Panasonic GH4 w/ speedbooster xl worth it ?

[kidzrevil]

I used to shoot with the Panasonic GH4 and loved it. Only turn off was the amount of noise in the image but it was manageable. I read a rumor that there is yet another firmware update coming so the camera is back on my radar.

Does anyone have experience with the Metabones Speedbooster XL adapters ? If so do they live up to the hype ? I currently own zeiss milvus glass and would love to see how the speedbooster will add to the look of the lenses on the m43 body

[Nikkor]

Unless the gh4 firmware upgrade inclufes raw, the a6300 is 1000x more interesting.

[kidzrevil]

32 minutes ago, araucaria said:

Unless the gh4 firmware upgrade inclufes raw, the a6300 is 1000x more interesting.

Lol cool

[aldolega]

As usual, the Sony has some flashy specs, but the Panasonic will be more usable.

[DPStewart]

The GH4 is an infinitely more usable video camera than the Sony a6300, but the NX1 is superior to the GH4 in almost every way.

As for the speedboosters - F*CK YEAH they make that big of a difference.
If you have a camera with an MFT mount they should be attached to your camera by default. 

[mercer]

I have to agree with Aldolega. I predict the Sony will have a thin, brittle image. I loved my a5100, but that color was just not right. The GH4, which I have told you a bunch of times, is the sweet spot, in my opinion, of your portfolio. I can only imagine that it with a speedbooster would be a perfect match. If you're looking to test it out on the cheap, pick up the G7 and the XL... Andy Lee is getting some great results and swears by it. 

2 minutes ago, DPStewart said:

The GH4 is an infinitely more usable video camera than the Sony a6300, but the NX1 is superior to the GH4 in almost every way.

As for the speedboosters - F*CK YEAH they make that big of a difference.
If you have a camera with an MFT mount they should be attached to your camera by default. 

Do they really make the image/lens infinitely better?

[Nikkor]

Well ,unless Sony fucks up bigtime, the a6300 is supposed to be a A7rii without fullframe mode and ibis.

[mercer]

And honestly, I really like the GH4 image better than the NX1. I think it is undeniably more cinematic than the NX1. Don't get me wrong, I love what that camera can do, but for that "movie" look, the GH4 is better... Hands down. 

[DPStewart]

10 minutes ago, mercer said:

I have to agree with Aldolega. I predict the Sony will have a thin, brittle image. I loved my a5100, but that color was just not right. The GH4, which I have told you a bunch of times, is the sweet spot, in my opinion, of your portfolio. I can only imagine that it with a speedbooster would be a perfect match. If you're looking to test it out on the cheap, pick up the G7 and the XL... Andy Lee is getting some great results and swears by it. 

Do they really make the image/lens infinitely better?

"Infinite" is not a word that can really be applied to any aspect of any camera or lens.

It's not that they make the image or the lens better - it's that they increase your incoming light by at least one full stop - that's A LOT - and they widen the field of view of the lens you're using.

This is exactly the same effect as a). using a faster lens, b). having a larger sensor that does significantly better in low light. c). in many instances any focal reducer will have the effect of slightly sharpening the image - it's an optical property of a focal reducer. It's not a lot, but it's there.

6 minutes ago, mercer said:

And honestly, I really like the GH4 image better than the NX1. I think it is undeniably more cinematic than the NX1. Don't get me wrong, I love what that camera can do, but for that "movie" look, the GH4 is better... Hands down. 

No. Not "hands down". That's just you own opinion - and everyone will have them. 
Very very few people who have used both say that about the GH4. I've used both and I completely disagree with that.
The ONE big thing misleading people to think that is the SAMSUNG lenses are very clinical and can give a more "video" look. 
But there's no reason that you have to use those. I don't even own one.
 

[mercer]

1 minute ago, DPStewart said:

"Infinite" is not a word that can really be applied to any aspect of any camera or lens.

It's not that they make the image or the lens better - it's that they increase your incoming light by at least one full stop - that's A LOT - and they widen the field of view of the lens you're using.

This is exactly the same effect as a). using a faster lens, b). having a larger sensor that does significantly better in low light. c). in many instances any focal reducer will have the effect of slightly sharpening the image - it's an optical property of a focal reducer. It's not a lot, but it's there.

