SEARCH  WEBSITE

Something most people don't tell you about LUTS & camera settings is they need to be specific to each sensor-lens combination. Therefore, state the exact camera and lens combination used to create each LUT. FILTER LENS SENSOR MODE NOTES FILTER: CPL (PolarPro) Rokinon Tilt-Shift 24 3.5 Panasonic G85 Natural FILTER: CPL (PolarPro) Sigma 17-35 2.8-4 EX Panasonic G85 Natural FILTER: None Sigma 17-35 2.8-4 EX Panasonic G85 Natural Still testing, but this lens-sensor combination could use a FILTER (to diffuse it, even if it's just a UV filter, ND or VND that might work)...but the lens needs more SHARPNESS so the filter would need to mostly bloom the light, versus reducing the sharpness. FILTER: None (Bare) Nikon 50 1.8 D Panasonic G85 Natural These are initial settings for use in my product studio (it's for eBay products on a white background) and so I'm not going to say these settings are good for everything, yet. Also, note that these settings are specific to using a very old Vivitar 2X MACRO teleconverter (Nikon F, AI vintage). STUDIO FLASH NOTES: To sync with the studio flash, we're using 1/160 shutter speed, and then ISO 400 and f/11 (aperture manually controlled on the lens). FILTER: None Minolta AF 50 1.7 Panasonic GH5 Natural -1 HUE Wow. With these CUSTOM SETTINGS, the image gets one of the highest "Real Ratings" I've ever given to a lens-sensor combination! The ONLY thing that is off is that there is TOO MUCH RED in the image (but the GH5 is pretty consistently off in that area, so I'm fixing it with a LUT). FILTER: None Sigma 17-35 2.8-4 EX Panasonic GH5 Natural -2 HUE Needing to make a LUT (there is a few things wrong with the SOOC image) but it is worth it, because now I have a Nikon F mount lens (with the manual aperture control) I can use on my Kipon SHIFT adapter (which has no aperture control for newer Nikon G lenses that don't have a manual aperture control ring)...The only bad thing about this shift adapter is it doesn't allow this lens to focus to infinity, so I can only use it at f/16 when I want everything to be in focus, such as for outdoor work (landscapes, etc.) FILTER: None (BARE) Tamron 10-24 3.5-4.5 LD Panasonic GH5 Natural -1 HUE (was -0 but need -1 because there is the characteristic GH5 too much magenta (in shadows) stuff going on) FOR STILLS (SOOC Real Estate): Tamron 10-24 3.5-4.5 LD Panasonic GH5 NATURAL -4+2+4+1-1 HS -3+3 (and UNSHARP MASK at 22 2.2 2) FILTER: None (BARE) Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX Panasonic GH5 Natural -1 HUE FILTER: None (BARE) Koah 50 1.4 Panasonic GH5 Natural NOTE: Use -1 HUE. I think the final settings look good at most aperture values (and that's not easy)! It's interesting that it's actually sharper at f/2.8 than it is at f/8. At f/1.4 it's softer, but it looks really good, and that is where I think I would shoot (on this 2x crop, M43 sensor size) for video portraits, to have the right amount of background blur, etc. I also really like the amount of NOISE that is left in the image, as it kind of looks like film grain! FILTER: None (BARE) Koah 35 1.2 Panasonic GH5 Natural NOTE: Use -1 HUE. So...you COULD use the same exact settings as the Koah 50 1.4 (same company/manufacturer, etc.) and it is almost perfect, and I would do that if you need to change lenses, and are in a hurry (I might actually make a LUT that can be used for BOTH). However, to get the very best SOOC settings, I am adding a little more NOISE REDUCTION to the in-camera settings for the 35 1.2 version. This lens is one of the best f/1.2 lenses I've tested by the way...though every lens I have tested has been a low-budget lens, so that's not saying much (the others were a Canon FL 58 1.2, and a Porst 50 1.2). FILTER: None (BARE) Nikon 50 1.8 D Panasonic GH5 Natural Not sure if I should be testing this (because if I drop it, the IBIS sensor could hit the speedbooster optic...like happened on my G85, which scratched sensor)! FILTER: None (BARE) Nikon 50 1.8 D Panasonic GH5 It needs -1 HUE. STUDIO Settings: WHITE BALANCE: Flash SHUTTER: 1/160 CONTRAST: +3 SHARPNESS: +1 NOISE: +4 COLOR: -0 HUE: -0 HIGHLIGHT SHADOW: -2+3 FILTER: None (BARE) Nikon 50 1.8 D Panasonic GH5 Natural Still testing, but I think I like where these settings are, so far! FILTER: Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/8 Panasonic 25 1.7 Panasonic GH5 Natural Okay, this test is with the Tiffen BPM18 (Black Pro Mist 1/8) and I am super excited about the results. It's WAY better than using either the BPM14 or the UNFILTERED (BARE) settings. This is still going to need a LUT (to add COLOR, CONTRAST and a HUE shift, which I prefer to in the LUT, not with in-camera settings) but these CUSTOM SETTINGS get this to a really good starting