Panasonic GH4 vs Samsung NX1

[juanm]

I was talking about the equivalence and I think you understood this.
This is why I wrote that a 300mm f2.8 works on a m4/3 like a 600mm 5.6. It doesn't magically become a 600mm 5.6 obviously.

Wrong again:
Assuming a x2 CF, It has "the same FOV as a 600mm lens would have on a Full frame body", and it still retains its physical f2.8 aperture, that's the end of it.

You don't know what you're talking about, and there's nothing wrong with that, but you refuse to acknowledge your mistakes, and that, however, is not smart...

Edit: if you were talking about a 2X converter, you'd be totally right, though, since teleconverters spread the actual image circle over a larger area, decreasing the illuminance proportionately to the new image circle.

 

[Meister]

Wrong again:
Assuming a x2 CF, It has "the same FOV as a 600mm lens would have on a Full frame body", and it still retains its physical f2.8 aperture, that's the end of it.

It acts with the same aperture as a f5.6 lens would on a FF body.

----------

You don't know what you're talking about, and there's nothing wrong with that, but you refuse to acknowledge your mistakes, and that, however, is not smart...

I am right. You are wrong

 

[juanm]

It acts with the same aperture as a f5.6 lens would on a FF body.

Depth of field-wise, yes, kind of (I don't want to get into the concept of circle of confusion, which is obviously too much for you). In terms of illuminance at the sensor level, no, nope, non, nein, net. Still as luminous as a 600mm f/2.8 on a Full Frame, you wouldn't have to change the exposure settings: If you take a picture well exposed at 1/180s and f/2.8 and iso 800 with a Nikon D800 and then with an adapter you put instead a GH4, with the same settings, you'll get the same exposure (within the limits of how the camera post-processes the image), only with a tighter crop. Try it.

Here's a small list of cinematography forums, go ahead and ask them, I dare you:
http://reduser.net
http://philipbloom.net/forum/
http://www.arridigital.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=uf067hhgcrj4gg7gpars2ou1j0&board=1.0
http://www.deakinsonline.com/forum2/
https://forums.creativecow.net/cinematography

 

[Meister]

Depth of field-wise, yes, kind of (I don't want to get into the concept of circle of confusion, which is obviously too much for you). In terms of illuminance at the sensor level, no, nope, non, nein, net. Still as luminous as a 600mm f/2.8 on a Full Frame, you wouldn't have to change the exposure settings.

Here's a small list of cinematography forums, go ahead and ask them, I dare you:
http://reduser.net
http://philipbloom.net/forum/
http://www.arridigital.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=uf067hhgcrj4gg7gpars2ou1j0&board=1.0
http://www.deakinsonline.com/forum2/
https://forums.creativecow.net/cinematography

A sensor that has 1/4 the surface of a FF sensor collects 1/4 of the photons a FF sensor collects.
It collects 2 stops less light. It doubles the equivalent f-stop.

It's a fact. People's opinions on forums don't change that.

 

[juanm]

A sensor that has 1/4 the surface of a FF sensor collects 1/4 of the photons a FF sensor collects.
It collects 2 stops less light. It doubles the equivalent f-stop.

It's a fact. People's opinions on forums don't change that.

1/4 the photons on... 1/4 the area! Hence the same illuminance and thus the same exposure.

I've used and worked with pretty much everything from field cameras (still the best cameras to actually understand light) to the latest Epic Dragon, I am familiar with things like the Scheimpflug principle, circles of confusion, T-stops vs F-stops, photometry, etc... Go ahead, I tell you: try it at your camera store, ask on cinematography forums. (I rule out plain photography forums, because amateurs there are notoriously misinformed, like you).

 

[Meister]

1/4 the photons on... 1/4 the area!

Exactly!

----------

Go ahead, I tell you: try it at your camera store.

Try what?

 

[juanm]

Exactly!

----------

Try what?

*sigh*

Mount a Nikon on a lens take a picture at f/2.8, and then mount a GH4 (or any other cropped sensor camera, with an adapter of course) on the same lens. Shoot one picture at the maximum aperture f/2.8 with the same ISO and speed settings. Both will be correctly exposed (within post processing treatment variations), proving my point that neither the actual nor the effective aperture change, as long as the flange focal distance remains the same.

