Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Ray on December 07, 2010, 12:50:30 am
-
As soon as I read Michael's preview of the GH2, I checked the internet for more details, including price and availability in Australia. It seemed a fascinating development in camera portabilility, combining 'very good' still image quality with 'very good' video quality. (I've avoided the term excellent).
I discovered this feature of extra-teleconversion on Dpreview. There was great confusion about its quality, and whether the feature was available with all lenses that attach to the camera.
It's clearly intended to be better than digital zoom, but would it be as good, in terms of resolution and noise, as the standard video at 1080p.
Thanks Michael for clarifying the issue.
At ISO 320 and below, the image quality in ETC mode is about as good. But above ISO 320, the image in ETC mode begins to show more noise. This would have been my prediction. It makes sense.
Unfortunately, this situation it seems to me, tends to reduce the usability of the camera in ETC mode. Such a massive 'equivalent' focal length in 35mm terms of 2x300x2.6= 1560mm requires an exceptionally firm tripod and still subject.
To use the camera hand-held at 300mm with ETC on, would usually require a very high ISO setting in order to get a sufficiently high shutter speed, despite the benefit of IS.
Nevertheless, what we appear to have in practice, in ETC mode, is a 2mp P&S camera with 1080p video at 24fps capability, and a telephoto reach of 1560mm (in 35mm terms using the 100-300 zoom).
That's truly astounding for video.
-
shutter speed may give a good picture hand held for stills, but trying to hand dold for video is very different. You just get a bad case of wobble cam and unusable footage. I know I've tried.
keith
-
It should go without saying that long lens video use should be on a tripod. IS helps at short to moderate focal lengths, but not at over about 75mm (in FF terms).
At the end of my demo file in the review I added a "just for fun" clip at 1,500mm. My tripod for this test was a light weight Gitzo CF with a small fluid head; one that I keep in the trunk of the car for occasional use, rather than my heavy duty Enduro. As you can see, as long as there are no serious wind gusts (as there were in a couple of earlier clips) this is quite do-able.
Hand held. Forget it.
M
-
The Canon Rebel T2i has what I believe is a similar feature (with its larger sensor), but unfortunately it's only at 640x480 resolution.
Nill
-
It's also on the 60D and likely other recent cameras, but at VGA resolution it's not terrible useful or interesting.
Michael
-
Another thing the could probably easily fix in the a firmware update, but probably won't.
Nill
-
Canon will do it at the same time as they add proper mirror lock up. ;)
Michael
-
Canon will do it at the same time as they add proper mirror lock up. ;)
Michael
My rumor: Canon will soon introduce a mirrorless camera . . . with a mirror lockup button. ;D
-
My rumor: Canon will soon introduce a mirrorless camera . . . with a mirror lockup button. ;D
Actually, Canon already have a mirror lockup button. It's called 'LiveView'. In LiveView mode, activated by the press of a single button, the mirror is lifted and stays lifted for any subsequent shots you might take whilst in that mode. This is one advantage than Canon has over Nikon. :D
-
Sorry, but Live View just isn't an appropriate mirror lock up substitute. It runs the sensor continuously, and in warm weather while you're waiting with the mirror up for a shot, the last thing you want is a hot sensor.
It also illuminates the rear LCD, something you definitely won't want in many low light situations, which is exactly when you want MLU.
Why Canon can't atvleast make it an optional part of the self timer function is beyond reason. They simply don't get it. It's freaking firmware. It costs almost nothing. Photographers want it. Canon refuses to give it to them.
What's with that?
Michael
-
Sorry, but Live View just isn't an appropriate mirror lock up substitute. It runs the sensor continuously, and in warm weather while you're waiting with the mirror up for a shot, the last thing you want is a hot sensor.
It also illuminates the rear LCD, something you definitely won't want in many low light situations, which is exactly when you want MLU.
Why Canon can't atvleast make it an optional part of the self timer function is beyond reason. They simply don't get it. It's freaking firmware. It costs almost nothing. Photographers want it. Canon refuses to give it to them.
