Good news for gh-2 enthusiasts

[Ian-T]

For those of you that have been following the GH-2 hacks etc., Vitaliy just announced he and the development team from his site personal-view.com have "partnered" officially with Panasonic. What this means I don't know exactly but he's giving hints on what will be coming out after NAB. There will be some kind of new firmware upgrade that will affect 60% video and 40% stills. If you don't already know....this camera is a little monster. The latest fix to the hack by Nick driftwood basically eliminates any blockiness that you'd typically see from 4:2:0 video and makes it looks (as some would say) as close to 4:2:2 as you can possibly get. You'd have to see it for yourselves to appreciate the image.

But now...this announcement from Vitaliy (which really comes as no suprise) has got me wondering...."what's next?" One might immediately think something negative...like Panasonic has bought him out and hired him or something. But he makes it perfectly clear....he does not work for Panasonic...only "partnering" with them. One thing I do anticipate however is some sort of picture profile like Canon cameras. I say this because someone asked the question and this was his response:

Q " Any word on Picture profiles in the 2.0 firmware?"
A Can't talk prior NAB much. But can give you a clue. You won't call them Picture profiles in v2.0."

I have a feeling that we will probably see much more powerful user settings that can help us to get a more..."cinematic" look to the image. I say this because one of his responses was this:

Already working on firmware v2.0 changes.
Some companies will be very upset with their $5000 cameras.

You can follow the ever growing discussion here on his site:

http://personal-view.com/talks/discu...e-big-thing/p1

[Ian-T]

Here is another Q&A I ran by:


Q Can you talk about the technical limits of the GH2?

A It need some research, as no one made it fully, as I understand.

I know more about next Venus LSI limitations. Thing is I don't know how Canon and Nikon are planning to sell their video DSLR after upcoming releases.

That's a pretty bold statement if you ask me. Almost sounds like propoganda. But...coming from Vitaliy...I seriously doubt that. lol

[Ian-T]

....could very well be an April fools day joke however. It is April fools in Russia right now....I think?

[Daniel Rutter]

Yeah, take all releases of information and otherwise as a practical joke right now.

I agree though, the GH2 does have an exceptional amount of power for such a little unit. I'm buying one very soon...

[Bif]

I agree though, the GH2 does have an exceptional amount of power for such a little unit. I'm buying one very soon...

I just "pulled the trigger" yesterday on a used body advertised on dvxuser. Should be here Tuesday (Apr 3rd) so you and I may be "comparing notes".

The thing that kept me from doing this before was all the "complaints" I saw about in camera oversharpening, particularly with Lumix lenses. So I started looking at samples on vimeo and the "oversharpening" I saw floored me. With original released cameras, original firmware, the image detail was absolutely stunning. Sharp and clean. Even with people in the scenes it looked very good to me. But there are just some "scenes" in some stories where you may want everything just as sharp, crisply detailed as is possible, especially where location scenery might be important to the visual effect desired. Perhaps even a somewhat "stark" rendering.

Now, I can shoot "soft" anytime I want to. I was doing that in my studio work with crisp Zeiss and Mamiya Sekor optics on medium format film cameras for over a decade (I still have the set of diffusion filters I used with some lenses). So this should give me more options, maybe one camera for extreme detail, another for gentler rendition of people.

Bruce Foreman

[Dr. Benway]

Hi, guys. So, for someone watching this unfold and the developments Ian posted above, what's the current contender for the most useful lens on the GH2?

[cgbier]

I don't know if they fit the micro 4/3 mount directly, but I'm very happy with my midrange (2.8-3.5) Digital Zuikos.

[Daniel Rutter]

The kit 14-42... I use it almost exclusively.
I'm guessing Bruce will say the 20mm 1.7, which I actually don't own myself... but plan to buy once money becomes more readily available.

Things being oversharp only ever bothers me with SD footage that has been uprezed. A sharp image will benefit me with my videography work, as people want it.

I'll be using a hack on my camera though, the Orion V4b looks stunning... the only issue there will be the need for speedier cards.

[drapeama]

The kit 14-42... I use it almost exclusively. [...] the only issue there will be the need for speedier cards.