That's the problem today. People have all this wealth of information at their disposal, but since they lack the basic foundation, they carry on with basic misconceptions. Your reasoning in this case is akin to turning down the brightness on your screen if you deem the image overexposed.

 

[Meister]

Image

*sigh*

Mount a Nikon on a lens take a picture at f/2.8, and then mount a GH4 (or any other cropped sensor camera, with an adapter of course) on the same lens. Shoot one picture at the maximum aperture f/2.8 with the same ISO and speed settings. Both will be correctly exposed (within post processing treatment variations), proving my point that neither the actual nor the effective aperture change.

Of course they will both expose equally bright. You are making the assumption that ISO is some sort of constant in this test. You are falling for a false assumption again.
With digital there is no standard for ISO and manufacturers can adjust it at their liking. ISO on the GH4 is not the same as ISO on a Nikon. That is why the same iso is usually noisier on a smaller sensor.

 

[Fafa2e]

Wow! This thread went off on a tangent.

As I said in my original post, I am a complete newbie when it comes to interchangeable lens cameras and all of these photography concepts of f-stops, apertures, etc.

I will add that, based on my limited research online, low light performance is greatly affected by sensor size. The larger the sensor the better, in general.

Based on this information, I know that I am compromising low light performance with the GH4 and it's MFT sensor; however, I am willing to live with this compromise because most of my shooting will take place outside during the day.

I have a lot to learn and I am looking forward to the challenge.

Thanks again for the responses.

 

[joema2]

...
Based on this information, I know that I am compromising low light performance with the GH4 and it's MFT sensor...

Yes I knew that was your concern hence my reminder that there are relatively affordable optically fast lenses available which help mitigate this. Since difficulty of manufacturing optics scales with surface area and that increases as pi*r^2, so-called "full frame" lenses are generally much more expensive at the same aperture, lens type, quality level, and equivalent focal length.

As I previously mentioned, a good example of this is the Lumix 35-100 f/2.8 which produces the same image brightness and effective magnification as the much more expensive Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II (which I have on my 5D3).

Of course the m4/3 sensor itself is smaller and has less high-ISO ability, but the illuminance (flux per unit surface area) delivered to the sensor is the same as the big Canon lens on a FF camera.

For example the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 is about $1k. A "full frame" lens delivering the equivalent focal length and optical speed (50mm f/1.0) is many thousands of $. So partially compensating for the m4/3 sensor is fast available lenses at a generally lower cost.

The same equivalent focal length and aperture produces a deeper depth of field on m4/3, but you never raised that concern.

Sometimes those DSLR lenses are available -- say borrowed from other people you're shooting with. You also have the option of mounting them on the GH4 with the appropriate adapter. The right Metabones adapter allows mounting Canon EF or Nikon F-mount lenses, and adds about 1 f/stop advantage: http://www.metabones.com/products/?c=speed-booster

Andrew Reid at EOSHD shoots a lot with the GH4, however the Cooke Panchro/i lens he sometimes uses is quite expensive: http://www.eoshd.com/2014/05/panasonic-gh4-review/

 

[Meister]

For example the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 is about $1k. A "full frame" lens delivering the equivalent focal length and optical speed (50mm f/1.0) is many thousands of $. So partially compensating for the m4/3 sensor is fast available lenses at a generally lower cost.

This is real nonsense. The Voigtlander you mentioned will deliver the same performance on a m4/3 sensor as a 50mm 1.8 (cost: $100) would on a FF sensor. For $900 more!

I just spent quite some time explaining that you cannot say that 25mm on m4/3 is the equivalent of 50mm on FF and then just leave the aperture. That is not how this works.

If you claim an equivalent focal length, but not an equivalent f-stop, the equation is wrong.

The focal length is what defines the aperture!

 

[juanm]

Of course they will both expose equally bright. You are making the assumption that ISO is some sort of constant in this test. You are falling for a false assumption again.
With digital there is no standard for ISO and manufacturers can adjust it at their liking. ISO on the GH4 is not the same as ISO on a Nikon. That is why the same iso is usually noisier on a smaller sensor.

