Jump to content

An adventure into the Panasonic GX85/80 begins - and a look at the Leica Nocticron for Micro Four Thirds


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The camera which Panasonic can't decide what to call (GX80 in Europe, GX85 in the US and GX7 Mark II in Japan!) really excites me. It's the first time that anyone has put 5 axis in-body stabilisa

My first project with the GX80. Since size / weight does matter and securities are kinda picky, i had no choice but to leave my lovely Voigtländer 25 lens at home and put the Panasonic 20mm on it. I h

The GX80 is meeting my expectations for run & gun. I think this shoot exemplifies expectations one can have of this camera for your quick, set-it-up and shoot style videos… family, street, etc.

Posted Images

On 1/15/2017 at 5:10 AM, kidzrevil said:

I like the old nikkor ais lenses with speedbooster. They look so organic on the panny sensor . Very detailed without the oversharpened look.

Vintage lenses are enjoyable on modern cameras.  Really takes the edge off if you're going for a less clinical image.  I've just shot a series wherein the a-cam was usually an old FD 55mm 1.2 on a cheap Chinese speedbooster.  It can be a flawed image when you really look at it closely, but that's fine when it's what one wants.

It's "character."  I can typically rationalize imaging stuff like that.

And FD and Nikkor lenses on a dumb adapter look awesome regardless. (as long as not used wide open)  I've also dabbled in Pentax stuff, which has been a lot of fun.

Just depends on what one's going for, I suppose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Vintage lenses are enjoyable on modern cameras.  Really takes the edge off if you're going for a less clinical image.  I've just shot a series wherein the a-cam was usually an old FD 55mm 1.2 on a cheap Chinese speedbooster.  It can be a flawed image when you really look at it closely, but that's fine when it's what one wants.

It's "character."  I can typically rationalize imaging stuff like that.

And FD and Nikkor lenses on a dumb adapter look awesome regardless. (as long as not used wide open)  I've also dabbled in Pentax stuff, which has been a lot of fun.

Just depends on what one's going for, I suppose.

I've decided to not get any lens with more than 9 elements. More and the light turns into minced meat. The old stuff is better... with all the "flaws." Just need to stay away from the radioactive ones. :grimace:

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Vintage lenses are enjoyable on modern cameras.  Really takes the edge off if you're going for a less clinical image.  I've just shot a series wherein the a-cam was usually an old FD 55mm 1.2 on a cheap Chinese speedbooster.  It can be a flawed image when you really look at it closely, but that's fine when it's what one wants.

It's "character."  I can typically rationalize imaging stuff like that.

And FD and Nikkor lenses on a dumb adapter look awesome regardless. (as long as not used wide open)  I've also dabbled in Pentax stuff, which has been a lot of fun.

Just depends on what one's going for, I suppose.

I may just have to look into this. Plus, it won't break the bank. ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not doubting some vintage lenses have a different look when used with modern cameras, however when I used my MF Nikkors on my Samsung NX1, I could not really see any difference compared to using native "S" lenses. Sharpness, colour and contrast were all of a very comparable level. The lenses I used were 28/2 Ai-S, 50/1.2 Ai-S, 105/2.5 Ai-S and 180/2.8 Ai-S ... all of which are incredible optics.

I've been shooting MF Nikkor glass (photographically) since the release the D700 until now and I can not seee any real difference most of the time between these lenses and the modern Nikon lenses I have such as the 1.8 primes and the 24-70/2.8 etc when shot on a Nikon camera. They all seem to have an almost identical look & colour signature. The only Nikon lens I've had that was not identical to the rest was the 58/1.4 which IMO has a different look.

I have never used my MF Nikkors on a Panasonic camera so I just can't compare the image to native Pana lenses.

Also, if the MF Nikkors look more organic on a modern Panasonic, I'd wager that the ultra modern Nikkors are also going to look organic because IMO there is little to no difference between the signatures of the AF modern lenses or the older MF Nikkors :) 

@kidzrevil or anyone for that matter using MF Nikoors on a Pana ... , I'm not disputing what you all say about the image looking more organic using MF Nikon lenses because I never tried, but can you show me what you mean by them looking different (organic) compared to native Pana lenses ... say on the same Pana body settings like default Natural or Standard? I can not find any of these tests online. I'd be really interested to see what the difference is before I spring for a Metabones Speedbooster.

On the Samsung NX1 they didn't look more vintage or organic at all. They looked super sharp and had great contrast just as they do o n my D750 or D800e ... they didn't look vintage or organic at all.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love my MF Nikon collection (around 15 lenses) but having an organic or vintage look to the was never part f the appeal. I love these lenses because I love the tactility of manually focusing in photography along with the build quality, aesthetics and price of these lenses :)  

Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dean I completely understand what you are saying. When I had the NX1 I went through Canon FD lenses, Nikkor AIS & Contax Zeiss and they all left me scratching my head. My guess is that the nx1 adds a very high level of in camera image processing that is tailored to the look of their native lenses ! The end result is all the lenses whether nikkor or canon fd all have a same look and softness in weird places and I strongly believe it was because of their image processing. You only see the true look of the lenses when you shoot raw photos on the nx1

on the Lumix cameras I believe there are no extra image processing going on UNLESS you use one of their native lenses which have features like diffraction and shading compensation etc. 

im using the same nikkor lenses I owned on the NX1 and even at the same super 35mm crop the lenses look way different. Im excited to see how they will look on the gh5 which will hopefully have no in camera image processing in its VLOG mode. 

