GH4 Shane Hurlbut Checks Out Panasonic Glass on a GH4

Kit said:
Interesting i thought he disliked the GH4
Click to expand...

Yeah, I remember reading that last year. I guess Shane can change his mind.

I noticed that the 42.5mm f/1.2 lens test shows reflective lighting glare from the color swatch target in all shots except for the f/11.0 shot, where it looks like it was repositioned (upside down) to point a little down and not reflect glare.
 
Last edited:
Why are the images so muddy?
The image scale is like 1024x576.

Edit: I guess besides the picture size being smaller than original the muddy-ness comes from the fact that he shoots iso800?

Another Edit:
After the 15mm there is a quote: "It is not always best to shoot wide open on a lens just because you can."

And down below he mocks the 25mm performance at wide open:" But now look at f1.4. The lens again completely falls apart. You noticed in the wide, but wow, in the medium, it is really noticeable. Contrast to mush times ten. HA HA!!! Not shooting this glass wide open unless the story drives me to do the POV of what a drunk or drugged person would see. HA HA!!!!"

Another edit: Oh I just realised he is the guy that Christian Bale yelled at the Terminator set. Small world.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, sometimes when I read/watch one of Shane's tests I'm left feeling a little confused/frustrated. Partly because I can't always see what he sees, but also he can get things wrong and he's a bit aggressive.

For instance, with this test I'm fascinated by the changes in contrast and colour that he has highlighted at different focal lengths. It's informative and interesting. But then he starts talking about the 42.5mm being really mushy at 1.2 and I just don't see it. Softer, yes, but mushy!?

Also... check out the 25mm at 1.4. To my eyes he's just missed focus. The metal knobs on the stand holding the colour chart look more in focus...

As accomplished as he is, and as nice as it is of him to share this stuff for free, when he combines his aggressive stance with these mistakes I start to lose faith in the test.
 
I love that Shane talked about the "Optimum Range of your glass"

This is something I have been exploring a lot more recently and attempting to shoot with my lenses locked into a perfect aperture for optical quality. This isn't an easy thing to do but any time the aperture chnages the look of the lens changes.

Native m43 lenses tend to achieve optical perfection opened up a lot more than FF lenses. This adds an interesting argument to the FF vs m43 low light debate. If one is trying to shoot as a certain level of optical quality m43 lenses can sometimes be opened up 2 or 3 stops more than FF lenses which almost negates any low light advantage the FF sensor has. As Shane points out just because you can open up a lens a lot doesn't always mean you should.

Of course if one uses FF lenses on their m43 cameras this is a moot point but those who do use native m43 lenses add an interesting twist to the low light debate.
 
Try reading it as an overly dramatic English dubbing of Anime/Kung Fu, with the HA HA!s inserted to cover points where the actors' lips are still moving.

I'll say I definitely concur with his thoughts on the PL25's sweet spot. Wide open, it does lose a lot of contrast.

very much looking forward to his take on the Voigts. I'm on the verge of springing for the whole rest of the set once the 10.5 is available.
 
DBP said:
His writing style is bizarre for a grown man.
Click to expand...

This is happens when you try to write in a conversational style and forget that you're writing, not talking.

As an aside, writing in a casual manner isn't that easy. You still need to keep to basics in writing while maintaining that informal tone without it being noticeable.
 
mcbob said:
very much looking forward to his take on the Voigts. I'm on the verge of springing for the whole rest of the set once the 10.5 is available.
Click to expand...

Me too, Mcbob. Maybe I'll put up with the "Anime crash zoom HA HAs" to read his verdict. I have a mixture of m43 lenses and Nikon glass, but dream of going Full Voigt.
 
I don't take him seriously anymore. He writes how good Canon is, best cameras and everything. Canon logos and camera reviews on his website. Now he tweets that Canon doesn't listen to nobody, that C500 isn't a cinema camera (https://twitter.com/hurlbutvisuals/status/554671155651436545). Couple of days later he is wearing a Blackmagic design shirts and promoting their products. And again there are Blackmagic adds and camera reviews on his website. And I haven't seen a bigger Sony hater than him. So many bad comments from him.
Just like about the GH4. He hated it and now he's writing how cinematic and nice it is.
He will write everything if you pay him enough I guess.
 
rabbit2 said:
I don't take him seriously anymore. He writes how good Canon is, best cameras and everything. Canon logos and camera reviews on his website. Now he tweets that Canon doesn't listen to nobody, that C500 isn't a cinema camera (https://twitter.com/hurlbutvisuals/status/554671155651436545). Couple of days later he is wearing a Blackmagic design shirts and promoting their products. And again there are Blackmagic adds and camera reviews on his website. And I haven't seen a bigger Sony hater than him. So many bad comments from him.
Just like about the GH4. He hated it and now he's writing how cinematic and nice it is.
He will write everything if you pay him enough I guess.
Click to expand...