So in your opinion cropped sensors compensate their iso for their smaller size to compensate for the aperture they "lose". Yes, some cameras are not exactly faithful on the ISO, but have you ever used a light meter?
This kind:

You take an incident reading, and you input the settings manually on the camera to bypass the bias of the scene brightness. According to you, they are useless, since the cameras all have different ISOs depending on their sensor size? Because I've used them from S16mm to 4"x5" film and they were always accurate...

You should write a blog with all you know about photography that insiders don't.

Wow! This thread went off on a tangent.

As I said in my original post, I am a complete newbie when it comes to interchangeable lens cameras and all of these photography concepts of f-stops, apertures, etc.

I will add that, based on my limited research online, low light performance is greatly affected by sensor size. The larger the sensor the better, in general.

Based on this information, I know that I am compromising low light performance with the GH4 and it's MFT sensor; however, I am willing to live with this compromise because most of my shooting will take place outside during the day.

I have a lot to learn and I am looking forward to the challenge.

Thanks again for the responses.

Sorry about the thread hijacking, but Meister was spreading misinformation, and I cannot let him do that. He said something plainly false, and he's too proud to admit he's wrong. You can safely disregard anything he says.

I own a GH4. It's amazing for the price. I've used a lot of cameras, and for stills I like Nikon, but right now you cannot beat the GH4 value at this price point.
The trick is in assigning the right functions to the FN buttons, according to your needs, since the menus are very confusing and useful features are hidden in submenus. After a few months with it, I know it quite well, just ask by PM if you've got a question.

Yes I knew that was your concern hence my reminder that there are relatively affordable optically fast lenses available which help mitigate this. Since difficulty of manufacturing optics scales with surface area and that increases as pi*r^2, so-called "full frame" lenses are generally much more expensive at the same aperture, lens type, quality level, and equivalent focal length.

As I previously mentioned, a good example of this is the Lumix 35-100 f/2.8 which produces the same image brightness and effective magnification as the much more expensive Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II (which I have on my 5D3).

Of course the m4/3 sensor itself is smaller and has less high-ISO ability, but the illuminance (flux per unit surface area) delivered to the sensor is the same as the big Canon lens on a FF camera.

For example the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 is about $1k. A "full frame" lens delivering the equivalent focal length and optical speed (50mm f/1.0) is many thousands of $. So partially compensating for the m4/3 sensor is fast available lenses at a generally lower cost.

The same equivalent focal length and aperture produces a deeper depth of field on m4/3, but you never raised that concern.

Sometimes those DSLR lenses are available -- say borrowed from other people you're shooting with. You also have the option of mounting them on the GH4 with the appropriate adapter. The right Metabones adapter allows mounting Canon EF or Nikon F-mount lenses, and adds about 1 f/stop advantage: http://www.metabones.com/products/?c=speed-booster

Andrew Reid at EOSHD shoots a lot with the GH4, however the Cooke Panchro/i lens he sometimes uses is quite expensive: http://www.eoshd.com/2014/05/panasonic-gh4-review/

Thanks for bringing some sanity into this thread. Yes, MFT has some drawbacks but as a rule, the smaller the sensor, the cheaper the system.

Reid is okay in his reviews, but regarding the Cooke, even though there's nothing wrong per se in putting that lens on a GH4, if you ask me, it's just to show off. You go for the GH4 when you want a cost effective system. I wouldn't review my personal GH4 by putting a $40000 zoom from work on it, it'd be pointless for most shooters.

This is real nonsense. The Voigtlander you mentioned will deliver the same performance on a m4/3 sensor as a 50mm 1.8 (cost: $100) would on a FF sensor. For $900 more!

I just spent quite some time explaining that you cannot say that 25mm on m4/3 is the equivalent of 50mm on FF and then just leave the aperture. That is not how this works.

The focal length is what defines the aperture!

But we already established that the focal length DOESN'T change, so where does that leave your little theory? You're wrong again! You're on fire today!

Once again, the equivalence is just referring to the FOV you'd get on a full Frame. Have you asked for a second opinion yet like I suggested? Maybe you should open a thread in the photography forum. Perhaps it could help other people who're confused like you are...

