Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Fast apertures on the GH5 = Full frame

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Interesting article and great job matching the focal lengths and depths of field, but the cost associated with getting the full frame look with the GH5 will put you at $2500-$3000. With an a7iii and a Nikkor 35mm f/2, you can be well on your way for less than $2200, plus you’ll have the option to go with f/1.4 and 1.2 lenses and higher ISOs.

The Voigts are a great cheat though and the 25mm is one of the best lenses I’ve ever used. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, mercer said:

The Voigts are a great cheat though and the 25mm is one of the best lenses I’ve ever used. 

They're great.  I use the 25 and 42.5.  I have a job coming up wherein I need to go wider FOV and I'll turn to the Voightlander brand yet again by buying the 10.5.

When I'm shooting without Voightlander lenses I tend to look at that footage and say, "Meh."

And, yeah, I'm invested now into M43 glass.  Paying more in lenses for shallow DOF and M43 is annoying, but it is what it is. 

Still, I do love FF with a wide open (and cheap) fast lens for interviews.  Low soft lighting with lots of bokeh and 3D pop.  It's a look that's just special...and very easy to accomplish.  So there's a pragmatic appreciation for it as well when one's trying to do a lot on a production with limited options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about crop sensor and cheating on them.

I wanna recommend this adapter, The Viltrox EF-M2. Is´t really sharp, nice optics, works really well with electronic EF lenses and it cost a third the price of the Metabones speedbooster.

https://www.amazon.com/VILTROX-EF-M2-Adapter-Thirds-Camera/dp/B079M4W8MQ

I'm not kidding, it is a really good adapter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bokeh (subjective) is better with the RX1, but I prefer round highlights as opposed to the cat-eye look that's typical many with ultra fast lenses. But I agree with the article, with faster glass on smaller sensors you can get the same look as larger sensor cameras. The devils advocate types will point out that you can get the equivalent for less with FF and say F/1.8 lenses, but then you have other limitations with the current crop of FF bodies.

There are definitely situations where different sensor sizes has its advantages, find what works best for what you shoot and put it to use. For run-and-gun event shooting I prefer cleaner files at higher ISO's, so I typically go mostly FF with Sony. For travel I prefer being able to carry a wide range of FL's in a relatively small but high IQ (~7kg) kit - so its Fuji. I've been really tempted to get a GH5 as my video workhorse, but I'll wait for the Blackmagic P4k to arrive before committing to another lens mount.

We're spoiled with all the choices, its a great time for content producers.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Wild Ranger said:

Talking about crop sensor and cheating on them.

I wanna recommend this adapter, The Viltrox EF-M2. Is´t really sharp, nice optics, works really well with electronic EF lenses and it cost a third the price of the Metabones speedbooster.

https://www.amazon.com/VILTROX-EF-M2-Adapter-Thirds-Camera/dp/B079M4W8MQ

I'm not kidding, it is a really good adapter. 

As far as that goes, I used to shoot FD lenses on a cheap $100 Chinese speedbooster.  I always liked the look.  Clean but not pristine.  If you want to get away from the "digital" look, that could be one ingredient in the recipe; worked for me.  For those of you shooting manual glass it's an inexpensive way to go, FWIW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

An F0.95 lens on Micro Four Thirds still has a big advantage over an F2 lens in low light, 2 stops in fact.

which is compensated for by the 4x larger surface area of the full frame sensor ;) (I know it's implied in the small disclaimer, but taken in isolation that sentence could be misleading).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article but what about the image quality at 0.95 ? I tried the 25mm on my GH4 and I was not very impressed by the quality wide open: ton of vignetting and CA, very soft image. The advantage of 35mm lenses on FF is that you can find very good options (e.g Sigma Art) and stop them down to f2 or f2.8 where they really shine.
 

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

Will be joining the YouTube party at some point.

Don't forget the traditional "whaaaaat's up guyyyyyys" at the beginning of each video, along with "SUSCRIBE" with your hands pointing down toward the button...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, OliKMIA said:

Good article but what about the image quality at 0.95 ? I tried the 25mm on my GH4 and I was not very impressed by the quality wide open: ton of vignetting and CA, very soft image. The advantage of 35mm lenses on FF is that you can find very good options (e.g Sigma Art) and stop them down to f2 or f2.8 where they really shine.
 

Don't forget the traditional "whaaaaat's up guyyyyyys" at the beginning of each video, along with "SUSCRIBE" with your hands pointing down toward the button...