This is a pretty harsh statement and one without any fact or evidence. Shane seems like a pretty subjective person who looks at a certain set of quality indicators to determine if a camera fits his very important needs or not. The fact that he can criticize a camera on what it produces and not just because of the name shows this. Just because Canon made the C500 doesn't mean it is an automatic hit with everybody. Shane clearly sees images in a different way than other people do and for whatever reason certain cameras don't fit into that perception for him. Nothing wrong with that at all and is a sign of a true professional. You should use the tool that best fits the job and not just because of who makes it or the name. Too many Canon users fall into this camp and don't even know why they love Canon so much.

This is a curse of the indie crowd however. They never want to take the advice or tutelage of the pros in the industry. Everybody thinks they always know best and can buck the system. I guess this is the nature of an independent thinker. As an artist myself I have been there before and felt the same way. At a certain point however I started to really listen to the people out there making the big bucks and who have created art for many years.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Shane seems like a pretty subjective person who looks at a certain set of quality indicators to determine if a camera fits his very important needs or not.
Click to expand...

+1

I don't always agree with Shane's comments, but at least he is making an effort to connect to the film-making community.
 
I like Shane's posts and joined his inner circle, but I am perpetually confused by his Lumix tests. Of course lenses are softer wider open and there is an optimum range of stops to use them. That said if you download the stills, there is simply no way the jump is as drastic as he is illustrating it to be. As someone above says, the only explanation for the F1.2 stills is that he missed focus. ALL the stills are compressed into oblivion and horrible looking, but the jump in quality between Fstops is just ridiculous. Shooting a Panasonic Leica lens at F1.2 isn't like someone smeared vasoline over the lens...it just isn't. I'm not sure what is going on. There doesn't seem to be any malice in it, just bizarre conclusions, and bizarre stills to post.
 
I can definitely see a loss of contrast in PanaLeica lenses wide open (I own the 25), so I'm not arguing him on that... it's mostly a style thing, in that every bit of writing and interview I've heard of him, he's very... "enthusiastic." Not a bad thing.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Just because Canon made the C500 doesn't mean it is an automatic hit with everybody. Shane clearly sees images in a different way than other people do and for whatever reason certain cameras don't fit into that perception for him.
Click to expand...

If that were true people wouldn't be skeptical. What has happened is that the C500 went from the best cinema camera Shane has used and the one he was pushing everywhere as the most cinematic images out there etc to now he is saying its like a DSLR and acting like it was unfit for production. During NFS he was still pushing the C500 hard to people as the best never once talking about any issues. I stood in front of him once as he ranted about Red being crap etc when he was pushing Canon products at a lecture and now Red is his fav camera and Canon isn't fit for pro shoots. Can you see how one might draw conclusions about an endorsement deal ending or one being picked up? I personally don't care as I take any product talk with a grain of salt. Everyone is selling something and more power too them.

I love what Shane does and the knowledge he shares. I attended the Illumination tour and loved every second of it. I'm also a member of the inner circle but I won't criticize those who feel some opinions might be based on sponsorship deals. This is not a court of law. Opinions are formed on perception not fact. Maybe its just the downfall of getting over excited about a product. Who knows.
 
I looked through his test vids and ran my own with my 25mm f/1.4 to see. I was quite surprised that the images from all three lenses wide open are more pleasant to my eye when looking at that model. The harshness of the skin when closed down is not as appealing to me.

This gives the best of both worlds. The ability to go softer and shallow up close while also having the ability to get super sharp landscape images corner to corner.

If you watch his video's the image differences between apertures is quite apparent. Say what you will, but no one else has run the gamut of tests with proper lighting, a good looking model and then shared with the world.

Cheers,
Pete
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top