 

[Meister]

So in your opinion cropped sensors compensate their iso for their smaller size to compensate for the aperture they "lose". Yes, some cameras are not exactly faithful on the ISO, but have you ever used a light meter?

Manufacturers adjust the ISO number according to the sensor, so the same ISO number always appears equaly bright under same exposure. This is why you can use your lightmeter with all cameras. With smaller sensors they have to tweek the ISO to match larger sensors. This is why the image appears noisier with smaller sensor cameras.
Fuji diverted from this practice and that is why their images are darker at same iso.

You should write a blog with all you know about photography that insiders don't.

What I am explaining to you is actually quite widely know. Tony Northrup made a video of it a while ago.

 

[Meister]

Wow! This thread went off on a tangent.

As I said in my original post, I am a complete newbie when it comes to interchangeable lens cameras and all of these photography concepts of f-stops, apertures, etc.

I will add that, based on my limited research online, low light performance is greatly affected by sensor size. The larger the sensor the better, in general.

Based on this information, I know that I am compromising low light performance with the GH4 and it's MFT sensor; however, I am willing to live with this compromise because most of my shooting will take place outside during the day.

I have a lot to learn and I am looking forward to the challenge.

Thanks again for the responses.

No problem

Certain members (junma/ joema) are trying to tell you a bit of a story here. They are claiming that a 25mm f0.95 lens acts like a 50mm f0.95 on the GH4. That would of course be awesome, but sadly is not true. It works like a 50mm f1.9, which is not that awesome anymore. It's a trick commonly used by camera companies to sell tiny sensors. This might be a bit technical, so for better understanding I will post a video where this is explained with examples, once I can find it.
I do agree with the other posters that the GH4 is a great camera for 4k.

 

[juanm]

What I am explaining to you is actually quite widely know. Tony Northrup made a video of it a while ago.

I had to look, and it shows why being exposed to too much information without knowing the basics prevents you from discerning what is BS. I don't know whether he doesn't know what he's talking about, or he knows it, but since he wants to oversimplify, he doesn't get the right message across. In any case, he's got any gear, but he's not a very good teacher, since his watchers, the way he explains, will end up misunderstanding the basic concepts.

The lens is and will always be 2.8 unless you put a focal converter (2x or 0.6x like the speedboosters)

Like joema said in post number 14:

We were not talking about DOF, framing, or anything else.

Or like I said in post number 11:

Tl;dr:
-Smaller sensors are better for Macro work (more DoF, since you use a shorter FL to get the same FoV)

That's why we talk of FOCAL LENGTH equivalence. We isolate that factor...

You've been told things on youtube or other places, but you still don't know enough to understand whether they apply or not.

And don't say that's what you meant that from the beginning, since you were talking about number of photons over an area, which doesn't have anything to do with depth of field.

So, while what that blogger said was true in the context of what he intended (obtaining the exact same picture), it's hardly a myth that smaller sensors will give you more depth of field. You cannot extrapolate what he said in that situation to everything else. He should explain that, or his watchers will understand it wrong.

Edit:
This, I guess, is one of the videos you talk about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtDotqLx6nA
His BS-level is quite high. He shows lots of fancy gear to impress camera adoring viewers, but doesn't explain the right concepts behind it. And as a matter of fact, you're repeating what he says at minute 22:00. And yes, I'll say it loud and clear: he's full of it and doesn't know what he's talking about (and that says a lot about the internet, since he's had 146000 views on that video). Classic case of bad professional turned blogger.
A quick search on "Tony Northrup ************" will bring many results for a reason. Yes, he makes it easy to understand, but only because he's wrong... In the comments he still talks about light gathering abilities instead of grabbing the opportunity to add the caveat that it refers to DoF only. Of course, now that the video is in the open, it would be embarrassing to admit a mistake.