Wide open I don't like so much.  I typically set mine on a 1.4 - .95 split.  That looks good to me.  No doubt FF and FF lenses have a lot of advantages, (I exploit them myself) but it's not like one sensor option is wildly more impressive than the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, OliKMIA said:

Good article but what about the image quality at 0.95 ?

I wonder how much harder it is to manufacture a 17mm f0.95 that resolves the same on MFT as a 35mm f2.0 does on full frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

Wide open I don't like so much.  I typically set mine on a 1.4 - .95 split.  That looks good to me.  No doubt FF and FF lenses have a lot of advantages, (I exploit them myself) but it's not like one sensor option is wildly more impressive than the other.

Same here, I have both systems, I love my GH5 and I've been considering the Voighlander option for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some differences that you might not spot on this shots but you might in other situations. One it's how apart objects are from one another in depth. A 17.5mm makes the space wider, this is almost not noticeable in many cases but for example when you are filming a dialog between two actors the distance in depth between then will be different and this will convey another mood to the scene. Also, a 17mm will in most cases have more distortion especially when you are close to the lens, and also focus will be easier on the 35mm 2.0 than on a 17.5 at 0.95 .  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

Nice find. Have you also tried their Nikon F mount for Sony E-mount adapter? Curious to see what the AF is like on that.

Nope, i have a variety of Old Nikon glass, unfortunately using those in this adapter, the EF electronic connectors get in the way of the Nikon aperture pins. But i also use a Zonghy Lens turbo II, which it also is nice.

57 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

As far as that goes, I used to shoot FD lenses on a cheap $100 Chinese speedbooster.  I always liked the look.  Clean but not pristine.  If you want to get away from the "digital" look, that could be one ingredient in the recipe; worked for me.  For those of you shooting manual glass it's an inexpensive way to go, FWIW.

I know, I have a lot of old manual glass. But i prefer using good optics in the adapters so it doesn't change the rendering of those.

Share this post


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

They're great.  I use the 25 and 42.5.  I have a job coming up wherein I need to go wider FOV and I'll turn to the Voightlander brand yet again by buying the 10.5.

When I'm shooting without Voightlander lenses I tend to look at that footage and say, "Meh."

And, yeah, I'm invested now into M43 glass.  Paying more in lenses for shallow DOF and M43 is annoying, but it is what it is. 

Still, I do love FF with a wide open (and cheap) fast lens for interviews.  Low soft lighting with lots of bokeh and 3D pop.  It's a look that's just special...and very easy to accomplish.  So there's a pragmatic appreciation for it as well when one's trying to do a lot on a production with limited options.

It’s definitely great that there are alternatives for those invested in Micro 4/3rds or even those that use adapters and appreciate the many benefits that Panasonic or Olympus affords. But there really is something special about full frame that isn’t quite the same as a super speed lens alternative on M4/3.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tiago Rosa-Rosso said:

There is some differences that you might not spot on this shots but you might in other situations. One it's how apart objects are from one another in depth. A 17.5mm wides the space twice as much, this is almost not noticeable in many cases because. Also, a 17mm will have more distortion especially when you are close to the lens, and also focus will be easier on the 35mm 2.0 than on a 17.5 at 0.95 .  

I don't bite on this classic argument. Perspective doesn't change (at least it shouldn't) because the camera is set at the same distance, that's why you use crop factor for measurement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used the 25m T/0.95 from slrmagic extensively and enjoyed it a lot. The GH5 still lags behind though compared to full frame. You need the GH5s in order to much the low light performance for the same DoF (two stops slower on the FF) at least in video. For photos there is still at least a 2 stop difference between m4/3 and FF and will always be the case for sensors with similar technology and a 4 times area difference. 

The advantage of the FF lenses is that you can get very good AF with very shallow DoF which can also work great with video. The eye-AF is just an amazing thing to have if you like shooting faces with very shallow DoF.  

Another important point is that while these lenses are OK for video, the quality is not great for stills. You have to go up to the newer Olympus f/1.2 PRO line to get really good results, and then you are actually paying a lot of money for a m4/3 lens and still lag behind in the sensor department. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Tiago Rosa-Rosso said:

There are some differences that you might not spot on this shots but you might in other situations. One it's how apart objects are from one another in depth. A 17.5mm makes the space wider, this is almost not noticeable in many cases but for example when you are filming a dialog between two actors the distance in depth between then will be different and this will convey another mood to the scene.

This is not true. If it were, photos of a total solar eclipse wouldn't work on different size sensors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×