What's with that?
Michael
Okay! Point taken, Michael. In which case, frame your shot through the standard viewfinder, focus and compose, then press the MLU button (LiveView button), take your shot then lower the mirror by disengaging Liveview. It is assumed that MLU is used when the camera is on tripod. Liveview should present no problems. In fact, it allows one to focus more accurately for the shot in manual mode if one is doubtful about the accuracy of autofocus. :)
If one is worried about any slight additional noise during the few seconds LiveView is activated, then I guess one has no choice but to buy a Nikon ;D .
-
Ray,
Perhaps you can tell me where to find the MLU button (i.e., "Liveview" button on my Canon 5D (mark I). ???
Eric
-
Ray,
Perhaps you can tell me where to find the MLU button (i.e., "Liveview" button on my Canon 5D (mark I). ???
Eric
Eric,
You're not still using the 5D are you?? Jeez! Isn't it time you upgraded? ;D
-
It's also on the 60D and likely other recent cameras, but at VGA resolution it's not terrible useful or interesting.
Michael
...and on the GF2?
-
Eric,
You're not still using the 5D are you?? Jeez! Isn't it time you upgraded? ;D
Ray,
I'm still waiting for your check to arrive so I can upgrade. ;D
Eric
-
On the 1D Mark IV, when you take a shot with LiveView, the mirror comes down and back up again. I don't understand why. It also means there is no true "silent mode" on that body.
Nill
-
...and on the GF2?
I suppose when Canon finally releases a mirrorless they'll include MLU whether the camera needs it or not. Just their style and just for spite. :)
Michael
-
Ray,
I'm still waiting for your check to arrive so I can upgrade. ;D
Eric
Aw! Shucks! Eric, the 5D MkII is only half the price you would have paid for the 5D; at least it is in Australia. Go on! Spoil yourself! ;D . Those who are passionate about photography should be prepared to make scarifices ;D .
-
I notice in another thread on the GH2 at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49301.0
Chris Sanderson has discovered that the jello effect is less noticeable when shooting video in the ETC mode.
-
...and on the GF2?
I suppose when Canon finally releases a mirrorless they'll include MLU whether the camera needs it or not. Just their style and just for spite. :)
Michael
Thanks, Michael.
I was wondering if the Panasonic GF2, which, I believe is a mirror-less GH2, will have the Extra-Tele facility. ...if not I might get one set of lenses and both bodies.
I Extra-tele mode with a 4/3 to Nikon adapter and my Novoflex 640mm and (Leica) 400mm I might use it for wildlife.
-
GH2, 100-300 EX Tele
http://www.vimeo.com/17720792
This is an H.264 file file, with no adjustments. I converted the MTS file to Apple ProRes HQ, and exported the H264 from FCP. Media info shows the MTS file bit rate as 21.3 kbps (the max rate shows as 21.7 kbps). I used the 24P(H) setting. I’ve included some video with focus shifting and image wobble to show the issues I encountered at this magnification, despite using a heavy Miller video tripod and Sachtler fluid head. The latter part of the video is at 300mm, which is the equivalent of a 1560mm lens on 35mm.
I tried uploading a 572MB ProRes HQ version, but Vimeo would not convert it.
I was actually filming birds, but I mistakenly thought the 200 and 300 percent were higher fps second settings because I’ve seen the percentage variations referred to as slow motion. I often use the slow motion setting on the EX1R for birds because it allows a much better view of them. Anyone know if there is a faster (with better IQ) long tele (300 mm or so) for the GH2 that will AF on the camera?
Thanks,
Bill
-
Hey! That's really cute, Bill. I like that. But I do get a sense of a slight wobble. Thanks for sharing.
-
Thanks Ray. That wobble is pretty minimal compared to a lot of it. I think the fact the GH2 is too light for my fluid head (thus making it a wonderful camera to carry on hikes) is why I found it virtually impossible to keep it completely still without locking the head. The other issue I found was the difficulty of locating birds at this magnification, because they move about so quickly.
