anonim

Pure and sample, ungraded exhibition of all 4 Voigts. Just for prediction what someone could do if wish - or wish not - in further exploration. @kidzrevil Many thanks for accurate explanation of Black mist filter. Because of you I've already put it on dreaming list! So, if I understand, one of the effect might be some sort of fine, although fake (but what isn't fakery in codecs game) gaining impression of better, i. e. smoother dynamic range?

@kidzrevil Yes. Maybe using of soften filters on Voigts made some sort of redundancy?

One of the the most beautiful rendition of Voigt's that I found - in spite of being upload just in 720p. Actually, what me personally impressed with Nokton Voigt's, is the fact that any of other lenses (IMO) don't render so wonderful even at 720p. As they don't need bite-me sharpness to made an impression. Proof for their high-end microcontrast, roll-of and intrinsic color-science in general?

For example: about 1:00 - rope from the boat and area under it are noticeably better articulate on 10bit - that's what I'm calling "cleaner" (looking at 15.6 computer screen)

Well, in the last example posted by Vesku, there are indeed differences in quality at most shooting instances, noticeably edge-cleaner 10bit image - although, of course, visible at 400% magnification.

Very illustrative comparative test between Sigma Art 35mm 1.4 vs Voigtlander 35mm 1.2 - differences 3d vs sharpness are indeed very noticable: although for everyone taste his own (For me Voigt really sometimes "pops" to eye as in samples with fences) http://www.paulmarbrook.com/voigtlander-35mm-1-2-vs-sigma-35mm-art-1-4/

Just for the matter of proper quoting of "MrStupid": "A lens with great micro-contrast can produce a photograph that appears to be life-like and threedimensional despite it being unsharp or out of focus. A lens that excels only at sharpness (like Sigma ART, Zeiss OTUS and Milvus, Sony G-Master or Canon non-L lenses) cannot achieve such a feat." So, this is not opposite of mine experience with Sigmas: slightly exaggerating sharpness of detail vs providing more color nuances (and impression of depth) - at the end, image looks very flat-ish. That's the reason why for me it wasn't easy task to match radically sharp/flat choice of Sigma Art lenses with anything else. Although, of course, his statement that "Unlike measurable resolution, micro-contrast is perceptible not measurable" has a mystical taste As @jsc already note, Shane Hurblut test give some more elaborate facts about topic. http://www.thehurlblog.com/lens-tests-leica-summicron-c-vs-cooke-s4-film-education/ Hurblut: "I felt the Leica was sharper... Cooke definitely was creamier and more three dimensional... The 3D quality is how far the background feels away from the subject and how the subject pulls away from that BG."

Well, I'm not sure about all remarks of so-call MrStupid, but I've found that Sigma Art series lenses indeed are too contrasty and price paid for first impression of clinically 'clean' image is, in fact, losing some fine latitude. So I've sold it. And it seems I'm not that only one - look for examples discussion about comparison with Contax-Zeiss lenses (which are btw favorized also by mr Stupid ) http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92044-Contax-Zeiss-Survival-Guide/page290

https://***URL not allowed***/talent-feature-limiting-yourself-produces-some-of-the-best-creativity-in-you-with-janne-amunet/

Mostly the same, except 50mm 1.7 and 1.4 CY. Everything is well presented in this summary for Rolleiflex Zeiss lenses, plus these with Voigtlander sign. http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Rolleiflex_SL35_lenses There are serious discussion about modern sharp vs microcontrast lens trend. http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/8/micro-contrast-the-biggest-optical-luxury-of-the-world

About clean image... Note that this one is in 720p Second in 1080p

As mentioned in interview for Cinema 5D, this clip is done using exclusively em1 II

@cantsin Yes, all Musgo is little bit muddy. Seemingly indie-famous Upstream color is more representative for GH2 potential. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2084989/

Yes, Canis Majoris NIght - its finer noise matrice is incredible useful in lowlight - I've found near one full stop better in high iso than other patches. But, take a look in Apefos "complete solution" thread. Man did an epic investigation and indeed provide full grade solution. http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/15015/gh2-bundle-by-apefos-complete-solution-for-gh2/p1 And, of course, for post work check Balazer's ingeniously accurate quasi-aces luts that leave in dust all paying contributors (Leeming etc) or simply mojo-hunt creators. www.logarist.com ... and one pretty canonesque clip with an early hack:

Already mentioned, just to add some info: cheap and (still) hidden gem - Voigtlander Color Ultron f1.8. (In fact, there is second "concave" version which is very pricey.) It is full Zeiss Planar construction, different from CY f1.7. QBM mount is very easy to adapt or - I think even unikely - convert to EOS mount. http://forum.mflenses.com/voigtlnder-color-ultron-50mm-f1-8-in-m42-singapore-t72279.html http://forum.mflenses.com/rollei-voigtlander-color-ultron-1-8-50mm-on-canon-t3-t71100.html

Slightly (or a bit more) sarcastic and apodictic tone of Jon Jacobs - to quote: "looking for more “mojo” to add character and “filmic” to your hobby of playing with cameras and trying to make short Vimeo clips look like someone's idea of exaggerated 80s film stock" - doesn't mean anything more than also subjective prejudice. In comparison with high capable GH2 hacks, for me GX8 has some problems with roll-ofs, in-camera done saturation, noise reduction and exaggerate sharpening, which in result may looks "cleaner" in 4k to HD conversion. Some of GH2 hack matrices successfully in great amount take away sharpening and noise-reduction artefacts, leaving futages in some sort of prores or even pseudoraw stadium that could be lately more sharpen. @Mercer My greatest problem with GH2 always was high noise in any low-light situation and vulnerable DR. So, for me Canis Majoris is hack with highest efficiency in clever reduction of shadow noise. One of the late, or maybe the latest hack by master with nickname Apefos make, imho, sublimation of all others efforts. He even provide appropriate grading luma curves and, if needs, NeatVideo presets. Look to personalview site.

Thank you, really amazing shots and masterly elaborate article from practical point of view.

@tupp Thanks, and yes, I know that theory say so. But my point is - does the today level of sensor evolution in two top m43 cameras has achieve such efficiency (inner construction, noise reduction, codec magic etc. specially in combination with better processing power) that could all-in-all negate less pure light gathering effects in comparison with today top full frame sensor cameras?

Great, many thanks, I think it will be very very useful - didn't find anything similar from obviously competent experience, skills and taste.

... this question to me arise when looking to following comparison. Aside of color and detail differences (and misbalance in chosen color profile), what made me curious is that all of triangle light-wise aspects are in many of the shoot the same - iso, ss, aperture values - but Canon images doesn't look any lighter or GH5 with significantly more grain. But it has to be that I'm just not enough competent to judge - maybe more professional users to explain?