point. Why are the results so much better with the BMP18 (instead of the 1/4 or UNFILTERED)? The first things is the 1/8 strength Tiffen Black Pro Mist pre-treats and diffuses the light enough to be able to use a less dramatic HIGHLIGHT SHADOW (-3+3) which always is going to look more realistic than pushing them further (we had to go up to -5+4 on the UNFILTERED/BARE settings to control the dynamic range). FILTER: None Panasonic 14-45 Panasonic GH5 Natural FILTER: Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/4 Panasonic 25 1.7 Panasonic GH5 Natural Using same SETTINGS for this Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/4 version (as with the BARE, no filter version) to make production easier. They WILL HAVE DIFFERENT LUTS though, as this filter reduces CONTRAST and COLOR, and the post-production SHARPENING will be different as well (because filter reduces the SHARPNESS). Interesting side note is that I was considering adding more COLOR to this version of the settings, but starting with less COLOR is actually better to hide the digital noise artifacts, yet if you wanted the two shots (filter/non-filter) to MATCH, then I would increase the COLOR to +3 (when using this Tiffen BPM14 filter). NOTES FROM UNFILTERED/BARE VERSION: I've been learning that, specifically with the GH5, a lot of the OEM Panasonic lenses still have too much SHARPNESS and too much CONTRAST so to correct for this (while using the NATURAL profile) I'm not only tuning those settings but also need pretty extreme HIGHLIGHT SHADOW compensation...and that ends up adding more MAGENTA to the color cast (and adds other color noise too, but the overall color cast leans towards MAGENTA). Therefore, this is going to need a LUT to correct for this, for sure! FILTER: None (BARE) Panasonic 25 1.7 Panasonic GH5 Natural Still testing...but I'm learning that, specifically with the GH5, a lot of the OEM Panasonic lenses still have too much SHARPNESS and too much CONTRAST so to correct for this (while using the NATURAL profile) I'm not only tuning those settings but also need pretty extreme HIGHLIGHT SHADOW compensation...and that ends up adding more MAGENTA to the color cast (and adds other color noise too, but the overall color cast leans towards MAGENTA). Therefore, this is going to need a LUT to correct for this, for sure! FILTER: None (BARE) Panasonic 14-42 iii Panasonic GH5 Natural It needs a LUT, but the results (before making the LUT) are so bad in so many ways, I'm not sure this lens is even worth using. It might be surprising to some for me to say that part of the problem (not all) is this lens has too much SHARPNESS for this sensor (GH5)...but it doesn't stop there (there are lots of ugly things about this lens, such as ugly, ugly bokeh/background blur and other weird optical expressions). FILTER: None (BARE) Quantaray 70-300 4-5.6 LD Panasonic GH5 Natural I'm still getting used to how much SHARPNESS the Panasonic GH5 has (compared to the G85 and GX85)...it's making some lenses (like this one) not work as well as some less sharp lenses (not all, of course). The reason is that I am having to both turn the SHARPNESS all of the way down, and the NOISE REDUCTION all of the way up to get the image to not be too sharp! It's getting to the point where I am going to have to start using diffusion filters, and that's not the first thing I would choose to do. I think we can work with the image these CUSTOM SETTINGS is putting out, but it would still be better if it had less SHARPNESS. The other thing too much SHARPNESS does is it makes the NOISE stand out more, so this image does have a lot of grain...if you like that (kind of looks like film, LOL). FILTER: None Raynox DCR-150 MACRO Panasonic FZ1000 Natural I'm starting out testing this Raynox DCR-150 MACRO adapter (on the Panasonic FZ1000) using the same CUSTOM SETTINGS as I do for just the (built-in) lens on the camera. So far, it looks really good (though it could use some adjustments to be closer to perfect SOOC). The good thing about keeping the settings the same, is you don't have to switch between 2 sets of settings (when removing the Raynox macro adapter)... IMPORTANT: If you publish your videos to YouTube, use the below settings (for Davinci Resolve) to make it look REAL (YouTube strips out CONTRAST AND COLOR as of the date of this note). YouTube SHADOW DIP (for Davinci Resolve): This helps make SHADOWS more accurate on YouTube: 1. Create a new node 2. Go to Primaries 3. Enter -12.30 for Shad (Shadow) YouTube COLOR BUMP (for Davinci Resolve): This helps make COLOR more accurate on YouTube: 1. Create a new node 2. Go to Sat vs. Sat. (In Curves) 3. Drag shadows (left) dot to 1.23 4. Drag highlights (right) dot to 1.23 NOTES: I’ve been