GH2 Waiting on this lens.

Status
Not open for further replies.
This whole thread has got me thinking, do photographers complain that these cameras or lenses are too sharp and render too accurately?

I'm sure 99% of photographers want the sharpest optics available. I don't hear many of them asking for a softer lens with slight colour cast for character.

Photographers don't seem to get hung up on the whole "it doesn't look like film" thing like video people do. Why is that?
 
vtwiz said:
This whole thread has got me thinking, do photographers complain that these cameras or lenses are too sharp and render too accurately?
Click to expand...

As a long time pro photographer, yes there are lots of times where we add bizarro filters/screens to the front of our lenses to kill off some of the sharpness.

When I used to shoot head-shots of older women, I would attach black window mesh to the front of my Nikon or Mamiza RZ lens, then expose normally and push the film to get my exposure back. This greatly reduced the resolution of my camera lens ( very smooth looking skin ) but kept the original contrast of the lens. ( I hate the look of low-contrast low-sharpness photos )
 
vtwiz said:
This whole thread has got me thinking, do photographers complain that these cameras or lenses are too sharp and render too accurately?

I'm sure 99% of photographers want the sharpest optics available. I don't hear many of them asking for a softer lens with slight colour cast for character.

Photographers don't seem to get hung up on the whole "it doesn't look like film" thing like video people do. Why is that?
Click to expand...



They do, I can't imagine many Pro top level photographers are using Lumix lenses. They are using full frame cameras and if they are using smaller cameras the pros would be using the expensive Leicas with expensive leica lenses.

Also some photography wants a highly detailed image , particularly journalism, people want to see what's happening. Cinema is a different beast, people want a beautiful image, sharp detail is sometimes less of a priority.


and also even hobbyists want an organic image, I don't know about else but my phone is full of popular photo apps that scuff and kodakise photos to look like old Lomos etc.
 
jamesmallonuk said:
I don't know about else but my phone is full of popular photo apps that scuff and kodakise photos to look like old Lomos etc.
Click to expand...

Well... you can buy old lenses without new coatings on them... but it seems like you're asking for someone to make a fast, modern zoom but leave out all the new lens building technologies that have been developed... and I don't see anyone doing that. It would be such a niche product... it wouldn't really be cost effective for them to make. 98% of users want a fast/sharp zoom with optical coatings...
 
jamesmallonuk said:
I named various zooms other than Pana that I like. SLR Magic was used just to make a point. Please read before typing something.


Tamron has a tried and tested stabilisation system, a lot better than most. What most on here are failing to recognise with any real interest is that this is the first non Lumix m4/3 stabilized zooms since the system was introduced. It's significant at the very least.
Click to expand...

No need to be rude about it. I thought I was helping the discussion but I guess not. My point is that all the M4/3 electronic lenses are sharp and have some level of enhancement done in camera. Olympus, Sigma Panasonic and I'm going to guess so will Tamron.

Look we can try to speculate all we want but do you honestly think anybody here can give you the answer you want about the Tamron lens? All I can say is that the Tamron will be a nice lens and yes it will have stabilization and will be worth the money. Outside of that nobody here can tell you how it will look. They could opt to bypass digital enhancement and basically repurpose one of their other lenses and just change the mount but I really don't think they will. Even Sigma has made some pretty sharp digital looking lenses. Very nice lenses but much closer to Lumix look then vintage or SLR magic lenses. Other than that I don't know what myself or anybody else can say about it until the lens comes out or somebody does a review of the lens.
 
So you didnt feel it was rude to say I didn't realize the difference between a prime and a zoom? Be rude if you want, I'm a big boy but don't bellyache about it.
 
TheDingo said:
As a long time pro photographer, yes there are lots of times where we add bizarro filters/screens to the front of our lenses to kill off some of the sharpness.

When I used to shoot head-shots of older women, I would attach black window mesh to the front of my Nikon or Mamiza RZ lens, then expose normally and push the film to get my exposure back. This greatly reduced the resolution of my camera lens ( very smooth looking skin ) but kept the original contrast of the lens. ( I hate the look of low-contrast low-sharpness photos )
Click to expand...

Yes, and that's why I suggested to the OP that he try using filters for the effect he wanted rather than looking for softer lenses. As with the comment about filters on iPhones such as Instagram, this is all done in post not by having a lens that gives the look.

Photographers who shoot smaller formats do use Zeiss glass but that is among the sharpest available.
 
jamesmallonuk said:
I can't imagine many Pro top level photographers are using Lumix lenses. They are using full frame cameras and if they are using smaller cameras the pros would be using the expensive Leicas with expensive leica lenses.
Click to expand...

Some pro shooters are switching to the Micro 4/3 format to cut down on the size and weight of their production kit, though I think more will switch over when Olympus finally releases their Pro level Micro 4/3 camera. There's been some talk that it might happen this year, but Olympus doesn't seem to be in any rush to put the camera out. I suspect that everything hinges on getting the right sensor for this camera.
 
TheDingo said:
Some pro shooters are switching to the Micro 4/3 format to cut down on the size and weight of their production kit
Click to expand...

NatGeo's Bill Allard lives locally to me, and has shot some of his work with Panny GFs - granted, street stuff, but notable pros are indeed using m43.
 
jamesmallonuk said:
I just don't think lumix zooms are used much.
Click to expand...

The Lumix 7-14mm, 12-35mm and the 35-100mm zooms are being used by pros.

I shot a quick head-shot for an executive yesterday with my 35-100 using natural light, and I was amazed at the detail I could see when I was cooking up the finished JPEGs in LightRoom. Fortunately it was a male executive, because I would have had to do something to reduce the detail if it had been a woman. ( I could see every pore in his face like it was etched in glass. Just wickedly sharp at f/4.0 )
 
Many applications such as quick turn around TV need and want high def crisp video. I agree the GH cameras are ideal for that, killer for reality/magazine TV for B or even A Cam. But surely you must know full well this discussion is not about that...
 
jamesmallonuk said:
read as well as type Sir, then you can engage in the actual discussion and not the one your having in your head with yourself.
Click to expand...

WHAT!? I was replying to your comment that Lumix lenses are not being used professionally. And I replied ' maybe not but lenses that are just as sharp (and clinical) are, such as zeiss.

Is this too hard to understand?

i can't believe this useless thread has gone so long and am ashamed to have contributed to it.

Buy whatever lens you like. Test it out, and see if it suits your taste. Us speculating how it will look is useless until its released. Good luck in finding your soft inaccurate prime lens with image stabilisation. Keep us posted in how your search pans out .
 
Last edited:
jamesmallonuk said:
You two are Americans right?
Click to expand...

If you are referring to me, then fail.......:thumbdown

Born of Eastern European parents and grew up in Sawf London. Although I do reside in the US now and have dual citizenship.

As to the other issue, hmmm......

While serious, your naive and hyperbolic behavior (behaviour?) doesn't help to further your case.
 
jamesmallonuk said:
You two are Americans right? Americans happily kill women and children around the world with drones but if someone doesn't 'say have a nice day' in McDonalds then all hell breaks loose. I'm British, we don't act like wounded children when corrected.
Click to expand...

What an imbecilic response! I've reported this post by clicking the "!" icon in the upper right of his comment and urge others to do the same. This behavior does not belong on this forum, or anywhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top