I did shoot some stills at the 300 mm setting (600 mm on a 35 mm sensor). I noticed a fair percentage of them were just a tiny touch off, and at 300 percent I could see the smallest bit of movement blur. I’m not sure why. It may be my touch on the shutter release, or possibly it is because I left the image stabilization setting on? It was set to one - I think there are three settings for it. Also, with large Nikon lenses I use a Wimberly II head - which is fantastic - and even at high magnifications (600 f4.0 VR and 1.4x) and fairly slow shutter speeds I do not encounter this issue. Maybe the video fluid head and the fact the GH2 is so light was a factor?
I think if viewed alone, the GH2 prints look fine to most people, but when I compared them to a couple of similar images taken with the D3s, the Nikon shots were better. For example at 100 percent I can see the veins in the eye of the D3s squirrel photo below. I assume this is because of the lens quality differences, but perhaps the AA filter in the GH2 is also a factor? The camera arrived Friday afternoon, and I looked at some stills of a painting I took with both hacked GH1 and the GH2, using a Voitgländer 25 mm f0.95 lens and my 14-140 zoom. The GH2 video resolved more than the hacked GH1 video, and the Voitgländer was sharper than the zoom.
These jpegs lose a lot of detail, thus are very difficult to judge. If anyone wants a couple of the Tifs, I can upload them and provide a link to the Tif for downloading.
GH2, ISO400, 100-300 at 300mm, f6.3,
http://gallery.me.com/billh96007/100311/GH2%2C2-300mm%2CISO400%2Cf6.3%2C217/web.jpg?ver=12921165190001
GH2,ISO400, 100-300 at 300mm, f5.6
http://gallery.me.com/billh96007/100311/GH2%2C300mm%2CISO400%2Cf5.6%2C182/web.jpg?ver=12921165350001
GH2, 100-300 @f5.8, ISO1600
http://gallery.me.com/billh96007/100311/GH2%2C300mm%2CISO1600%2Cf5.8%2C092/web.jpg?ver=12921164560001
D3s, 600 f4.0 plus 1.4x at f11
http://gallery.me.com/billh96007/100311/Squirrel%2CD3s%2C850mm%2CISO400%2Cf11.0%2C-5664/web.jpg?ver=12921163180001
-
Thanks Ray. That wobble is pretty minimal compared to a lot of it. I think the fact the GH2 is too light for my fluid head (thus making it a wonderful camera to carry on hikes) is why I found it virtually impossible to keep it completely still without locking the head. The other issue I found was the difficulty of locating birds at this magnification, because they move about so quickly.
I did shoot some stills at the 300 mm setting (600 mm on a 35 mm sensor). I noticed a fair percentage of them were just a tiny touch off, and at 300 percent I could see the smallest bit of movement blur. I’m not sure why. It may be my touch on the shutter release, or possibly it is because I left the image stabilization setting on? It was set to one - I think there are three settings for it. Also, with large Nikon lenses I use a Wimberly II head - which is fantastic - and even at high magnifications (600 f4.0 VR and 1.4x) and fairly slow shutter speeds I do not encounter this issue. Maybe the video fluid head and the fact the GH2 is so light was a factor?
I think if viewed alone, the GH2 prints look fine to most people, but when I compared them to a couple of similar images taken with the D3s, the Nikon shots were better. For example at 100 percent I can see the veins in the eye of the D3s squirrel photo below. I assume this is because of the lens quality differences, but perhaps the AA filter in the GH2 is also a factor? The camera arrived Friday afternoon, and I looked at some stills of a painting I took with both hacked GH1 and the GH2, using a Voitgländer 25 mm f0.95 lens and my 14-140 zoom. The GH2 video resolved more than the hacked GH1 video, and the Voitgländer was sharper than the zoom.
These jpegs lose a lot of detail, thus are very difficult to judge. If anyone wants a couple of the Tifs, I can upload them and provide a link to the Tif for downloading.
