 4K films on my tv for 2 years sitting back like i WATCH TV,my video looks sharp of course,but i started this thread saying i was surprised my FZ1000 is sharper than the GH4 with the 14-140mm lens,i have a 45-200mm now but not tested it yet and a 100-4000mm on order,12-35 and 35-100mm are not needed for for what i film mostly.
Click to expand...

I understand what you say, however I feel you are "fixating" on the way the FZ1000 footage looks compared to the GH4 with the 14-140mm lens. It is not necessarily "sharper" but probably appears that way due to a combonation of the Leica DC Vario-Elmarit 16x Zoom Lens, enhanced contrast in the camera's processing chip, and a degree of oversharpening. The latter two characteristics are often commonly found on smaller chip cameras.

I had to deal with somewhat the same thing on the Canon HF100 which was a great compact AVCHD camcorder when it hit the market. Pulling back the sharpness and contrast brought the image more in line with the narrative cinematic look I was striving for.

I have always been a "sharpness nut" so to some extent I appreciate the look you get with the FZ1000 (and for that reason I have gone for mostly "native" m4/3 lenses, but the GH4 profile I use most is NATURAL so as not to accentuate contrast and sharpness. On closer examination of your FZ1000 footage I percieve (and perception is a subjective thing) what looks to me like an artificiality due to perhaps too much sharpness and contrast. But for wildlife work in some softer lighting conditions that may be what you want.

I wouldn't necessarily look for the 45-200mm lens to dramatically outperform the 14-140. Some folks have issues with detail and focus on the 200mm end, I don't but when I pick up mine I need the 200mm reach and am aware of the "issues" and carefully try to work around them. For your purposes, the 100-400 should work well for you but I would test out the Cinelike V profile (for it's increased contrast) with it.

Here is a short on hummingbirds I shot with the GH4, the long end of the 45-200, and NATURAL profile (edited in Cinema 4k and rendered to 1080p): https://vimeo.com/98865311
 
Bruce Foreman said:
I understand what you say, however I feel you are "fixating" on the way the FZ1000 footage looks compared to the GH4 with the 14-140mm lens. It is not necessarily "sharper" but probably appears that way due to a combonation of the Leica DC Vario-Elmarit 16x Zoom Lens, enhanced contrast in the camera's processing chip, and a degree of oversharpening. The latter two characteristics are often commonly found on smaller chip cameras.

I had to deal with somewhat the same thing on the Canon HF100 which was a great compact AVCHD camcorder when it hit the market. Pulling back the sharpness and contrast brought the image more in line with the narrative cinematic look I was striving for.

I have always been a "sharpness nut" so to some extent I appreciate the look you get with the FZ1000 (and for that reason I have gone for mostly "native" m4/3 lenses, but the GH4 profile I use most is NATURAL so as not to accentuate contrast and sharpness. On closer examination of your FZ1000 footage I percieve (and perception is a subjective thing) what looks to me like an artificiality due to perhaps too much sharpness and contrast. But for wildlife work in some softer lighting conditions that may be what you want.

I wouldn't necessarily look for the 45-200mm lens to dramatically outperform the 14-140. Some folks have issues with detail and focus on the 200mm end, I don't but when I pick up mine I need the 200mm reach and am aware of the "issues" and carefully try to work around them. For your purposes, the 100-400 should work well for you but I would test out the Cinelike V profile (for it's increased contrast) with it.

Here is a short on hummingbirds I shot with the GH4, the long end of the 45-200, and NATURAL profile (edited in Cinema 4k and rendered to 1080p): https://vimeo.com/98865311
Click to expand...

Nice film Bruce,and thanks for the comments.One thing i must say is the purpose of this thread was just my personal surprise that the FZ1000 resolved more detail than the newly purchased GH4 with its kit 14-140 lens,i think i am going to like this camera snd perhaps i should have named this thread [a little surprised the GH4 shows less detail than my FZ1000],the reason i bought it first most is to get the best pull in close ups from long distance and why i am waiting for the 100-400mm,as far as videoing goes i think i will have the same problems as i do with the FZ1000 and more so in them being ok filming a subject not moving much but when panning and zooming are needed and zooming is best avoided while filming but not always possible only a camcorder like the HC-X1000 realy cope,i new this but there are plenty of occasions filming where zooming and panning are not required and i hope the 920mm equivalent with the new lens [if we ever get them here] will give closeness and quality that the HC-X1000 cant.This is a basic edit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxDc1JgThs4 this post crpped https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxDc1JgThs4 hopfully the GH4 with the new long lens wont need cropping.Chris
 
Last edited:
flinty said:
...the purpose of this thread was just my personal surprise that the FZ1000 resolved more detail than the newly purchased GH4 with its kit 14-140 lens...
Click to expand...

