Lens test on Panasonic GH2

B

brianluce

I'm not the science guy, but here's my attempt to show a few different options for the Panasonic GH2. My favorite is my SMC Pentax 50mm 1.4. The focusing action on it is very nice and I like the look. $100 on ebay.

This test isn't meant to prove anything other than what a person can do when they have about 20 minutes of spare time.
http://www.vimeo.com/23468470
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Why are you using AWB, even though it's noted that there's no Tungsten sources around?

Interesting how some of the settings caused that b/w chart to buzz more, in the middle. What's that chart called, btw?

How does that Pentax 50mm compare to the Canon 50mm? (Looking at lenses for my T2i)

Thanks for posting lens & settings tests :cool:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Zensteve said:
Why are you using AWB, even though it's noted that there's no Tungsten sources around?

Interesting how some of the settings caused that b/w chart to buzz more, in the middle. What's that chart called, btw?

How does that Pentax 50mm compare to the Canon 50mm? (Looking at lenses for my T2i)

Thanks for posting lens & settings tests :cool:
Click to expand...

AWB is the one auto setting I keep on. Just out of habit really and that I haven't noticed any difference to speak of when I've used the dedicated WB settings.

Which Canon 50mm? I think they make a crummy 1.8 called the "Mini Lindy" or something, sells new for like $12 and then they have some badass f1.2 that costs a lot, then there's the FD's -- I've got some of them too. The vintage Pentax, with the coated lens, is highly regarded and sometimes rated above its Zeiss equivalent. And, as I said, the focus is beautiful, and for filmmaking, I think manual focus is mandatory. There's a version of the Pentax with scalloped focus ring, they're good and allegedly a follow focus will work just fine on it, mine is the conventional style ring.

I suggest buying vintage lens's from reputable ebay vendors, not some random guy who found a camera in his dad's garage who just died. I bought a 135mm 2.4 Canon FD and it had a little play in the focus ring, the guy refunded me, but it was a headache, had the seller been more knowledgeable he would've spotted it and either disclosed it or fixed it before selling it.

I forget the name of that chart type, I used to use it for backfocusing, look at the video again, I think the website I raided it from is printed on the chart. Great chart for focusing though. I printed it out on my printer and plasticized it and keep it in my backpack in the laptop slot.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Zensteve said:
Why are you using AWB, even though it's noted that there's no Tungsten sources around?

Interesting how some of the settings caused that b/w chart to buzz more, in the middle. What's that chart called, btw?

How does that Pentax 50mm compare to the Canon 50mm? (Looking at lenses for my T2i)

Thanks for posting lens & settings tests :cool:
Click to expand...

The cannon 50mm 1.8 is quite cheap, but I hear, and have seen, that it is clumsy and poorly made. The 50mm 1.4 costs more but I bought it and it's a great lens, and if you have more you can go with the f1.2 but those are very costly
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
AWB on the GH2 kicked my a$# this weekend. I am mad as heck. My own fault for using AWB of course, but geepers Im have 10X post work now!

WB CHANGED mid recording. Heres my setup.. tungsten soft-box light only. No other source.

During playback I could EASILY see the change in WB during the recoding. Alternatively, maybe it was the new light bulbs.. 500w photofloods...

Ill post some footage as soon as I finish the actual project (another poptent ad)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
wheatgrinder said:
AWB on the GH2 kicked my a$# this weekend. I am mad as heck. My own fault for using AWB of course, but geepers Im have 10X post work now!

WB CHANGED mid recording. Heres my setup.. tungsten soft-box light only. No other source.

During playback I could EASILY see the change in WB during the recoding. Alternatively, maybe it was the new light bulbs.. 500w photofloods...

Ill post some footage as soon as I finish the actual project (another poptent ad)
Click to expand...

Hey that's good info, maybe it's time to stop using AWB, I'm still new to the camera and getting to know its habits. The menus continue to baffle and annoy, but the image quality is astonishing. I like it much better than my 7d. I hope you can pinpoint whatever caused the wb shift.

I do a lot of indoor shooting with existing light so I often have the iso at 1000. F8? just a middling setting, figured if I had it at f22 people would say "Why didn't you open it up for the test?" and if I had it at 1.4 people would say "Why were you wide open?" So I took the middle ground and pissed off both groups.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Footage is going to look pretty bad at 1000 ISO. I don't go that high on a 5Dmk2 which would smoke that camera as far as noise at high ISO. The limit to get something that looks even decent is probably around 800.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
Footage is going to look pretty bad at 1000 ISO. I don't go that high on a 5Dmk2 which would smoke that camera as far as noise at high ISO. The limit to get something that looks even decent is probably around 800.
Click to expand...

Try a test in broad daylight with NDs, shoot at high ISO's, see what the image looks like in comparison to low ISO's.

Just a test. =] Tell me what ya think.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kholi said:
Try a test in broad daylight with NDs, shoot at high ISO's, see what the image looks like in comparison to low ISO's.

Just a test. =] Tell me what ya think.
Click to expand...

I don't have too. I've seen plenty of test footage, and run tests myself. A 5Dmk2 (which again smokes the GH2 like a pound of bacon as far as noise at high ISO) becomes noisey at 640 is pretty usable up through 1600 and looks like crap after that (for video).