Fair enough, I like my lenses at f2, I think that is the perfect amount of depth for that "filmic" look I am TRYING to obtain, but with that extra stop, does the bokeh get more pronounced and the depth razor thin?

With my G7, I have been putting together a couple sets of lenses with either 28mm f2 or 35mm f2, so with the XL, those lenses would be 42mm f1.2 and 50mm f1.2... Correct? In your opinion will the shallow depth of field be overkill with such lenses?

[Liam]

If you are trying to get the better optics by speedboosting, the gh4 and the xl are one of the most interesting combos. Not sure it'd be better than just a larger sensor under there. Would be better high isos than like an nx1, though. 

[mercer]

9 minutes ago, DPStewart said:

"Infinite" is not a word that can really be applied to any aspect of any camera or lens.

It's not that they make the image or the lens better - it's that they increase your incoming light by at least one full stop - that's A LOT - and they widen the field of view of the lens you're using.

This is exactly the same effect as a). using a faster lens, b). having a larger sensor that does significantly better in low light. c). in many instances any focal reducer will have the effect of slightly sharpening the image - it's an optical property of a focal reducer. It's not a lot, but it's there.

No. Not "hands down". That's just you own opinion - and everyone will have them. 
Very very few people who have used both say that about the GH4. I've used both and I completely disagree with that.
The ONE big thing misleading people to think that is the SAMSUNG lenses are very clinical and can give a more "video" look. 
But there's no reason that you have to use those. I don't even own one.
 

I have the NX500. It's not in the same league as the NX1, but I am familiar with it's quirks. Trust me, I have bored many people with my failed attempts. But you're right this is only my opinion. 

[DPStewart]

2 hours ago, mercer said:

Fair enough, I like my lenses at f2, I think that is the perfect amount of depth for that "filmic" look I am TRYING to obtain, but with that extra stop, does the bokeh get more pronounced and the depth razor thin?

With my G7, I have been putting together a couple sets of lenses with either 28mm f2 or 35mm f2, so with the XL, those lenses would be 42mm f1.2 and 50mm f1.2... Correct? In your opinion will the shallow depth of field be overkill with such lenses?

No, it won't change your depth of field at any chosen f-stop. That's a built-in property of the lens itself. It will just increase the amount of light that hits your sensor, thus giving you an obviously cleaner or brighter image. And obviously it will give you a wider field of view.

 

[mercer]

23 minutes ago, DPStewart said:

No, it won't change your depth of field at any chosen f-stop. That's a built-in property of the lens itself. It will just increase the amount of light that hits your sensor, thus giving you an obviously cleaner or brighter image. And obviously it will give you a wider field of view.

 

Thanks, good to know. What are your thoughts on the cheap Chinese speedboosters? Can you recommend one of those brands over the others?

[DPStewart]

7 minutes ago, mercer said:

Thanks, good to know. What are your thoughts on the cheap Chinese speedboosters? Can you recommend one of those brands over the others?

Actually yes.
I have both the Metabones and a Mitakon that cost only about $130 USD.

Both are equally sharp. The Mitakon's sharpness falls off a tiny bit at the edges where the Metabones does not.
Also the Mitakon is vulnerable to the "blue spot" artifact wherein a large light blue-ish blob shows up in the middle of your frame if you get too much REALLY bright light in the frame - like looking at all into the sun or having really bright sky in the shot. It's a problem, but it's manageable. You can work around it once you get familiar with exactly what bright light conditions will cause it.
But for the amount of money you save it's still a great alternative because that is the ONLY area where it's not as good as the Metabones. Generally speaking.

[mercer]

1 minute ago, DPStewart said:

Actually yes.
I have both the Metabones and a Mitakon that cost only about $130 USD.

Both are equally sharp. The Mitakon's sharpness falls off a tiny bit at the edges where the Metabones does not.
Also the Mitakon is vulnerable to the "blue spot" artifact wherein a large light blue-ish blob shows up in the middle of your frame if you get too much REALLY bright light in the frame - like looking at all into the sun or having really bright sky in the shot. It's a problem, but it's manageable. You can work around it once you get familiar with exactly what bright light conditions will cause it.
But for the amount of money you save it's still a great alternative because that is the ONLY area where it's not as good as the Metabones. Generally speaking.

