I did a comparison between a nikkor, canon fd, and the kit at the same length and theres very slightly perceptible difference between the first two, but the kit is much sharper and more "digital" looking. Its like its so sharp and contrasty that it brings out the worst in the sensor. Is this really what the industry is gravitating towards, every shot having a 0-255 range? I'm sticking with the fd's, just for the build quality and the neutrality of the picture, i can always put an eyebleed grade on it if its going to market.
Why is the kit lens so ugly [on the inside]?
- Thread starter tonpole
- Start date
stonebat
Veteran
i sold the kit lens as soon as i got gh1 months ago. it was too slow for me. but i dont mind the extra sharpness. after post-processing, it would have become less sharp. its easier to make more blurry than sharpening. plus O.I.S. it aint great... but it can save some pixels. but i dont wanna buy it again... cuz panny is gonna release new brighter zooms. but prolly overpriced. no wonder why canon t2i is #1 selling in japan. t2i body only is $799. cheaper than gh2 body only. ef 50mm f1.8 is dirt cheap. a brand new ef 35mm f2 is only $300. tokina 11-16 eos mount. done. without adaptors, the canon set might be lighter than GH set. might be cheaper than owning GH1 or GH2. but i like GH13. come on panny... lower the price. dont kill m43 w/ greed. voigtlander 25mm .95 for m43 is like $1000. geez. why do i need such exotic pricey lens for low light. can gh2 really take video well at iso3200 without annoying banding? if yes, f/1.4, 1.7, 2.0 should be able to handle low light. yes many more will buy GH2. but $899 gh2 body price? crazy. oly... who cares. look at sony. low nex3/5 prices. lower margin. sony is smart. panny... dont be stupid. lower the price and survive. dreaming $599. ok $699... i'd get one instead of buying the voigtlander lens.
Last edited:
d1rockwild
Well-known member
yeah the 14-140mm was a lens that i really wanted to like...
stonebat
Veteran
the only m43 lens i own is 20pancake. wish it were 17mm. 40mm equivalent can be a tad bit long for walk around lens after video image stabilization cropping. it can be tack sharp. yeah more digital image. not so organic look. some say old lens is more vulnerable to flares to lower contrast which creates such organic look. but i got a burn from vivitar 28mm. i didnt know about its ugly flares. matte box is a must. nikkor 28mm 2.0 ais is around $400... and its little long. voigtlander 25mm .95 is too expensive. for those casual users, 20pancake is a must. fast. relatively cheap. closer to normal length after scaling up. manual focus is hard, but it was harder to do mf on slower lens in low light.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
The sentiment expressed in this post is astonishing.
If you don't like 'tack sharp', take a glob of petroleum jelly and smear it on the lens...
That should soften up the image post haste....
Some people spend $1000's on lenses to get 'tack sharp'...
If you don't like 'moire' artifacts, which is more prominent in the GH-1, that is due to the lack (or low smoothing function) of low pass optical filtering, than an 'ultra sharp' lens... and so the petroleum jelly method would accomplish that as well...
On the other hand, perhaps you're not focusing the Canon+adapter lenses, and so, because of slight out of focus condition, you are getting a low grade petroleum jelly smear... and being pleased with the effect.
(Alternative to the petroleum jelly, which is messy and could lead to embarrassing questions, use a slight Gaussian filter in post to 'smooth' the image... and put a slight blur on everything...)
Jesse Brauning
Well-known member
Oh my goodness, there's so much childishness going on here. What the hell, you guys?
The AF100 and the GH1 forum have been so filled (with the exception of a few good men) with slavering idiots these days.
Gah!
The AF100 and the GH1 forum have been so filled (with the exception of a few good men) with slavering idiots these days.
Gah!
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Since you didn't post which Canon lens you are using, here's a description of a Canon FD 24mm F/1.4 lens found on the web...
------------
All in all, the 24/1.4 always gives punchy, contrasty images at every aperture. This is the advantage of aspherical optics: you don't lose contrast from spherical aberration at f/1.4. The only optical price you pay for the fast f/1.4 speed is slightly softer corners at the larger apertures.
-----------
Sounds like this guy 'likes' lenses that don't have flare, softness, etc...
I wasn't able to find a MTF chart for the above Canon lens, similar to the spec sheet for the GH-1 14-140 'ugly kit' lens.
Arnarfjodur
Member
I find this thread interesting - in a way. I've only recently started to get involved with cinematography, coming from another film role background.
What we are working towards all the time are subjective impressions. I.e. how the audience reacts to the images we make, and then we try to systemize our knowledge about how to achieve those reactions. It's a silly and simplistic way to start off a discussion by saying a lense like to pana zoom looks "ugly on the inside" of course. It's not the best way to start a balanced discussion on the internet. But it is interesting to figure out what makes some people sometimes react favorably to certain images. The OP obviously reacts better to his FDs - whatever the reason might be.