I honestly don't have time tot do A/B testing but I will consider it. I do own a lumix pancake and the nikkors and I prefer the look of the nikkors. The lumix pancake looks extremely enhanced I had to slap a black pro mist on it to soften it. I don't like the look of the native lenses and I am keeping the pancake lens just for the portability and to use with the slr magic anamorphot if I do actually decide to buy it again

Link to post
Share on other sites

I studied art history in college, and we were required to read and write essays about artworks, and to the best of my recollection, not once did the word organic appear in a single text by a renowned scholar. I'm also familiar with several great music and dance critics, and never have I seen the word organic used in relation to a string quartet or ballet. Neither have I ever encountered the word in film criticism, let alone a lens review.  Scholars and responsible critics explain what they mean when they use a word or phrase. And if it cannot be described or defined, I have difficulty wrapping my head around it. And I've been snapping pictures since before adolescence. Surely if one can devote a lifetime describing the life in a piece of music, the form, structure and meaning in an abstract painting or modern ballet, then it is not too much to ask that someone either demonstrate or define exactly what is meant by the word organic in relation to lenses. Bokeh is a term we all understand, it is something concrete, and as such, it can be be described, measured and evaluated. Organic is like the word beautiful, which means all things to all people. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@jonpais be patient with us, after all we haven't had things like digital sharpening & limited dynamic range in our art history class neither ?

I would classify organic as an image that doesn't have those obvious high contrast edges. That and a smooth transition between in and out of focus areas create the organic look in my eye as well

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

@jonpais be patient with us, after all we haven't had things like digital sharpening & limited dynamic range in our art history class neither ?

I would classify organic as an image that doesn't have those obvious high contrast edges. That and a smooth transition between in and out of focus areas create the organic look in my eye as well

I can buy that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

That and a smooth transition between in and out of focus areas create the organic look in my eye as well

My old FD doesn't have as much contrast as native lenses. It renders colors different, CA is more pronounced wide open.  Things like that.

Also, just the operation of the thing creates a different quality.  Pulling focus, for example. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/01/2017 at 0:17 PM, kidzrevil said:

@Dean I completely understand what you are saying. When I had the NX1 I went through Canon FD lenses, Nikkor AIS & Contax Zeiss and they all left me scratching my head. My guess is that the nx1 adds a very high level of in camera image processing that is tailored to the look of their native lenses ! The end result is all the lenses whether nikkor or canon fd all have a same look and softness in weird places and I strongly believe it was because of their image processing. You only see the true look of the lenses when you shoot raw photos on the nx1

on the Lumix cameras I believe there are no extra image processing going on UNLESS you use one of their native lenses which have features like diffraction and shading compensation etc. 

im using the same nikkor lenses I owned on the NX1 and even at the same super 35mm crop the lenses look way different. Im excited to see how they will look on the gh5 which will hopefully have no in camera image processing in its VLOG mode. 

I honestly don't have time tot do A/B testing but I will consider it. I do own a lumix pancake and the nikkors and I prefer the look of the nikkors. The lumix pancake looks extremely enhanced I had to slap a black pro mist on it to soften it. I don't like the look of the native lenses and I am keeping the pancake lens just for the portability and to use with the slr magic anamorphot if I do actually decide to buy it again

Ok, thanks.

If you do get a chance to compare the look of a Nikkor to a Pana lens on a G85 it would be much appreciated :)

Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2017 at 9:02 AM, kidzrevil said:

@mercer thx ! I like the short focus throw of the nikkors. Makes focusing handheld way more fluid

Yup, I replaced my non-ai/ai lenses with their newer ai-s versions for the shorter focus throws. I know a lot of people prefer the longer throw but I find the ai-s work better handheld especially with peaking. I did the same thing with my Minolta MCs and picked up their MD counterparts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mercer said:

Yup, I replaced my non-ai/ai lenses with their newer ai-s versions for the shorter focus throws. I know a lot of people prefer the longer throw but I find the ai-s work better handheld especially with peaking. I did the same thing with my Minolta MCs and picked up their MD counterparts. 

Yup, the short throw for run and gun is perfect. You don't have to spin the focus ring like 80,000 times to go from close focus to infinity

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

here's a video I shot with a lumix 20mm f1.7

looks REALLY good with a black pro mist on it ! Im waiting on my black satin filter for a more subtle look

This lens is one of the main reasons for the m43, at least from my perspective. The compactness yet outstanding results even in lowlight are unmatched. Whenever I want to be really compact, I am using that lens and it never disappoints.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...