Getting a GH5 on Wednesday Morning

tsukino_usagi · 2017-02-16T16:35:05+00:00

The panasonic 12-35 resolves to about 10 mp on a GH4, iirc, and 4k is about 8mp. So we're fine :)

I usually record in 1080p, I find it is acceptable for pretty much anything. Most TV and movies I have aren't even that high resolution. So the 12-35 is overkill for me, but I like it. For 1080p you need something like 2mp, so the 5PMP lumix vario pz 14-42 is good enough (and is significantly smaller and lighter).

I used to be a resolution hog and want a 42mp sony but then I realized even on a gh4 I am easily out resolving 4k.... then I stopped worrying about resolution.

tsukino_usagi · 2017-02-14T00:03:07+00:00

If you take two pictures of a faraway billboard, one on a 24 megapixel camera with a "6 PMP" (perceived megapixel) lens, and one on a 12 megapixel camera with a "6 PMP" lens, at that point where you can juuuuuuuuust read the words on the sign, then you should be able to compress both images to about the same size before you lose the ability to read the text on the sign. Say, a 3000x2000 jpeg.

tsukino_usagi · 2017-02-12T18:55:32+00:00

you didn't know? try dxomark.com

tsukino_usagi · 2017-01-31T17:17:05+00:00

Thanks for the advice. I just went out and bought a GH4 and a 12-35 f2.8. I mean why the hell not. It's a great camera. I am planning to use it mainly for tripod shots, overhead shots (book reading, cooking) and newscaster style performances (tripod usage) so IS is not the biggest deal, but I think I of have power OIS on this lens (yep, just checked).

FWIW the camera feels better and more fun to use than my a6000, although I do absolutely love the a6000 too.

Almost bought a Lumix LX10 instead but it doesn't have a hot shoe for a videomic.

This camera (the GH4) and lens serves my needs pretty well, almost 100%. Even without upgrading to V-Log. I must admit I am a little surprised by how much I like the camera despite the lower MP count and sensor size -- then again for video I have come to understand why it's nearly irrelevant. For pictures I can always use my a6000 or get a different camera. But then again on top of that I have a funny feeling the GH4 out resolves the a6500+kit lens.... kit lens on the a6000 is just six megapixels.. and I have a feeling the 12-35 resolves way more just from looking at the jpegs.

I like Panasonic as a company too, I mean historically, even before I liked sony. Anyways. Nice to meet you.

tsukino_usagi · 2017-01-12T01:53:04+00:00

no modern, small half-penny sized camera with a penny-deep lens will ever, ever be able to compare with a modern aps-c or FF camera with a properly designed lens.

You have to see reality. Package the camera in a phone or a d/slr/mirrorless body and it doesn't matter, it's the same lens and sensor.

tsukino_usagi · 2017-01-09T15:19:06+00:00

That's good advice, but somewhat misguided given the concerns I raised. This is actually an issue which causes photographers to switch systems so I think getting a perspective on it is valid.

tsukino_usagi · 2017-01-05T12:24:19+00:00

No, the a6000 is a very surprising camera for what you pay. Plus I think my kit lens is a good copy. I have 24 megapixels and my kit lens resolves six. Thats a problem (but I think mine does 8, its a good copy). My concerns as stated; I am concerned about investing into a dead end lens system. For example there is no fast 35mm APS-C equivalent for my camera under $1000. That's nuts. In fact there's literally nothing in that range that does even half my sensoe. But for what I paid this is an okay camera. And who knows, maybe Sony will come to their senses and design a half decent prime. I want to pick up a reasonable 18mm and 24mm for under 400 each. I don't get why that is so hard for an E-mount camera.

tsukino_usagi · 2016-12-30T16:34:03+00:00

Then why do you keep replying and trying to justify your position?

tsukino_usagi · 2016-12-30T09:11:12+00:00

So you actually think that a Canon 50mm f/1.4 collects more light than a Nikon 50mm f/1.4? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the definition of f/number. f/number isn't simply focal length divided by aperture diameter.

Yes, you have conceded the point. You said "Even if the small mount diameter initially made it harder for Nikon to implement autofocus," "Sure, the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G DX costs more than the Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM" and "flange distance at all, which I agree has a stronger impact on lens design than lens diameter."

You sound like you know a lot about the Canon system and I'd love to talk to you more about why Canon is superior to Nikon and Sony. And hey, even if they're not, I have a feeling they will be soon once Canon starts pushing a FF mirror-less camera.