In your Youtube example the GH4 resolves as much and even more detail than the FZ1000.
 
Yeah, like others mentioned already, FZ1000 is not sharper, it's just digitally oversharpened with more in camera contrast. Plus smaller sensor increases DOF thus possibly making the whole shot look 'sharper'.
 
Vesku said:
In your Youtube example the GH4 resolves as much and even more detail than the FZ1000.
Click to expand...

As i have said l am fairly sure i am going to like my GH4 a lot and the i only said i was surprised my FZ1000 shows more detail resolution,i dont know how you watch the youtube film but on a good tv or monitor the FZ1000 shows a little more detail,look at the railings.
 
Are we still going back and forth on this?

Flinty many of us have already told you the settings on the two cameras are not a direct match. Your YouTube video is one heck of an apples vs oranges situation and in no way can it be used to judge the overall detail capabilities of one camera over the other. Please shoot a new test and attempt to match the settings to really see what each camera is capable of. This is really like comparing a fresh McDonalds hamburger to a moldy Filet Mignon and saying the McDonalds burger is a better quality meat. You have to level the playing field and experience both at equal "freshness" to see which one really resolves more detail to taste.

Both fences have the same amount of detail but the posts "pop" more because of the massively increased contrast. Please read this article on the difference between resolution and acutance. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sharpness.htm In the example of the man you can see how a high acutance can make the image punch a lot more and give the illusion or sharper details. It's all an illusion at the end of the day. Your FZ1000 clip shows a massive amount of edge sharpening to the point of making my eyes hurt. This makes the posts in the fence very black and jump out more but it's very unnatural looking. Increase the GH4 to +5 sharpness and you will likely get a much closer match between the two cameras. Without matching the contrast however the two will never look as sharp to the naked eye. You really need to balance out the sharpness and contrast and then compare what each camera is capable of. The FZ1000 is not any sharper but it fakes the acutance to make it appear sharper and more punchy. It's all an illusion of detail and nothing more.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Are we still going back and forth on this?

Flinty many of us have already told you the settings on the two cameras are not a direct match. Your YouTube video is one heck of an apples vs oranges situation and in no way can it be used to judge the overall detail capabilities of one camera over the other. Please shoot a new test and attempt to match the settings to really see what each camera is capable of. This is really like comparing a fresh McDonalds hamburger to a moldy Filet Mignon and saying the McDonalds burger is a better quality meat. You have to level the playing field and experience both at equal "freshness" to see which one really resolves more detail to taste.

Both fences have the same amount of detail but the posts "pop" more because of the massively increased contrast. Please read this article on the difference between resolution and acutance. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sharpness.htm In the example of the man you can see how a high acutance can make the image punch a lot more and give the illusion or sharper details. It's all an illusion at the end of the day. Your FZ1000 clip shows a massive amount of edge sharpening to the point of making my eyes hurt. This makes the posts in the fence very black and jump out more but it's very unnatural looking. Increase the GH4 to +5 sharpness and you will likely get a much closer match between the two cameras. Without matching the contrast however the two will never look as sharp to the naked eye. You really need to balance out the sharpness and contrast and then compare what each camera is capable of. The FZ1000 is not any sharper but it fakes the acutance to make it appear sharper and more punchy. It's all an illusion of detail and nothing more.
Click to expand...
FZ1000 clip shows a massive amount of edge sharpening to the point of making my eyes hurt,thats over the top and silly,when will you GH4 lovers [of which i hope to be] get the point that i like my GH,what i wont have is you knocking a camera [FZ1000]that takes great video,as for increasing my GH4s sharpness to +5 how can having 1 camera +5 and the other -5 be a true test and i am not that worried about detail difference,what i am more worried about is if the 100-400mm lens is going to get to the uk for sale.
 
Murph100 said:
Its not the GH4 thats lacking resolution, its the 14-140, its a pretty soft lens. I couldn't believe the difference the Sigma Art 18-35 made in terms of resolution, night and day !
Click to expand...

i'm using the G7 with the 14-42 kit lens and a Canon 70-200 f4L IS. When focused and shot properly both lenses produce amazing detail and resolution, however if you screw up watch out. Almost everything I've shot is tack sharp, shooting mostly auto focus with the kit lens and manually with the Canon, but lately I got a few dogs, very soft shots with both lenses. Why? Not the camera, sensor, codec, or lens. Human error.
 
