GH4 Very Disappointed

Kindredmachine said:
Sounds like you just want the looks, not the functions.
Click to expand...

It's the other way around, really. I'm not looking for cinema quality glass here. I'm not terribly worried about chromatic aberration, focus breathing, or consistent colorimetry across a line.

What I do want is an affordable set of proper video lenses. I define a proper "video lens" as:

1. 2.8 or faster as ALL focal lengths
2. Inner focus, inner zoom. No barreling or rotation of the lens housing.
3. A proper, mechanical three ring design for aperture, zoom and focus. (Or two rings for primes.)
4. Constant aperture and parfocal.
5. OIS

The photo Sigma comes very close to that and at a reasonable price. It's missing only items 3 and 5. I would expect 5 to add some price. I'm very hard pressed to believe that 3 will.
 
Jim. It wasn't open for debate. The mechanics costing more to design and mill than using widely manufacturered stills glass was a fact - not an opinion. And why the HELL would you want auto focus or OIS for? You must see how contracting your desires vs your statements are right? Based on what I've heard you have no use for cine glass. I actually think you would be happier with stills glass since it so much more compact and lighter.

What you're calling "cine glass" is clearly not what you think it is nor does it sound like something you could use.
 
For example Jim, if you have auto focus then your focus "ring" is not real; meaning you're not controlling the mechanics which is required for pulling accurate and consistent focus.

You're trying to combine different things into something that doesn't (or shouldn't) exist.
 
If talking about GH4 disappointment the biggest issue for me is the lack of exposure information during video recording. I must usually guess what aperture, shutter and iso the camera is using.
 
Jim Simon said:
What I do want is an affordable set of proper video lenses. I define a proper "video lens" as:

1. 2.8 or faster as ALL focal lengths
2. Inner focus, inner zoom. No barreling or rotation of the lens housing.
3. A proper, mechanical three ring design for aperture, zoom and focus. (Or two rings for primes.)
4. Constant aperture and parfocal.
5. OIS
Click to expand...
There's no MFT-compatible lens I'm aware of that meets all five of your criteria. OIS in particular has always been problematic for video shooting. The only Lumix lens I found entirely suitable was the Leica/Panasonic 14-50mm f2.8-3.5 Four Thirds zoom, and that lens was neither constant aperture nor parfocal. In my experience, there are no truly constant aperture, parfocal Lumix lenses, they all rely on electronic control to remain in focus and simulate a constant f-stop while zooming.
 
Jim, I think 1-3 and part of 4 are all fair enough.

Sure, a parfocal lens would be nice, but with these stills lenses, I don't understand the big deal? Show me some push-ins/pull-outs that were done by hand with stills glass (not with a rocker) that actually look good. Maybe if you're speaking about tiny adjustments then the focus isn't bang on but you should be able to make fine adjustments without bringing attention to it. Or for example, when going from one end of the lens to the other I know I'm going to have to slightly focus x direction to get sharp again - it's not as if once it's out of focus you need to rotate the focus ring back and forth multiple times. I know broadcast guys miss the days of punching in, getting focus then pulling back out but you're going to have to live with excellent tools like peaking. Maybe I'm missing the point but it has never once been a problem for me.

5. OIS - who cares? Make your tiny BMPCC heavier, add something to brace it against your body, breathe differently, shoot slightly wider then give up some resolution when stabilizing in post. The future of stabilization will be in the sensor, not the lenses. This is a good thing because it will help keep stills lenses smaller, and for me, the strength of using DSLRs etc. is their small footprint.

The cinema sigmas are among the cheapest cinema lenses out there and are going to be a huge hit. I don't think you should be upset with Sigma (who are in the business of making money by selling lenses) for offering what looks to be an amazing deal.
 
nataraja, how do you feel the GH4 handles skin tones? I've seen some videos where it they look a little too green, but yours looks decent.

Lastly, how did you capture the clean sound? Just a boompole off to one side? I was surprised to hear good sound even when she was doing the cat position.
 
Jim Simon said:
I define a proper "video lens" as:

1. 2.8 or faster as ALL focal lengths
2. Inner focus, inner zoom. No barreling or rotation of the lens housing.
3. A proper, mechanical three ring design for aperture, zoom and focus. (Or two rings for primes.)
4. Constant aperture and parfocal.
5. OIS
Click to expand...

Canon's CN-E 18-80mm T4.4 IS servo zoom mounted to 0.71x SpeedBooster will produce a 13-57mm f/2.8 lens that incorporates all the features you listed.
 
Last edited:
@ goodgoings, As regards to skin tones on gh4, i use the Leeming lut and the camera settings prescribed. To me it always results in pleasing colors especially with a little adjust for taste. here is another example. oh yeah as far as audio it was shotgun mike on c-stand with boompole recorded to sound devices 633.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top