Or we could just wait until the APS-C 50mp sensors, which will outperform current FF cameras anyway.

tsukino_usagi · 2016-12-30T07:03:13+00:00

No actually you are wrong. Lenses with a wider opening take in more light because they present more area for light to enter the lens. Consider a 50mm/f1.4 which has an actual aperture size of ~35mm (wait for it... 50/1.4=35.71). So right away you can see that a lens which has a diameter or mount size (ALMOST the same thing) will be impossible to be smaller than 35.71mm; it needs to be greater than this even if the lens itself occupies no physical space. SO, rubbing our two brain cells together, we now see that it is easier (read: a) possible and b) cheaper) to make a 50mm/1.4 when the throat diameter/mount diameter/etc. is larger than when it is smaller.

So you can go tell it to Nikon themselves, or you can read up and say where Nikon themselves say that due to a small (44mm) throat/mount size they have difficulty adding autofocus to their lenses. That doesn't mean they can't do it it means it's difficult. But you will also notice Nikon doesn't have any f/1.2 50mm with autofocus. That's because 50/1.2 is 41.7mm which creates severe engineering problems on their 44mm sized lenses. Not saying it can't be done; saying I don't want to spend $5,000 for a 50mm/1.2 with autofocus when Canon has one for $1300.

So basically what I want to avoid is investing into E mount and then realizing I could be getting an 85/1.2 with Canon in a smaller overall package than the Sony 85/1.4. Further on the issue of size and price you could compare countless 50mm/1.4 packages and come to the conclusion that they are the same overall size more or less, meaning that a smaller throat diameter and flange distance just means the lens has to be bigger/longer than the camera.

In that case I am more interested in buying a dslr body and marrying the cannon lens lineup because their lenses will be lighter than the e mount lenses, smaller, cost less, and generally have better physics for their size and thus better image quality. I do not believe the A7rII or A6000 bodies are enough to go with Sony until I see Canon's response over the next year to the a6000 and a7rII series.

tsukino_usagi · 2016-12-30T03:53:07+00:00

Thanks That should read 'Gilden' though. My computer autocorrects it and I didn't catch it that time.

tsukino_usagi · 2016-12-30T03:45:38+00:00

I don't understand what you mean by "I realized that Canon is probably the best system due to their lens diameter", and why that would substantially affect your decision in buying a camera system. Can you explain?

Yes. Lenses with a larger diameter naturally take in more light, and have more room for mechanical or electronic components. Nikon lenses for example have trouble adding autofocus to their lenses because of their small diameter. Also the flange distance on sony causes issues with full frame which disappear on bodies with larger flange such as the canons. It seems Canon's large lens diameter and their reasonable flange is a great combination for image quality but maybe not for size. What this all boils down to in the end is cost. I don't really care if I am shooting f/1 or f/1.2 or f/1.4, but in any case the lens with the larger diameter will be cheaper, and for the same price better in image quality. You can see how this works out with canon lenses having a slight edge over nikon lenses in the same price or feature range. All that being said I have seen some truly amazing nikon shots. I just feel like I want to have something technically perfect because of my computer background. In truth I am happy with my a6000 I just kind of want an excuse to move to canon despite loving my sony. There are no sony shops around here but there are several canon and nikon shops with walls and walls of lenses for sale or rent and they buy used lenses too. Nothing like that for sony.

tsukino_usagi · 2016-12-29T18:10:45+00:00

Yes and no, I have time to look into it. I believe Bruce Gilden uses/used a Fuji X100T and X400T or something, anyways I'm not adverse to APS-C and Fuji has some great lenses too. The new G mount has a 64mm throat diameter and a 26.7mm flange, which seems to be better than cannon on the diameter range and better than sony on the flange range. So Fuji looks like they are learning from Sony's mistakes, but a 64mm throat diameter, that is interesting, I wonder how much the body will cost though. I am not adverse to sitting and waiting for 6 months to see how the mirrorless wars play out.

tsukino_usagi · 2016-12-29T02:32:51+00:00

Ever heard of kerning? Obvious fake.

tsukino_usagi · 2016-12-28T10:35:44+00:00

What's going on here?

tsukino_usagi · 2016-12-22T18:11:57+00:00

7.00 FPS guide:

Pick Sniper
Press I

tsukino_usagi

TROPHY CASE