Subforums
-
-
- 28
- posts
17,120 topics in this forum
-
- 528 replies
- 181.6k views
-
- 27 replies
- 7.7k views
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.5m views
-
- 2 replies
- 11.1k views
-
- 19 replies
- 1.8k views
-
- 44 replies
- 4.5k views
-
- 667 replies
- 103.2k views
-
- 2 replies
- 273 views
-
- 1 reply
- 238 views
-
- 83 replies
- 18.3k views
-
- 1 reply
- 400 views
-
- 43 replies
- 8.5k views
-
- 21 replies
- 3k views
-
- 4 replies
- 779 views
-
- 12 replies
- 3.1k views
-
- 2 replies
- 664 views
-
- 14 replies
- 4.4k views
-
- 48 replies
- 5.5k views
-
- 23 replies
- 7.1k views
-
- 13 replies
- 11.4k views
-
- 6 replies
- 2.3k views
-
- 71 replies
- 15.2k views
-
- 17 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 16 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 75 replies
- 17.3k views
-
- 13 replies
- 2.9k views
-
- 511 replies
- 98.8k views
-
Anyone with a Panasonic S5 II or S9 interested in testing my in-cam ARRI compatible LOG C3 profile? 1 2
- 35 replies
- 10.9k views
-
- 9 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 29 replies
- 2.9k views
-
- 83 replies
- 14.9k views
-
- 1 reply
- 975 views
-
- 234 replies
- 88.3k views
-
- 8 replies
- 4.2k views
-
- 8 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 429 replies
- 128k views
-
- 88 replies
- 13.2k views
-
- 723 replies
- 228.2k views
-
- 4 replies
- 1k views
-
- 23 replies
- 3.2k views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.1k
-
Total Posts348.6k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
Speaking of serious image degradation, here are a couple of test shots of the 58mm wide angle adapter I ordered. It seems to vignette quite a bit on the wide end of the GX85 + 12-35mm combo, so you don't get a wider FOV by the time you zoom in to eliminate the vignette: The fact it's so much more degraded at 35mm than 16mm makes me think that the adapter is interacting with the optics inside the zoom. If there wasn't an interaction then when it's at 35mm it should be less degraded because it would essentially just be taking a smaller centre-crop and the edges of the frame should be cleaner. Anyway, this level of distortion isn't what I'm chasing, but it might be very different on other lenses and it's still quite fun to play around with. -
Wow, "too clean" wasn't a reaction I anticipated!! Yes, it was 24p (well, 23.976p anyway). I don't think I've heard of shooting a little slower to give a more filmic cadence - interesting idea and one I will absolutely try. I'm not sure how I would actually shoot at that speed, as I don't know which of my cameras would offer that option, but as a test I could just slow some of the above 24p plant footage down as plants moving slightly slower in the wind is a thing that happens so shouldn't be too surreal. I've slowed 30p cameras down to 24p, which is a 20% speed reduction and noticeable, which would be about the same for slowing 24p down to 20p. I am yet to really study that test I posted, but my initial impressions were that while it looked like film, it didn't have that certain something I'm looking for. What I'm looking for I can't describe, but it's sort-of the opposite of that "video look" of shooting 60p with sharp lenses and with accurate colour science and proper WB. I watched Old Guard 2 a few days ago and was impressed with how it seemed to have a cinema look but was also quite sharp (which I think have a strong negative relationship) but when I went back and took screenshots I found it actually wasn't that sharp. I then went looking at film trailers trying to find examples with this real cinema look, but most of them were sort-of "neutral" in the sense that they looked somewhere between cinema and video, with some being closer to cinema than others but none being fully at that end of the spectrum. They were mostly uploaded in 1080p from the studios, and the ones in 4K were from other movie review sites and looked a lot more detailed but I can't be sure if these are AI upscaled or what the image pipeline was, so I didn't look at them. When I think about what looked really cinematic to me is mostly old films that were actually shot on film and are surprisingly soft and grainy, so I really need to go looking for some high-quality footage (that I can trust) from more recent films. Anyway, this all sort of made me question if I was now just seeing things, or if all the trailers looked too sharp to me (including the trailer for the first Knives Out movie which seemed to be very high quality upload), so I am going to do some more testing and try and reality check myself with more research and more testing. Also here in Australia some services stream in SD (for a variety of reasons) so there's a non-zero chance I've just gotten used to that, but having said that when I go to the cinema to watch