Here's a forum where they talk about him: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/in...c53cfae1231a7de7b62f1cb51&topic=22510.0;nowap

And after watching a few videos quickly, I can confirm he doesn't know ****. He puts in his speech things like focus breathing to sound smart and knowledgeable, but since he's using them wrong, it doesn't make much sense and he makes a fool out of himself (of course, newbies won't realise it)


To the OP: for video, usually it's better to have some slack for focusing error (more DoF) unless you can afford a focus puller to follow you around on a daily basis, so a slightly smaller sensor is more adequate. As a matter of fact, the standard sensor size in movies is NOT full frame or even DX. We compensate that when we want very shallow DoF by using lenses with very large apertures (lenses at 1.2 are very common)

 

[juanm]

No problem

Certain members (junma/ joema) are trying to tell you a bit of a story here. They are claiming that a 25mm f0.95 lens acts like a 50mm f0.95 on the GH4. That would of course be awesome, but sadly is not true. It works like a 50mm f1.9, which is not that awesome anymore. It's a trick commonly used by camera companies to sell tiny sensors. This might be a bit technical, so for better understanding I will post a video where this is explained with examples, once I can find it.

I created a separate thread to keep discussing this issue (and other lies Northrup says) here

 

[Meister]

I created a separate thread to keep discussing this issue (and other lies Northrup says) here

Good idea.

Good luck to the OP #

 

[joema2]

...Certain members (junma/ joema) are trying to tell you a bit of a story here. They are claiming that a 25mm f0.95 lens acts like a 50mm f0.95 on the GH4. That would of course be awesome, but sadly is not true. It works like a 50mm f1.9...

That is not correct and I never said that. To assuage the OP's concern over his GH4's low light capability, I merely pointed out the Voigtlander 25mm/0.95 provided about the same low-light performance as a pro f/2.8 lens on my 5D Mark III. My point was super-fast lenses are attainable on m4/3 and generally much less expensive than full-frame lenses of similar optical speed, type, and effective focal length.

Yes you don't need an f/0.95 lens on FF but that wasn't the point. On FF the entire system is more expensive, lenses more expensive, so in a dollars-to-dollars comparison there is leeway on the m4/3 side to occasionally get a faster lens to help compensate for the sensor.

Yes it's correct that a m4/3 vs FF lens of same effective focal length and aperture will have different DOF. Fortunately we weren't talking about that, the OP never expressed it, and raising that has cause a lot of confusion.

In case the OP is still reading this, here is a video shot by well-known Filmmaker Philip Bloom using a GH2 and the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95. It shows m4/3 can produce very compelling cinematic material in fairly low light using affordable cameras and lenses:

https://vimeo.com/17062701

 

[Meister]

That is not correct and I never said that. To assuage the OP's concern over his GH4's low light capability, I merely pointed out the Voigtlander 25mm/0.95 provided about the same low-light performance as a pro f/2.8 lens on my 5D Mark III. My point was super-fast lenses are attainable on m4/3 and generally much less expensive than full-frame lenses of similar optical speed, type, and effective focal length.

Yes you don't need an f/0.95 lens on FF but that wasn't the point. On FF the entire system is more expensive, lenses more expensive, so in a dollars-to-dollars comparison there is leeway on the m4/3 side to occasionally get a faster lens to help compensate for the sensor.

Yes it's correct that a m4/3 vs FF lens of same effective focal length and aperture will have different DOF. Fortunately we weren't talking about that, the OP never expressed it, and raising that has cause a lot of confusion.

In case the OP is still reading this, here is a video shot by well-known Filmmaker Philip Bloom using a GH2 and the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95. It shows m4/3 can produce very compelling cinematic material in fairly low light using affordable cameras and lenses:

https://vimeo.com/17062701

The Voigtlander you are refering to acts like a nifty-fifty would act on a FF, but for 10 times the price. Fast M4/3 lenses are way more expensive than fast FF lenses.

 

[joema2]

...Fast M4/3 lenses are way more expensive than fast FF lenses.

My statement was very fast m4/3 lenses are generally much less expensive than full-frame lenses of similar optical speed, type, and effective focal length.

The Voigtlander 25 mm f/0.95 is about $1k. The Canon 50mm f/1.0 lens with similar optical speed and effective focal length is from $4000-$8000.

The Lumix 12-35 f/2.8 lens the OP purchased is about $897. The equivalent Canon or Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 is about double the price.

The Lumix 35-100 f/2.8 lens is about $1,300. The Canon EF 70-200 IS II on my 5D3 is about $2,200.

