Why is the kit lens so ugly [on the inside]?

stonebat said:
lately i learned after effects cs5. its much easier to add effects on sharp images. e.g. motion tracking. i love bokeh, too. yes enough room for both sharp and non sharp.

i wanna buy 14-140. on GH2, extra tele conv (ETC), mega ois, 2x faster AF and one iso stop gain... sweet!!!
Click to expand...

One ISO stop gain? In the GH2 sensitivity do you mean?

I missed your point, sorry.
 
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.
Click to expand...

He is talking about the lens and I AM talking about the lens. The only minus is that it is F4. So you have two options in low light: throw more light into your set or get a prime lens with lower aperture and loose all communication between it and the camera. And of course get worse "jello" if you move it around. And last I heard neither Canon or Nikon primes are optimized lenses for video, they are meant for stills.
 
Indeed you are. And I was talking about the relationship between certain qualitites of that lense and the sensor/image processing of different cameras. Which is important, because usually lenses are used in front of cameras.
 
The GH2 and the AF100 use the same sensor. The AF100 is configure for video but I bet you that at the end of the day both cameras will yield basically the same image. And the kits lens will be used a lot with both of them.
 
While I won't get the AF100, i somehow feel the kit lens inadequate for the AF100. It's focal length is too long, it's fly by wire focusing and narrow aperture just seems like too many a compromise for a 'video optimized' lens. Rather, a 'video optimized lens for soccer moms' seems more believable.

I think this is where the 'bright zoom lens' panasonic was hinting in photokina comes in.
 
I actually really like the look the kit lens puts out, it's a great standard go to lens. I usually use it at 14mm or 140mm, and use primes for the inbetween stuff...but I also use it for run and gun work. It produces a very sharp highly detailed image that I really like...yes it seems "digital" but I like digital when it means high detail..I just saw "The Social Network" last night and was actually really digging the high detail digital look they were getting out of the RED camera.
 
Digital look would seem apt for it. You wouldn't want a vintage burned film look on a movie about a recent internet phenomenon right?
 
the kit lens is popular in asia. some travel to hk or japan to buy it cheap... believe it or not. ebay had 2 items in this evening. i lost both. sold at 535 and 560 each with 13.50 shipping.

5dmarkii + 2.8L zoom can be used indoor. raise up iso. done. but i dont think 2.8 is good enough for 2x crop body for indoor unless iso 3200 or higher can be usable for video with 60th shutter speed.

i just need a zoom for outdoor in good lighting. mega ois is nice. super sharp is nice. face recognition. silent continuous autofocus. the kit lens is perfect for some people.

i like mix of shallow dof and deep dof. both have merits. 14-140 is good lens. pancake is good. 7-14 is good. canon fd, nikkor ais, etc. all good.
 
stonebat said:
5dmarkii + 2.8L zoom can be used indoor. raise up iso. done. but i dont think 2.8 is good enough for 2x crop body for indoor unless iso 3200 or higher can be usable for video with 60th shutter speed.
Click to expand...

One trick I use for low light is to use 1/30th shutter, works pretty well for 24p.
 
good idea, ben_b. i noticed one point gain in shutter is slightly more than one point gain in iso. in low light, mjpeg 4:2:2 mode at 30th shutter. convert or conform to 24p.

with gh2, gains in iso and 30th shutter, maybe 2.8 zoom for indoor is ok with some bearable noise. but i rather use primes indoor for better IQ at low iso.

i dont think m43 is designed for fast zooms. use zoom for outdoor at low iso. otherwise use primes.

panny 14, 20, 7-14, 14-140, 100-300... i wud love to buy'em all if i can afford. but too $$$$. if price drops, sure i will buy more.
 
Last edited:
stonebat said:
good idea, ben_b. i noticed one point gain in shutter is slightly more than one point gain in iso. in low light, mjpeg 4:2:2 mode at 30th shutter. convert or conform to 24p.

with gh2, gains in iso and 30th shutter, maybe 2.8 zoom for indoor is ok with some bearable noise. but i rather use primes indoor for better IQ at low iso.

i dont think m43 is designed for fast zooms. use zoom for outdoor at low iso. otherwise use primes.

panny 14, 20, 7-14, 14-140, 100-300... i wud love to buy'em all if i can afford. but too $$$$. if price drops, sure i will buy more.
Click to expand...