1) Similar here with the 18-55mm. I like my 50mm f/1.8 but for "convenient" use, the kit lens is hard to beat.
2) What do you have at the moment?

[Bif]

Hi, guys. So, for someone watching this unfold and the developments Ian posted above, what's the current contender for the most useful lens on the GH2?

That's going to be a tough one, it's a whole new ball game when you get into the Micro 4/3 system. Cameras tend to be smaller some even bordering on "tiny" when you start comparing to cameras like some of the Nikon and Canon offerings. And much depends on the kinds of photography (and video) one gets into.

The kit 14-42... I use it almost exclusively.

The Olympus Zuiko versions I got with the Pen e-PL1 and the e-P3 are amazingly solid performers. In a photo club presentation I made on Micro 4/3 I shot the same subject both with the "kit" 14mm end and with the Lumix 14mm prime. You have to "pixel peep" to tell any difference outdoors at f5.6-f11, the prime opens up to f2.5 though, and that makes it a very useful indoor lens.

I'm guessing Bruce will say the 20mm 1.7, which I actually don't own myself... but plan to buy once money becomes more readily available.

Many over on the e-P1.net forums feel there are two "must haves", the Lumix 20mm f1.7 and the Olympus Zuiko 45mm f1.8, I think I tend to agree. I'm not "rich", I sold off a 7D, a T3i, and two Canon "L" series lenses to raise the funds to purchase some Micro 4/3 glass, a slightly used Olympus Pen e-P3, and to have some in reserve to pay for a pre-ordered Olympus OMD E-M5 when they become available later this month.

So with the Pen e-P3 I carry a Lumix 14mm f2.5, Lumix 20mm f1.7, and the Olympus 45mm f1.8. This pretty much replicates the primes I have for video with the Canon 60D I hung onto. And I've got the 14-42 "kit" lens and for longer "reach" the Lumix 45-200.

In this system the lenses are smaller, lighter, and it's always been easier for the manufacturers to make sharper better performing lenses where the glass elements size could be kept down.

Things being oversharp only ever bothers me with SD footage that has been uprezed. A sharp image will benefit me with my videography work, as people want it.

I think we've allowed ourselves to be "taken in" and made to feel we ought to strive for this "fantasy" cinematic "look" that everybody tries to define to the point where they feel it's not cinematic if we don't re-introduce things that were considered "faults" and "defects" when they had to be dealt with.

There's film grain, scratches, end of roll light struck flashes (that rarely if ever happened in theatrical releases), slavish adherence to 24fps when framerate has NOTHING to do with cinematic quality, and more. VistaVision and other big screen formats were in actuality an effort for more detail in the motion picture experience.

Content, both in story and in scene elements, is "king". And in the way it's captured with composition, lighting, and good motion picture technique.

I'll be using a hack on my camera though, the Orion V4b looks stunning... the only issue there will be the need for speedier cards.

The guy I bought the GH2 body from offered to put one of the "hacks" on for me (he'd restored it to original firmware), I told him I'd try it with the original setup first. He then told me there were some often unexpected "glitches" with the modified versions.

Bruce Foreman

[BarteS]

If you're on a budget, why would you get the 45mm f/1.8? I use a Nikon 50mm f/1.8D (manual aperture).

[Daniel Rutter]

Because, as far as I'm aware, the 45mm is true 45mm on the GH1/2 (and other M4/3 systems), as opposed to the other full frame lenses from Nikon, Pentax and some others that would be twice the focal length (so, your Nikon 50mm is actually 100mm or so).

Although, this is my understanding of the system... I could be wrong. EDIT: I am wrong, after all. Just looked it up.

@Draps: I have what is listed in my signature image. One Nikon 28-80 f3.5-5.6 which I haven't used since I bought the kit Lumix 14-42mm 3.5-5.6. I also have a Pentax 50mm f1.7 that I use for some portraiture and specific work where I need to get closer. I've been keeping my eye out for more M4/3 glass, such as the formentioned 20mm f1.7 and giving some thought to a 7-14mm... although I'm only thinking of that one for music videos (which I haven't actually had a chance to do any yet).

@Bruce: I agree with all your points.

[cgbier]

EDIT: I am wrong, after all. Just looked it up.

Why is that?

