Reviewed: Canon 7D vs. Panasonic GH1

Barry,
You mentioned that you are not a great fan of the 50mm ZF. One thing I have noticed in the user reviews on the BH site is that with the new 50m Canon ZE lens a lot of people are saying that you need to stop down to at least f2.8 to get decent sharpness. However I don't notice this same comment on the 50/ZF reviews. You are the first person to mention this. I wondered if there was a difference between the two, it appears not according to your statement. Any further comments?

The other thing I have noticed is that Ken Rockwell implies the Z lenses are just basically rehoused Contax elements. I disagree. I have 4 older primes (three are f1.4). I appreciate the speed and consistency of the look. The C/Y 50mm f1.4 is very sharp wide open. The 35mm f1.4 less so. The new Z 35mm lens is f2.0, but apparently very sharp. While the new Z 50mm apparently not. Things have gotten reversed.

An important point, all T* coatings are not the same. I am certain it has changed. I have a Contax 645 camera and I can tell you that the quality of color seperation blows almost everything away. Leica and Hasselblad included. The first thing that strikes me is that the new Z lenses have a similar quality of color seperation. I strongly suspect that it is a similar formula to the contax 645 lenses. The older 35mm Contax/Yashica T* lenses do not compare.

So while everyone is talking about sharpness, I think the true secret of these newer Zeiss lenses is actually the multi-coatings.
 
Last edited:
The 50/1.4 is not the same as the Contax, and yes it gets breathtakingly sharp if you stop it down to 2.8 or further. I'm just disappointed in how blah it gets at 1.4 or 2.0. But, even so, kept in the context of this article, even at fully wide open it resolves more than enough detail to take full advantage of what a DSLR can handle. You just have to bring the contrast back in post, but the resolved detail is all there.

Because of that, I'm less disappointed with it now. I had considered trading it in on the 50mm/f2 macro, but the simple fact is, that lens is a stop slower, and if you stop down the 1.4 to 2.0, it really closes the performance gap between it and the macro. And if you absolutely NEED 1.4, you can't get it with the macro version, so... yeah, I'm sticking with the 50/1.4.
 
A lot of photographs I see coming from the zeiss 50 1.4 are gorgeous.. and this is at web resolution. So just based off of how the image looks and not how the pixels resolve, since the 7d aint resolving much in terms of photography standards, I don't see how anyone can be dissapointed with this lens for video usage.

I've also read user reviews, not pixel peep reviews, saying that the old contax 50 1.4 is pretty much just as good.. so def a cheaper alternative there.

here's a pixel peep review that compares them. Both resulting in about the same resolution.. the zf handling flare better though.

http://www.slrlensreview.com/web/ca...l-zeiss-planar-t-50mm-f14-zf-lens-review.html
 
Ken Rockwell is pretty much the Chuck Norris of the photography world.

:kali:

LOL

robfilms said:
Barry-

After a quick Google search, I read the following:

"Some years ago Zeiss licensed Kyrocera of Japan to use the name Zeiss on some lenses made for the Contax brand of cameras. Life was good.

Contax went out of business in 2005, ending the need for these lenses. As soon as the agreement expired in 2006, Zeiss looked for something to do with the Japanese manufacturing capacity.

Zeiss decided to put these former Contax mount lenses in Nikon mounts instead, and that's how we get these ZF lenses. These are new lenses made in Nikon mount.

This lens is not made in Germany and it is not made in a Zeiss factory. It is made in Japan by Cosina, the same company that made the cheap FM-10 for Nikon and many other inexpensive lenses and cameras for third-party makers for many decades."

http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/zf50.htm

Thoughts?

Be well

Rob
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Barry, very nice article. I think the sound limitations of these cameras right now would deter me from purchasing. The functionality of having an on-cam mic or direct xlr in is what I've been so used to. Going soundless just seems like such a setback. Is there an easy fix that I'm over-looking?
 
The solution is an external audio recorder, such as the Marantz 661 or Edirol or, on the budget side, the Zoom H4N. $299 gets you an external audio recorder of pretty decent quality, so you go double-system just like we used to in the film days...
 
The ZF.2 is the same glass, but has electrical contacts to allow some automated functions. Obviously those are better, but I think they're about $250/lens more, so I didn't find it worth it. I think the original ZFs will probably be discontinued in favor of the .2s.
 
I've used the 5D and own a GH1(3). I'm curious how image quality compares between the 7D and GH13 now that it's "upgraded".

I'm currently eying the GH2, but want to see what Canon's next offering is as well.

Anyway, great article Barry!
 
blazer003 said:
I've used the 5D and own a GH1(3). I'm curious how image quality compares between the 7D and GH13 now that it's "upgraded".

I'm currently eying the GH2, but want to see what Canon's next offering is as well.

Anyway, great article Barry!
Click to expand...

GH13 has better IQ than the 7D, but still has the same video cam vs digital cinema cam dynamic...however the GH2 is the better camera on both the video and digi cine front...though final image quality remains to be seen.
 
Barry, I think the point of this article should be that both cameras are still cameras with some video capabilities. They can be used in a video production process, but in very, very limited scope. As far as still picture capacity 7D wins hands down. As the matter of fact 7D is approved by Getty Images and Panasonic GH1 is not- for a reason. Interestingly enough Getty accepts pictures from LX3, but not from GH1- go figure.
 
Agreed, they are both stills cameras first and foremost, with video features added on. And the 7D is the superior stills camera. I wouldn't want to use either of them as my primary video camera, but in very limited circumstances they can be quite useful.
 
Also it would be interesting if you compared new 60D with GH1- almost the same price, close on features. After selling my Nikon gear I am dwelling on 7D or 60D> i mostly would use it for stills, but having some cutaways and B-roll footage would be great. And 60D doesn't have auto gain for sound, which makes it much nicer option for video.
 
It would be also useful to compare all cameras in the same conditions. It would be interesting to see how the footage looks when shot at the same time from 7D, T2i, 60D, GH2 and D2, plus some Nikons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top