This is due to physical factors in optics manufacturing. The difficulty and cost of maintaining lens figure increases with the surface area, which unfortunately goes up as the square of the lens radius. You can see this by checking prices on telescope lenses or mirrors.

This is why m4/3 lenses are generally less expensive than the larger-diameter "full frame" lenses of the same optical speed, type, quality and effective focal length.

 

[juanm]

My statement was very fast m4/3 lenses are generally much less expensive than full-frame lenses of similar optical speed, type, and effective focal length.

The Voigtlander 25 mm f/0.95 is about $1k. The Canon 50mm f/1.0 lens with similar optical speed and effective focal length is from $4000-$8000.

The Lumix 12-35 f/2.8 lens the OP purchased is about $897. The equivalent Canon or Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 is about double the price.

The Lumix 35-100 f/2.8 lens is about $1,300. The Canon EF 70-200 IS II on my 5D3 is about $2,200.

This is due to physical factors in optics manufacturing. The difficulty and cost of maintaining lens figure increases with the surface area, which unfortunately goes up as the square of the lens radius. You can see this by checking prices on telescope lenses or mirrors.

This is why m4/3 lenses are generally less expensive than the larger-diameter "full frame" lenses of the same optical speed, type, quality and effective focal length.

Once again, spot-on. The only thing is like I said the other thread, if you're only after shallow DoF in some specific situations where you cannot move further from the subject, larger sensors systems might be cheaper (although considering Full frame cameras are more expensive, it's probably true only in a few cases).

 

[joema2]

Once again, spot-on. The only thing is like I said the other thread, if you're only after shallow DoF in some specific situations where you cannot move further from the subject, larger sensors systems might be cheaper (although considering Full frame cameras are more expensive, it's probably true only in a few cases).

That is definitely true. Fast glass doesn't make m4/3 equal to FF in all aspects. The required m4/3 lenses might be unavailable, won't produce the required DOF, too expensive, etc. We both know that -- we are both video professionals, and never argued otherwise.

That is why I usually shoot low-light documentary work on a 5D3 with a shoulder rig.

However the OP feared his GH4 might be handicapped in low light, and I was trying to help him see there are affordable lens options which can *somewhat* mitigate this.

The GH4 also has good built-in codec support and in-camera 4k which allows recomposing in post without loss of resolution for HD material.

 

[juanm]

That is definitely true. Fast glass doesn't make m4/3 equal to FF in all aspects. The required m4/3 lenses might be unavailable, won't produce the required DOF, too expensive, etc. We both know that -- we are both video professionals, and never argued otherwise.

That is why I usually shoot low-light documentary work on a 5D3 with a shoulder rig.

However the OP feared his GH4 might be handicapped in low light, and I was trying to help him see there are affordable lens options which can *somewhat* mitigate this.

The GH4 also has good built-in codec support and in-camera 4k which allows recomposing in post without loss of resolution for HD material.

One lens I can recommend for the GH4 is the Sigma 18-35 with its constant f/1.8. With a regular adapter (non-speedbooster) it's a bargain. VERY sharp (on par with $1000+ primes) with the convenience of a zoom, and a very useful focal range. With a Speedbooster, its a beast. In full frame terms, it's like a 40-80 (or 35-75 if you're not shooting 4K) and with a Speedbooster it's a 25-50 at f1.1.

The OP made the right call both in the choice of the camera and the lens. It's not the best low light camera, of course, but it's more than enough, and fifteen years ago, we'd all have killed for its low light performance.

 

[Meister]

My statement was very fast m4/3 lenses are generally much less expensive than full-frame lenses of similar optical speed, type, and effective focal length.

The Voigtlander 25 mm f/0.95 is about $1k. The Canon 50mm f/1.0 lens with similar optical speed and effective focal length is from $4000-$8000.

The Voigtlander acts like a 50mm 1.9 would work on a FF body and a 50mm 1.8 is only $100.

 

[v3rlon]

You don't even need an adaptor to test this.


Just take a nifty fifty from an APSC camera to a full frame and snap a couple of pictures, preferably of a reference card so you can show the difference.

The Nikon version will mount on both cameras.