I tend to be more pleased with what I see on my FD primes than the kit lense. I wonder what the reason might be. It has been suggestion, that very sharp lenses are actually not as good for dslr because they are more demanding on the image processing (http://philipbloom.net/2010/08/04/a...liminating-moire-and-aliasing-from-your-dslr/). In this case maybe the OP should get a softening filter like the one described?
Another simple theory to why someone might react better to their FDs is that the kit zoom only opens as wide as F4 and usually less. This means that focus will always be pretty deep, and this is harder for the unhacked camera to process + there is a lot of fetishism for shallow dof going on. Of course, I'm not saying this is the OP reason, as he said he did some actual tests.
What we are working towards all the time are subjective impressions. I.e. how the audience reacts to the images we make, and then we try to systemize our knowledge about how to achieve those reactions. It's a silly and simplistic way to start off a discussion by saying a lense like to pana zoom looks "ugly on the inside" of course. It's not the best way to start a balanced discussion on the internet. But it is interesting to figure out what makes some people sometimes react favorably to certain images. The OP obviously reacts better to his FDs - whatever the reason might be.
I tend to be more pleased with what I see on my FD primes than the kit lense. I wonder what the reason might be. It has been suggestion, that very sharp lenses are actually not as good for dslr because they are more demanding on the image processing (http://philipbloom.net/2010/08/04/a...liminating-moire-and-aliasing-from-your-dslr/). In this case maybe the OP should get a softening filter like the one described?
Another simple theory to why someone might react better to their FDs is that the kit zoom only opens as wide as F4 and usually less. This means that focus will always be pretty deep, and this is harder for the unhacked camera to process + there is a lot of fetishism for shallow dof going on. Of course, I'm not saying this is the OP reason, as he said he did some actual tests.
Simple really...If I want to go for a sharp camcorder like look I use my 20mm panny...If I want a "filmic" look I use my FD's...I sold the kit lense about a month after buying a GH1.
I was too aware of carrying around a somewhat underperforming £700 lense...so sold to buy a bunch of cheaper ones....also have the 14-45mm which btw has very good AF in video.
Panasonic were riding on the HD tag...its bollocks...its overpriced and if panasonic want more customers...make cheaper faster lenses!
Even the upcoming 14mm f2 pancake is ludicrously priced.
I was too aware of carrying around a somewhat underperforming £700 lense...so sold to buy a bunch of cheaper ones....also have the 14-45mm which btw has very good AF in video.
Panasonic were riding on the HD tag...its bollocks...its overpriced and if panasonic want more customers...make cheaper faster lenses!
Even the upcoming 14mm f2 pancake is ludicrously priced.
Arnarfjodur
Member
Ok then. But why not have a sharp lense to begin with and then filter it while shooting or in post?
It's a practical question for me, because I've got a 50mm 1.2 FD lense which I'm happy about and thinking about getting the pancake one, becasue a 24 mm F2 FD lense is abour 300 usd, similar to the pancake used.
Should I really be opting for the LESS sharp lense becasue I've been happy with FD look so far?
It's a practical question for me, because I've got a 50mm 1.2 FD lense which I'm happy about and thinking about getting the pancake one, becasue a 24 mm F2 FD lense is abour 300 usd, similar to the pancake used.
Should I really be opting for the LESS sharp lense becasue I've been happy with FD look so far?
Some things you cant recreate in post...I feel theres a optical difference also. Different bokah etc
I think there's room for both sharp and non sharp.
I would never pay over 50 quid for a FD lense...never...ever.
John Caballero
Veteran
Sorry, but this is a bunch of nonsense. I recently had the Panasonic reps put the GH1 kit lens on the AF100 at a New York show and voila!, about the only lens that works perfectly with this camera. Autofocus, full shutter speed and aperture control. And the image look perfect. A lot of people need eyes exams, that's for sure.
Arnarfjodur
Member
I'd be very interested in trying to pinpoint the optical difference. Otherwise I feel it's quite subjective. You mentiom bokeh as one, which obviously can't be manipulated. Less sharpness and contrast has been mentioned, but I'd like to think this can be changed with filters, optical or digital?
I don't understand your sense of value. If you feel an FD lense is the right tool for the job in many cases, why would you never pay more than 50 quid for it, if you want something wider than 50mm and faster than f2.8?
I don't understand your sense of value. If you feel an FD lense is the right tool for the job in many cases, why would you never pay more than 50 quid for it, if you want something wider than 50mm and faster than f2.8?
Arnarfjodur
Member
Well John. The OP only quoted his subjective opinion as the criteria. That's why technically he can't be wrong, but can only be right in his own way.
And I don't think he was referring to how well it works on the AF100. It seems to me that because the AF100 has a filter designed for HD video not stills, and better image processing, plus other differences, it's not comparable to on a GH1.
And I don't think he was referring to how well it works on the AF100. It seems to me that because the AF100 has a filter designed for HD video not stills, and better image processing, plus other differences, it's not comparable to on a GH1.