GH2, ISO400, 100-300 at 300mm, f6.3,
http://gallery.me.com/billh96007/100311/GH2%2C2-300mm%2CISO400%2Cf6.3%2C217/web.jpg?ver=12921165190001
GH2,ISO400, 100-300 at 300mm, f5.6
http://gallery.me.com/billh96007/100311/GH2%2C300mm%2CISO400%2Cf5.6%2C182/web.jpg?ver=12921165350001
GH2, 100-300 @f5.8, ISO1600
http://gallery.me.com/billh96007/100311/GH2%2C300mm%2CISO1600%2Cf5.8%2C092/web.jpg?ver=12921164560001
D3s, 600 f4.0 plus 1.4x at f11
http://gallery.me.com/billh96007/100311/Squirrel%2CD3s%2C850mm%2CISO400%2Cf11.0%2C-5664/web.jpg?ver=12921163180001
Best of luck with your shooting, Bill. You might rival the David Attenborough wildlife programs we see now and again on TV here in Australia. :)
I live on 5 acres and am surrounded by lots of wildlife, particularly wallabies and parrots of various descriptions. Often my Canon 100-400 on a cropped format camera such as the 50D (640 equivalent 35mm) is not long enough, but ISO and shutter speed can be a problem with the lens fully extended at 400mm. With a lens fully extended at an equivalent 1560mm in 35mm terms, I can hardly imagine the problems.
I rely often upon my camera being able to deliver good image quality at ISO 1600 and 3200 with the 100-400, but that's hand-held without tripod.
I just don't like stuffing around with tripods. I find it limiting. But I use them when I have to.
I'm reluctant to 'buy into' a situation where use of a tripod is mandatory.
If I hadn't just recently bought a Nikon D7000 with 24-120/F4 lens, the GH2 with 100-300 would have been a serious contender.
However, I sense an awful problem with mixing different systems. Mixing Nikon and Canon is bad enough, but Nikon, Canon and Panasonic must be even worse. ;D
-
Wow Ray, that sounds great! Post some photos of them! There is nothing so exotic around here - just deer, raccoons and foxes.
I understand the issues you faced when going from Canon to Nikon. I switched from Canon to Nikon when the D3 came out and I tried one. The AF tracking for fast moving dogs, a subject I photograph quite a bit, was far superior to my Canons. The lenses zoom in the opposite direction, the digital cards go in backwards, and I think the lenses also rotate in the opposite direction when you attach and remove them. It drove me crazy for awhile.
I also disliked tripods, and rarely used them with the Canons, but I bought a 200-400 f4.0 instead of the 300 f2.8 I frequently used with the Canons. The Nikon zoom was so long and heavy I ended up using it far less often, and almost always on a Wimberly II head. Here is one recent shot at what to me seems an incredible ISO of 16,000 using a D3s and the 200-400 hand held (no time for a tripod).
http://gallery.me.com/billh96007/100291/Deer%2CD3s%2CISO16%2C000-5856/web.jpg?ver=12911588520001
Michael’s video reports lured me into trying video something over a year ago - it is quite a learning curve going from stills and photo software. It soon because obvious I needed to use a good tripod and fluid head, as well as a proper video camera (I ended up with a Sony EX1R). I love the way you can tell a story with video, so I am becoming accustomed to lugging a heavy tripod with me. My Miller tripod has a heavy padded shoulder strap, which helps a lot. I’m going to try a Manfrotto 561BHVD-1 video monopod (it has tiny legs at the bottom) with a 701HDV fluid head when they come back into stock. I am hoping it, combined with the lightweight GH2 will make life easier on hikes with my canine buddy. We have scenes like this about 10 miles from my house,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew5DsDOivGc&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
Bill
-
Hi Bill,
i would like to see a couple of the squirrel pictures at 100% for the D3 and the GH2. i am actively debating between the D3 , D7000, and the GH2. The weight and flexibility of the GH2 / D7000 are appealing, but i would like to see what i am giving up.