[Daniel Rutter]

Why is that?

M4/3 lenses are also measured as "equvilant to 35mm"... so the 45mm 1.8 that Bruce mentioned is actually 90mm, and more of a telephoto than a "portrait"...

Unless I am indeed right the first time?

[cgbier]

The focal length is right. 45mm is 45mm. However, the angle of view is equivalent to that of a 90mm, and you lose one stop of DOF.

My Zuiko 14-54/2.8-3.5 behaves optically like my old (bread and butter) Nikkor 28-105/3.5-4.5, but is even sharper and has a slightly warmer color rendition than the Nikkor (which is no slouch at all).

[BarteS]

So, this still leaves me with the question, if you're on a budget, why not the cheap 50mm f/1.8, either Canon or Nikon? Especially if you have a Canon or Nikon DSLR...

And regarding the focal length, field of view...
The focal length of a lens is the distance from the center of a lens to the image sensor. This won't change, whether you put it on a crop or full frame body, it's a characteristic of the lens. 50mm is and stays 50mm.

The field of view is the one you should consider and has to do with the thing you're presented with on screen.
If you add a full frame lens on a crop sensor camera, the angle of view of that lens results in a coverage which exceeds the surface of the sensor. The crop sensor 'sees' less of the picture, 1.6x. In other words you'd have to move away from the object to get the same picture.
If you would add a crop lens on a full size sensor, it's the other way around. The full frame sensor, using its entire surface still 'sees' more than a crop sensor, if both have a crop lens in front of them. Unfortunately part of it is the inside of the lens. The lens does not have sufficient angle of view to accommodate for the full sensor size. What you would do is crop the resulting image in post to get rid of the vignetting (or activate crop mode on the camera).

[The result of this cropping in post of an image of a full frame sensor is like, instead of a crop lens, using a full frame lens and walking towards the subject to get the same picture, the same field of view, as the crop camera.] Somewhat separate as it might confuse some, to others it might be just that final touch to close the circle.

[Ian-T]

M4/3 lenses are also measured as "equvilant to 35mm"... so the 45mm 1.8 that Bruce mentioned is actually 90mm, and more of a telephoto than a "portrait"...

Unless I am indeed right the first time?

If you are talking stills photos....then yeah. But that 45mm on the GH-2 would be a much much closer match to a 45mm on a real Super 35mm movie camera.

[Bif]

If you're on a budget, why would you get the 45mm f/1.8? I use a Nikon 50mm f/1.8D (manual aperture).

Because you have to shoot with this beauty to understand. Sharp as a tack even at f1.8, with no flare, no chromatic aberration, and no change in contrast. As you stop down the only thing that changes (assuming exposure is kept constant) is Depth Of Field. It is small, very small, and when mounted on the camera very unobstrusive. Made for the Micro 4/3 system it works with every feature of the Olympus and Panasonic cameras. Well, almost. No IS with Panasonic cameras, Olympus has "in body" IS which on the Olympus Pen's works very very well.

M4/3 lenses are also measured as "equvilant to 35mm"... so the 45mm 1.8 that Bruce mentioned is actually 90mm, and more of a telephoto than a "portrait"...

Unless I am indeed right the first time?

With the Micro 4/3 sensor the "crop" factor is roughly 2x. So you take the stated/marked focal length and multiply by 2 for the full frame 35mm equivalent, the 45mm is a 90mm equivalent. On full frame 35 generally the portrait range is considered around 80mm to 135mm although some use 200-300mm for the perspective you get in that range.

So that Zuiko 45mm f1.8 performs much the same as a 90mm would. CG says you lose one stop of DOF, theoretically he's probably right, but when you look at the pictures/portraits shot wide open it doesn't look like anything's been lost.

Right now this is one of the two most sought after lenses in the Oly/Panny system, with the Lumix 20mm f1.7 being the other. That 20mm is a 40mm equivalent, kind of between the slightly wide perspective of the 35mm focal length and the 50mm "normal" that came with a lot of cameras in the 1960's. I use it as kind of a slightly "wide normal".

If you are talking stills photos....then yeah. But that 45mm on the GH-2 would be a much much closer match to a 45mm on a real Super 35mm movie camera.