the really big films (like Dune 2 or Bond movies etc) they don't look sharper than I was anticipating, so I don't think it's that. In an attempt to give myself some perspective, yesterday I shot a motion test where I shot the same shot of the plants and then I walked through the backyard, with the following settings: - iPhone 60p using auto-SS (short shutter) - iPhone 30p using auto-SS (short shutter) - iPhone 24p using auto-SS (short shutter) - GX85 24p using auto-SS (short shutter) - GX85 24p using 180-degree shutter - GH7 24p using 180-degree shutter - GH7 24p using 216-degree shutter - GH7 24p using 288-degree shutter - GH7 24p using 360-degree shutter - GH7 24p using 108-degree shutter - GH7 24p using 70-degree shutter I haven't looked at that one in detail yet either, but it was sort of a combined test of subtle variations in shutter speeds (the GH7 shots) and also a reality check to judge the GH7 shots against actual video (iPhone and GX85 auto-SS shots). Today, I've just finished assembling this monstrosity: This is the P2K and GX85 on top, with GH5 and GH7 on the bottom. I finally own enough vNDs to do this, although the 82mm vND I bought for the Sirui anamorphic adapter does look rather ridiculous on the P2K and 12-35mm! I'll shoot a side-by-side with all of them rolling and will walk around the yard to get a number of compositions and lots of movement. I forgot to include the P2K in yesterdays test, but I also want to have a reference where the motion is essentially the same, which is why I have rigged them together. I can replicate a 35mm F11.5 FOV on all these, so should have mostly the same image. There will be resolution/sharpness differences, but I can level the playing field in post by applying various FLC profiles, which will be a good test to see if any perceived differences disappear or not. I'm still waiting for my Sirui 1.25x anamorphic adapter to arrive, but once it does some future tests will include various combinations of the wide-angle adapters, the anamorphic adapter, modern AF lenses, modern MF lenses, vintage lenses, and probably some filters too, as I've got a small collection of softening filters and a few vNDs of vastly varying quality which should add a look to the footage too. I might also shoot some tests comparing various amounts of rolling shutter too, as I think the GH7 has strong enough codecs and enough modes to make meaningful comparisons between these too.
-
By eatstoomuchjam · Posted
I'd also say that lens sharpness is relevant only in some contexts. A 35mm f/2 lens on a high-end point and shoot really needs to be "sharp enough" - and has to find the balance between sharpness and being too clinical. Unless you're taking pictures of a brick wall 30 meters away, chances are that the 35 has all the detail you'll ever need. Keep in mind that the previous camera using that lens had 45 megapixels - jumping to 61 is not huge. If I were only interested in still photos, the RX1R II would almost hands down be the choice, especially if I found a good deal. Flippy screen and cute lil' pop-up EVF like the RX100 series? Sign me up. Some of the other ergonomics look better on the new camera and it can record in 4K, barely. Is that worth thousands of dollars more? Not for me. Could be be an interesting camera in 5 years when the used price (hopefully) drops it more than 60%? Yes, it could be. Would I take it over a GFX 100RF that costs less? Absolutely not. My most frequently-used lens on the GFX 100 is the 32-64 and that's also an f/4 lens. Very sharp too. You can really count the molecules in those bricks in the wall 30 meters away. -
By Andrew Reid · Posted
You can't compare a fast 35mm to a 50mm F8 macro lens or whatever it is they usually use on the DPR test scene. It's a fantastic lens, always was. Even wide open at F2.0 it's close in sharpness to F5.6 stopped down. Of course, only in the centre - but the DPR test scene is a sensor test scene, it isn't designed for wide angle lenses. The real-world performance of the lens is what matters. It's not as good as a Leica M APO 35mm F2 for 4 grand or the 35mm F2.0 lens on the Zeiss ZX1, but it's still very good. I have always treasured the shots from my RX1R and RX1R II That's what counts, not the pixel peeping at 2000% magnification. I think it does just fine... By far the most important thing with a lens is to go out and take real shots with it... The Panasonic 28-200mm on paper is a piece of garbage. Is not the sharpest, not the fastest, F7.1 at the telephoto end, and yet it shoots shots like this... Which look like they're shot with a high-end 135mm F2.0. The rendering is just superb at 200mm F7.1 Does it look like F7? Nah. -
DP Reviews image tests on the new RX1 Mark III just came out. The lens is incredibly soft. Too many MPXs on that sensor for a 10 year-old lens.
-