Thanks.
Frank
-
There is a limit to the number of squirrel pics allowed here each month, though it's not as high as the severe limit placed on cat pictures. :)
Michael
-
Hi Bill,
i would like to see a couple of the squirrel pictures at 100% for the D3 and the GH2. i am actively debating between the D3 , D7000, and the GH2. The weight and flexibility of the GH2 / D7000 are appealing, but i would like to see what i am giving up.
Thanks.
Frank
Hi Frank,
If you send me your email address, I will send you links to download the Tifs.
Bill
-
There is a limit to the number of squirrel pics allowed here each month, though it's not as high as the severe limit placed on cat pictures. :)
Michael
Geez...Doggies pics OK?
http://gallery.me.com/billh96007/100145/Niko-diving%2C-7677/web.jpg?ver=12453621860001
http://gallery.me.com/billh96007/100145/Kona%2C-run-cherrys%2C-7344/web.jpg?ver=12453625260001
http://gallery.me.com/billh96007/100145/Kai2ANAWBA/web.jpg?ver=12453623470001
If not, maybe lady pics? Not sure how much will be left after I PS all the wrinkles out....
Your road trip sounds like a real adventure. I hope the weather clears soon and we get enticing photos from Mexico. It’s 23 degrees here with 38 mph winds, and each year this becomes less attractive.
Bill
-
I live on 5 acres and am surrounded by lots of wildlife, particularly wallabies and parrots of various descriptions. Often my Canon 100-400 on a cropped format camera such as the 50D (640 equivalent 35mm) is not long enough, but ISO and shutter speed can be a problem with the lens fully extended at 400mm. With a lens fully extended at an equivalent 1560mm in 35mm terms, I can hardly imagine the problems.
To answer my own question, even with a still image, an effective focal length of 1560mm seems daunting as regards the high shutter speeds and high ISO required for a sharp image, if the camera is hand-held.
But is this the case? With video there is the unavoidable wobble without a good tripod and fluid head. However, with a still image, a 1920x1080 pixel crop should still be quite sharp if the full image was sharp to begin with.
Cropping images to the 16:9 aspect ratio, then downsizing for display on my HDTV is something I do quite frequently. If noise is apparent in the full image, it's only marginally reduced by downsampling. If noise is pretty bad in the full image, it's still pretty bad after downsampling, so we shouldn't exaggerate the noise-reducing benefits of downsampling.
Out of curiosity, I wondered what the Extra Tele-Converter multiplier is on my Canon 50D.
The full 50D image is 4752 pixels by 3168 pixels. Since it seems to be the convention to take the longest dimension when comparing the crop factors of two sensors with different aspect ratios, I've divided 4752 by 1920 and arrived at an ETC crop factor of x2.475.
Not quite as good as the x2.6 of the GH2, but I have the benefit of a 400mm lens in the Canon 100-400 IS zoom. So, for example, the 50D has a x1.6 crop factor in relation to full frame 35mm and a further x2.475 crop factor in relation to a 1920x1080 pixel crop of the full image.
400x1.6x2.475= 1584. That pretty close to the GH2 in ETC mode, in 35mm terms. How would a 1920x1080 crop of a 50D image, with no downsampling, look on my 65"plasma HDTV? Pretty good, I think. Provided the cropped part is in focus and not too much in the shade where noise might begin to rear its ugly head.
I searched for a few recent examples of shots of wildlife on my 5-acre property, which might lend themselves to a 1920x1080 pixel cropping. (Hoping Michael doen't have a limit on the number of wallaby shots ;D ).
The first one was taken at 390mm, ISO 400, F11 and 1/400th, hand-held with ISO on. I deliberately chose F11, although not the sharpest aperture with this lens, in order to get both mother wallaby and teenager wallaby in reasonable focus.
Can you see the fly on the wallaby's lower cheek? This crop looks quite 'up to standard' on my 65" plasma. Not bad for a 1544mm lens (effective, of course).