Last edited:
Flinty. If you want the same look turn up gh4 sharpness and contrast.
fz1000 looks digitally sharpened even after you turned it all the way down.
if that's what you are looking for and want the same look on the gh4 that is how you replicate it. Hope that helps.
ive had the 14-140mm before. It is sharp enough for shots like these. From what I remember around f8 you should be good if all you want is sharpness and in focus.

enjoy!
 
Well sorry to say with the 100-400 lens this camera is a big let down ,poor stills and video let down by the poor AF and lack of detail past half way point in the zoom.
 
flinty said:
Well sorry to say with the 100-400 lens this camera is a big let down ,poor stills and video let down by the poor AF and lack of detail past half way point in the zoom.
Click to expand...

Were you trying to handhold or were you working on a SOLID tripod?

Halfway through the zoom (around the midpoint) would be the 200mm position. That's the equivalent of 400mm on full frame (more in video due to the extra crop on the GH4 in 4K). Many of us cannot handhold reliably still at that kind of focal length. As you get more towards the 400mm end (800mm equiv) almost everything gets more critical. Autofocus has trouble finding enough detail/contrast to lock onto and it just gets harder to get sharp results.

This is typical of many telephoto zooms. I even run into some of this with my Lumix 45-200mm zoom if I try to handhold. On a "rock steady" SOLID tripod things get better. Remember the 1/focal length rule? Were you using really fast shutter speeds? If at the midpoint you weren't using 1/500th to 1/750th that could have contributed to "soft" results.

It's not the camera and lens combo. It's usually "us", we just can't count on the gear to work wonders.
 
Bruce Foreman said:
Were you trying to handhold or were you working on a SOLID tripod?

Halfway through the zoom (around the midpoint) would be the 200mm position. That's the equivalent of 400mm on full frame (more in video due to the extra crop on the GH4 in 4K). Many of us cannot handhold reliably still at that kind of focal length. As you get more towards the 400mm end (800mm equiv) almost everything gets more critical. Autofocus has trouble finding enough detail/contrast to lock onto and it just gets harder to get sharp results.

This is typical of many telephoto zooms. I even run into some of this with my Lumix 45-200mm zoom if I try to handhold. On a "rock steady" SOLID tripod things get better. Remember the 1/focal length rule? Were you using really fast shutter speeds? If at the midpoint you weren't using 1/500th to 1/750th that could have contributed to "soft" results.

It's not the camera and lens combo. It's usually "us", we just can't count on the gear to work wonders.
Click to expand...

? Bruce not sure what your referring to or what you meen by hand holding i have not put any video on here with the 1000-400mm lens except the hand made test chart on another page,i always use my Mller tripod for wildlife which is all i use the 100-400 lens for,in a nutshell i was hoping for as good or hopefully better video results than my HX-X1000 gives with the advantage of good stills but its not happening yet this youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qgVAnZIYC0 film looks virtualy as good playing on my 4K tv as the origional film,perhaps i epect too much.
 
flinty said:
? Bruce not sure what your referring to or what you meen by hand holding
Click to expand...

Filming with camera held in hands, not mounted on tripod or stabilizing support. Was trying to find out your shooting situation.


flinty said:
i always use my Mller tripod for wildlife which is all i use the 100-400 lens for,in a nutshell i was hoping for as good or hopefully better video results than my HX-X1000 gives with the advantage of good stills but its not happening yet this youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qgVAnZIYC0 film looks virtualy as good playing on my 4K tv as the origional film,perhaps i epect too much.
Click to expand...

If this was shot with your GH4 and the 100-400mm I think you have a good lens. Some of the footage shows some atmospheric haze (looks like around 300-400mm zoom footage - 600-800mm equiv) which would interfere with some detail rendition. Some slow autofocus, typical of most long zooms, and in some footage focus point hitting on grass detail closer to camera than the deer were.

I wouldn't say you're expecting too much, if the rendition of the FZ1000 suits your preference better, the choice is yours. All in all my take is you have some nice footage there. I would edit out the "soft" focus transitions, and if your editing software allows a bit of sharpening or unsharp mask try that on some of lower contrast (due to distance, long zoom focal length, and some atmospheric haze) but keep it at a minimum. I think most of what you have misgivings about is still due to long zoom/telephoto characteristics of interchangeable lenses and sensor size.

I'd be quite happy with what you got on the youtube video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top