I don't quite understand your 'not designed for 'fast' zooms'... The F4 kit lens is not so 'extraordinarily' slow, relative to similar 3.5 (or whatever) Nikon lenses that I have... Since before the GH-1 most of my Nikon lenses were directed to still photography, and even more specifically 'wedding' photography, and so a 'flash' would over come the 'slow' lens issue for the most part.

With wanting to use the GH-1 in low light, and movie mode, that has 'encouraged' me to think about faster lenses... But I'd go with some form of prime 'fast' than a 'fast' zoom...
 
Arnarfjodur said:
...why not have a sharp lense to begin with and then filter it while shooting or in post?

I tend to be more pleased with what I see on my FD primes than the kit lens... 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/an...rom-your-dslr/). In this case maybe the OP should get a softening filter like the one described?
Click to expand...
While Mr. Bloom's article focused more on product promotion than on the root cause, Barry Green has provided a solid physics explanation that describes how a very sharp lens can actually exacerbate sensor aliasing and moire artifacts:

http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/article.php/20

The problem is not in the lens itself, but in the fact that sharp edges can cause the digital sensor to produce fabricated image details that look excessively crisp because they are actually aliased edge artifacts. This is a non-linear aberration that can be reduced in post-processing, but only at the cost of blurring genuine image details as well.

I think the softening filter cure that Mr. Bloom advocates is a good way to prevent most of the aliasing from occurring in the sensor, while preserving correct lens focus. I've gotten good results using a Tiffen Black Diffusion 3 filter, which is a considerably less expensive alternative that minimizes the halo effect you can get with softening filters.
 
Last edited:
"The problem is not in the lens itself..."

that lingers in my ears. so true. im a soccer dad wanting to take better home videos. i was glad that gh1 could do more. got a couple of legacy primes. but i dont wanna go extreme. zeiss cine lenses, cage rig, follow focus, shoulder rig, 25mm .95, etc.

yesterday was first time in long time i carried pancake alone. partly cloudy. no need for nd filter. didnt feel like taking hd video. so legacy primes stayed home. mega ois panny zooms wud have been more versatile, but i dont have one yet. i read about how street photographers "dance" to get good framing. so i danced to my tunes. front side back side ta ta cha cha cha one step forward two steps backward. i clicked on whatever looked good on eyes. i like the pics. i like pancake. i like gh13.

the problem is neither gh13 nor lenses. its just not a pro camcorder. i see it as consumer camera/camcorder/telescope. but what an attractive small device it is!
 
I don't wish this to sound mean or condescending, but the GH1 most certainly is a pro camcorder, if the definition is a camera able to shoot professional grade video.

It's the hands in which the GH1 finds itself that determine how good the output looks. A Flip in a pro's hand looks amazing, a RED in a soccer dad's hands looks like soccer dad video.

Wud a concept.

stonebat said:
"The problem is not in the lens itself..."

that lingers in my ears. so true. im a soccer dad wanting to take better home videos. i was glad that gh1 could do more. got a couple of legacy primes. but i dont wanna go extreme. zeiss cine lenses, cage rig, follow focus, shoulder rig, 25mm .95, etc.

yesterday was first time in long time i carried pancake alone. partly cloudy. no need for nd filter. didnt feel like taking hd video. so legacy primes stayed home. mega ois panny zooms wud have been more versatile, but i dont have one yet. i read about how street photographers "dance" to get good framing. so i danced to my tunes. front side back side ta ta cha cha cha one step forward two steps backward. i clicked on whatever looked good on eyes. i like the pics. i like pancake. i like gh13.

the problem is neither gh13 nor lenses. its just not a pro camcorder. i see it as consumer camera/camcorder/telescope. but what an attractive small device it is!
Click to expand...
 
mojo43 said:
Ya not for 720p with the hack though :) Yikes, it looks bad!
Click to expand...

That's going to be giving you 30p. You can drop it in a 30p timeline and edit it like 30p in your NLE, or keep it 60p timeline and deal with doubled frames but not have to render at all on export. Anyway, I've used 1/30th in the 720p mode for indoor shooting with the kit lens when I wanted a 30p look and there wasn't much movement...specifically I used it for filming students giving presentations...also doubles the space on the card vs 60p and doesn't run the risk of card speed error.
 
shaveblog said:
I don't wish this to sound mean or condescending, but the GH1 most certainly is a pro camcorder, if the definition is a camera able to shoot professional grade video.
Click to expand...
simply shallow dof, manual focus/iris/wb, 24pN/30p/60p wont cut it. af100/101 raised the bar. if gh13 cant do this or that, i wont complain. its pretty darn good for 'consumer' camcorder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top