Yeah I have heard the Roxsen can suffer from that as well. I really like lens flares, is there a good chance that any shot where I attempt to get lens flares, I would also get the blue dot?

This is a video I shot with the NX500 and the Tokina 24-40mm... Do you think I would have the blue dot issue with a similar video?

[kidzrevil]

1 hour ago, Liam said:

If you are trying to get the better optics by speedboosting, the gh4 and the xl are one of the most interesting combos. Not sure it'd be better than just a larger sensor under there. Would be better high isos than like an nx1, though. 

Im fine with the cameras sensor size, im really interested in a less processed image as far as in camera noise reduction and sharpening is concerned. Good to hear the speedbooster xl and gh4 are a tried and true combo. Interested to see how it looks with my zeiss glass. When I had it and I was using the voigtlander f0.95 primes !

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

3 hours ago, mercer said:

With my G7, I have been putting together a couple sets of lenses with either 28mm f2 or 35mm f2, so with the XL, those lenses would be 42mm f1.2 and 50mm f1.2... Correct? In your opinion will the shallow depth of field be overkill with such lenses?

 

1 hour ago, DPStewart said:

No, it won't change your depth of field at any chosen f-stop. That's a built-in property of the lens itself. It will just increase the amount of light that hits your sensor, thus giving you an obviously cleaner or brighter image. And obviously it will give you a wider field of view.
 

It does change your depth of field, not just your field of view & exposure. 

It will gives you the same DOF as an f/1.2 lens, or as if you were using f/2 on a s35/aps-c sensor. 

If you like the DOF you get with a m43s body and an f/2 lens then yes putting a strong Focal Reducer/SB XL will change that.

And Do I think F/2 on S35/F/1.2 on m43s is overkill? Depend on the Focal length. 

For wide lenses (16-35mm range) f/2 is still quite a deep DOF. Higher than (50mm-200mm), f/2 is very shallow and gives that completely creamy background with razor thin DOF. It's not overkill per se it's just an image ''look'' that you either like or not. Personally, beyond 50mm F/2.8 (on S35) is the maximum I like, but there comes those very low-light situation where I'd go to f/1.2 to avoid the noise. 

Anyway just make correct calculations and remember DOF is affected by 3 factors not just F/stop, but also focal length and subject distance. Shooting at 16mm f/1.2 will still get a massive deep DOF, or 300mm f/8 will still get very shallow DOF, and shooting a distant building with a 50mm f/2 will give a much deeper DOF than shooting a close-up of an actor 1 meter away at 50mm f/2. So make your lens calculations correct and find what you like. 

[kidzrevil]

4 hours ago, mercer said:

I have to agree with Aldolega. I predict the Sony will have a thin, brittle image. I loved my a5100, but that color was just not right. The GH4, which I have told you a bunch of times, is the sweet spot, in my opinion, of your portfolio. I can only imagine that it with a speedbooster would be a perfect match. If you're looking to test it out on the cheap, pick up the G7 and the XL... Andy Lee is getting some great results and swears by it. 

Do they really make the image/lens infinitely better?

I agree man. My gh4 work is some of the best I'd ever shot. Easy to grade & no macroblocking even when I stacked luts on my footage. I guess I will just have to take the grain as its shortcoming and get over it. Cinelike V was a dream on that thing ! Im not totally ruling out the NX1 there's gotta be a piece to the puzzle im missing or something. I've been playing with Gamma C and loving it and I got a bunch of stuff lined up for when i get back to NY next month so we'll see. The stills quality and resolution has me hesitant to let it go but the Gh4 with speedbooster sounds like the most reliable option on the market. For me at least

 

 

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

4 hours ago, mercer said:

 

28mm f2 or 35mm f2, so with the XL, those lenses would be 42mm f1.2 and 50mm f1.2...

28mm f/2 + GH4XL = 18mm f/1.2 m43s lens
35mm f2 + GH4XL = 22mm f/1.2 m43s lens