I do everything possible lighting wise to shoot 160, will go as high as 640 if needed, and will only go 800 or above if there is just no possible way to get more light on the scene. That noise you barely see on a 21" monitor becomes very noticeable once you project it 35' wide.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
I don't have too. I've seen plenty of test footage, and run tests myself. A 5Dmk2 (which again smokes the GH2 like a pound of bacon as far as noise at high ISO) becomes noisey at 640 is pretty usable up through 1600 and looks like crap after that (for video).
Click to expand...

Well, your opinion on the Mark II vs GH-2 is an opinion.

Shooting at higher ISOs in broad daylight actually helps the banding issues that the subpar camera's subpar compression has. But, since you've seen tests and done tests in broad daylight at higher ISO's yourself, I suppose you already know that ISO performance is not the same in different lighting situations.

Being that he mentioned he was shooting higher ISOs with plenty of light, it's perfect fine to use a higher ISO to get a deeper stop, if not good practice for producing a better image with a DSLR.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kholi said:
Well, your opinion on the Mark II vs GH-2 is an opinion.

Shooting at higher ISOs in broad daylight actually helps the banding issues that the subpar camera's subpar compression has. But, since you've seen tests and done tests in broad daylight at higher ISO's yourself, I suppose you already know that ISO performance is not the same in different lighting situations.

Being that he mentioned he was shooting higher ISOs with plenty of light, it's perfect fine to use a higher ISO to get a deeper stop, if not good practice for producing a better image with a DSLR.
Click to expand...


Well, my opinion, and the opinion of every review and test I have ever seen or read. The GH2 is almost as good as the 7D as far as ISO performance, which is not nearly as good as the 5D.

Yes, performance can be different in different situations, but noise is still noise and higher ISO produces more noise. It's not a perfect upward curve on digital. It bounces around and some non-native ISO can look better even when higher than a non-native lower ISO, but in general higher ISO = more noise, period.

In "Broad daylight" it's often hard enough to get a good exposure at 100 or 160 even with ND filters, so I doubt any potential benefit would marginally higher ISO would be worth it, and you'd have to srtack 6 ND filters to even get a good exposure at F16 or F22 if you were shooting something crazy like 1000.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
Well, my opinion, and the opinion of every review and test I have ever seen or read. The GH2 is almost as good as the 7D as far as ISO performance, which is not nearly as good as the 5D.
Click to expand...

Yeah, different tests have shown different things. Ideally, under a lowlit situation, you wouldn't jump beyond 1000ISO on the 7D or 5D (as the values are pretty much near identical in regards to Signal-to-noise) and on the GH-2, 800.

However, the GH-2's more accurate to the stop than either the 7D or 5D.

400 ISO on the GH-2 as far as light gathering goes looks like 640 (if I remember properly) on the 7D an 5D.

Yes, performance can be different in different situations, but noise is still noise and higher ISO produces more noise. It's not a perfect upward curve on digital. It bounces around and some non-native ISO can look better even when higher than a non-native lower ISO, but in general higher ISO = more noise, period.
Click to expand...

The point was, by utilizing a higher ISO in well lit situations and employing Neutral Density to cut your stops, you're going to smooth out the low ISO's banding issues through noise. So, noise applicable, on a larger screen your image will look much more organic and a lot less artifact-ridden with a higher ISO employed.

It's not all that subjective, the limitations of camera compression means inherent banding and more, and noise (or grain) tends to smooth out what the eye catches.

This isn't to convince you to shoot any other way, mind you. But, hopefully those interest will test it for themselves. Digital noise can actually be your friend if you invite it in. =]
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
In "Broad daylight" it's often hard enough to get a good exposure at 100 or 160 even with ND filters, so I doubt any potential benefit would marginally higher ISO would be worth it, and you'd have to srtack 6 ND filters to even get a good exposure at F16 or F22 if you were shooting something crazy like 1000.
Click to expand...

For those of us who shoot mostly traditional (T Stops of 4~5.6 Splits, or in terms of Still Photographic Lenses, you'd be shooting at about an F8 to be equivalent), utilizing somewhere between .9 and 1.2 @ 180 Degree shutter, T-Stop of 4~5.6 Split and 400 or 640 ISO should get you a pretty fair skin exposure, depending on pigment.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If it only it were Grain, grain can look beautiful, noise looks like complete garbage. If I want to smooth it out I put a diffusion filter on and try to smooth it out that way.

I'm not a DP by any stretch, but I come from a fairly strong film photography background. Never even touched a digital camera until about 6 months ago. So not trying to be argumentative. I just know what I've seen from my own tests, and I'll be hard pressed to let my DP shoot anything over 640 on the 5D which is the point I can really start to see noise in the h.264 file on a small 21" monitor.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
If it only it were Grain, grain can look beautiful, noise looks like complete garbage. If I want to smooth it out I put a diffusion filter on and try to smooth it out that way.

I'm not a DP by any stretch, but I come from a fairly strong film photography background. Never even touched a digital camera until about 6 months ago. So not trying to be argumentative. I just know what I've seen from my own tests, and I'll be hard pressed to let my DP shoot anything over 640 on the 5D which is the point I can really start to see noise in the h.264 file on a small 21" monitor.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Not meaning to hijack this thread so I'll let it rest.

Thanks for the discussion!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There isn't a lot of reliable technical info on the GH2, there must not be enough of them out there. People at DVXuser can't even seem to agree on the best ISO settings. They've done tests with lens caps on, different theories, but there's nothing like the wealth of info and cool scene recipes available for the 7d/5d. However, I don't think using data mined from 5d testing is a good way to setup a GH2. You know things are getting desperate when a quack like me starts posting lens tests. Where the F is Adam Wilt or Barry Green?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top