Not really. Both the Olympus Pen's and the Panasonic's have the same size Micro 4/3 sensor. That 45mm is going to function as a 90mm equivalent on both. It will function on the GH2 (and GH1 as the whole G series) just like it worked on my Pen e-P3 last night.

Bruce Foreman

[Bif]

So, this still leaves me with the question, if you're on a budget, why not the cheap 50mm f/1.8, either Canon or Nikon? Especially if you have a Canon or Nikon DSLR...

Because I don't want the "cheap" 50mm f1.8, either Canon or Nikon.

Those are not bad lenses, I've had some of them in the past and even adapted an old Nikkor AI-s 50mm to a Canon T1i to get manual aperture control. It was nice.

But it had some flare and some chromatic aberration wide open compared to an EF 50mm (1980's vintage with the original metal barrel. I didn't want that kind of flare and CA, if I ever do want flare I can compose in such a way the lens is pointed somewhat towards a strong enough light source.

If you have to stay within a budget those you mention will work. But I WANTED the clean IQ the 45mm Oly lens, recently designed and produced for this fairly new format, provides. And I paid for it.

And regarding the focal length, field of view...
The focal length of a lens is the distance from the center of a lens to the image sensor. This won't change,

From here you go into more detail and theory than necessary. I want a "portrait" length perspective, I reach for a lens that is about double the "normal" perspective focal length for the format. With the Micro 4/3 format we're talking here, "normal" is about 25mm (50mm equiv), double is 50mm (100mm equiv). So this Olympus Zuiko 45mm is "close enough".

All of the numbers, FOV, crop sensor size, and sensor coverage data you add doesn't matter when I need a portrait perspective, the 45mm lens delivers and so would your "cheap" Canons and Nikkors (which are really excellent lenses in their own right.

Bruce Foreman

[redfalcon]

For shooting movies, Ian's right as far as field of view when shooting Super 35 film. It's close to a 1.5 crop of full frame, something like that.

This camera has really started to peak my interest. I've done tons of work with my T2i and always loved it, but the aliasing and moire that is unavoidable is something I'd love to be done with forever.

The sharpness and quality of some of the work I've seen with the GH2, hacked or not, is pretty darn impressive.

It's always been that 2X crop factor that stopped me. But the lenses to deal with that seem to be accessible now.

[azmyth]

And of course, if you want real world examples. I'm shooting a feature with a GH-2 right now..

here's a "high ISO" black and white still from one of my "surveillance" camera type shots..

Shot on smooth B and W setting at about 1250 ISO, w/ kit lens (which I rarely use)

[drapeama]

And of course, if you want real world examples. I'm shooting a feature with a GH-2 right now..
here's a "high ISO" black and white still from one of my "surveillance" camera type shots..
Shot on smooth B and W setting at about 1250 ISO, w/ kit lens (which I rarely use)

1) And so far, it's more than adequate!
2) One thing I'd like to suggest: try to "degrade" the image in post or use the HV in DV mode otherwise it'll blend with the rest of the footage in the final edit. It needs to be visually separated from the rest, sort of.
3) It gives quite a nice look. Around 100mbps+ with the hack?

[cgbier]

CG says you lose one stop of DOF, theoretically he's probably right, but when you look at the pictures/portraits shot wide open it doesn't look like anything's been lost

There've been heated discussions on pixel peeper fora since Olympus came out with the 4/3 system. It has rarely - if ever - bothered ME in real life. I'm not a shallow DOF contender, but prefer the term "selective focus", and the Zuikos deliver what I want. If someone insists on paper thin DOF, I still have my Nikkor 50/1.4 AiS.

[azmyth]

I personally HATE the EXTREME shallow DOF of the 5D. The DOF of the M4/3 actually feels more cinematic to me, because it doesn't seem like overkill. Its the same reason some stuff with my HV40 still seems more "cinematic". Everything doesn't need to be totally out of focus in the background all the time.

[Ian-T]

....could very well be an April fools day joke however. It is April fools in Russia right now....I think?

LOL....It took him a while but.... I guess the joke is on us:

http://personal-view.com/talks/discu...#Comment_52707

If you read the thread from the beginning you'll see how crazy folks got with their demands and some with their anger. Funny stuff.