working on getting my FZ1000 to look realistic, using SOOC (Straight Out of Camera) settings, and I’m pretty happy with what these settings now (and it’s REALLY EASY TO REMEMBER). These settings are mostly for 4K PHOTO mode use, so I'm also doing this so I can either use 4K PHOTO mode to grab stills, or to shoot video and be able to use it without doing color grading (though it may need a little sharpness adding in Davinci Resolve, my video editing software of choice…also super good for color grading). Note that the smaller sensor on this camera produces a little bit more NOISE than I would consider perfect, but it's not bad if you look at it as kind of an organic "film look". IMPORTANT NOTE: One setting that you have to be careful to not forget, is to set the "Luminance Level" to 0-255 (not the default setting of 16-255). The easy way to set it to 0-255, is simply to switch to 4K PHOTO mode (which will default to 0-255). You can set it without doing that, but it's a lot more difficult (I don't remember the exact sequence). SHARPENING SETTINGS (Davinci Resolve): @Full "WIDE" = .47 @Mid "TIGHT" = .46 @Full "TELE" = .43 I should also note that I've found ISO 200 to create the most real-looking image (maybe it's the "native ISO"?) So, if you can use ISO 200, I do recommend it (even over 125 and 160, even though they're lower, etc.) Also, the image degrades noticeably above ISO 400, though I sometimes go up to ISO 800 when needed but be aware that it's going to look like it has more "film grain" (which isn't always bad, but it won't match your other footage, if the other footage was shot at a lower ISO). Nikon 17-35 2.8 D Panasonic GH5 Natural Still testing, and on this camera (GH5) it has way too much SHARPNESS, CONTRAST and NOISE (and the COLOR is bad in part due to the extreme HIGHLIGHT SHADOW curves applied). FILTER: None Vivitar Series 1 70-300 4.5-5.6 Panasonic G85 Natural Okay, this lens is good. Now, to be sure you have the right lens (when you use these settings) the version I tested was the WHITE version (well, off-white because the lens is old) but the exterior is white with black rubber areas (focus and zoom rings). So then, let me continue by saying WOW, it's a pretty good lens! I was actually not expecting much, because I had just finished testing another budget white lens from this same vintage (a 1990s 100-400 from Promaster) which was not good. As a side note, there seem to be a lot of good lenses in the 70-300 focal length range, but every vintage 100-300 and 100-400 has been REALLY bad. I've heard the Panasonic 100-400 (by Leica) is really good (not affordable enough for me to test at this time) and the footage I've seen from the Panasonic 100-300 looks good too...but for the older lenses, I only trust the 70-300 focal length now (but only from the early AF generation/80s & 90s and on, but not older). I putting NONE in the post-production sharpening settings because I don't think it needs any (which is good)! FILTER: None Vivitar Series 1 70-300 4.5-5.6 Panasonic GH5 Natural This is going to need a LUT (does not look REAL SOOC) but these CUSTOM SETTINGS bring it to a good starting point (without these settings, this lens-sensor combination isn't rendering a realistic image). I just finished testing this lens on the LUMIX G85 (and the settings for SOOC were GREAT) so it is always interesting to realize it is the COMBINATION of BOTH the LENS AND SENSOR! FILTER: None (BARE) Tamron 28-300 3.5-6.3 LD Panasonic G85 Natural This lens is SO bad on this camera (the Panasonic G85) as there are so many optical problems...plus the lack of ability to render enough resolution...it almost looks like it is shooting in standard definition on one of those really old camcorders! I have never seen a lens render an image so poorly (on this camera). FILTER: None Minolta MD 50 1.7 Panasonic G85 Natural ...I reduced the NOISE REDUCTION to retain some of the grain (kind of looks like film grain) as it didn't look as cinematic without it (and the SHARPNESS was all of the way up and it needed some more SHARPNESS). FILTER: None Minolta MD 50 1.7 Panasonic G85 Natural This lens has so much SHARPNESS and CONTRAST and it creates shadows that are so deep, it is difficult to get this to look realistic (with this sensor)! In some ways this is amazing, but in other ways it makes it a challenge to work with. To get the image to look realistic I am using the maximum HIGHLIGHT SHADOW compensation you can (bringing the HIGHLIGHTS down to -5 and the SHADOWS up to +5) and then I'm having to leave the CONTRAST at -0 (which I normally bring down a bit). I do think there is another good thing about the amount of SHARPNESS and CONTRAST this lens has, and that is it should work well with the Vivitar 2x MACRO teleconverter which will reduce those attributes a bit. [UNFILTERED] Sigma 30 1.4 Panasonic GH5 Natural I know I say this a lot (when I test lenses on a second camera) but I was really surprised by how different the results are on this camera (GH5) compared to the last camera I had tested (the Panasonic G85). The main thing is while the SHARPNESS of this lens so great that it was difficult to get the Panasonic G85 to look good with it without using a diffusion filter (the Tiffen BPM14 worked the best on the G85) I was able to get this image to look good on the Panasonic GH5 without the diffusion filter! The reason I am surprised is the GH5 sensor renders more SHARPNESS than the G85, but what it came down to was the fact that the GH5 could handle turning the SHARPNESS all of the way down to -5 and still hold up. In fact, it still had so much SHARPNESS left I had to turn up the NOISE reduction to +5, to reduce the SHARPNESS even more. FILTER - Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/8 Panasonic 45-200 4-5.6 Panasonic GH5 Natural This test, with the Tiffen BPM18 (Black Pro Mist 1/8) has the best results (for this lens-sensor combination) and it's the only one I would use (if you have or can get this filter). Notice these custom settings have the SHARPNESS turned down all of the way, and it still has a good amount of SHARPNESS to it (enough to boost in post-production to the perfect level, which I hope to figure out, and publish with these settings). FILTER - Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/4 Panasonic 45-200 4-5.6 Panasonic GH5 Natural It is going to need a LUT, but these custom settings are making it look pretty realistic in a lot of ways (it has potential). This test is with a Tiffen BPM14 (Black Pro Mist 1/4) which I am trying because the SHARPNESS of this lens is more of an issue on the GH5 than it was on the G85 (which has a lower-megapixel sensor). So now, even with the diffusion, there is still too much SHARPNESS, but I am leaving the settings where they are, because the overall rendering is as realistic as I can get it SOOC (then the LUT will need to darken the shadows and add COLOR back in). [UNFILTERED] Panasonic 45-200 4-5.6 Panasonic GH5 Natural This lens-sensor combination is going to need a LUT to finish it, for sure. It's interesting, because I just finished a test of this same lens on the Panasonic G85, and it is so amazing how different these two sensors are! The GH5 has more SHARPNESS for sure and on the Panasonic GH5 this lens could use a diffusion filter (such as the Tiffen BPM or GG) not only to reduce the SHARPNESS, but also to preserve the highlight detail. I hope to publish more tests (with those FILTERS) when I can get to it. [UNFILTERED] Panasonic 45-200 4-5.6 Panasonic G85 Natural These final settings actually have a little bit more SHARPNESS than you many want if you normally add that in post-production, but when I reduced the SHARPNESS, it lifted the shadows too much (reduces the CONTRAST, etc.) Then, I put the SHARPNESS back (where it was) and tried to add a bit of NOISE REDUCTION (to reduce the sharpness, and the NOISE) in a more subtle way...but it messed up the image (reduced the CONTRAST and COLOR too much, making it look less realistic). So, It's always fun to see how little changes can sometimes do big things. I'm pretty happy with these final custom settings now. Minolta AF 35-70 4 MACRO Panasonic GH5 Natural The first thing you will see (when you zoom in on the images this combination creates) is the image has a lot of NOISE...and you may be wondering how NOISE is a result of a lens-sensor combination, but when you compare it to other lenses (with similar SETTINGS) you know what I mean. It's kind of like it's how the light hits the sensor, after going through a certain lens, that makes all of the difference. I was able to get this lens to work okay on a lower-megapixel sensor (the Panasonic G85) but on this denser sensor (no rhyme intended:-) it's not working...so I cannot recommend this lens (for the Panasonic GH5). There is a bit of a FILM LOOK to the noise though, so if you are going for that, this might be a lens to try. One quick word about the MACRO feature of this lens...it's not easy to use, because of the tiny manual focusing ring (they thought AF was they only thing that people would ever use). The image quality of the lens is pretty good at the MACRO setting though, but even on a Micro Four Thirds (2x crop sensor) the close focus is not close enough (to make small things like bugs look good...or gross, whichever applies). [UNFILTERED] Minolta AF 35-70 4 MACRO Panasonic G85 Natural Still testing...so far this lens-sensor combination isn't too bad. It's not REAL-looking COLOR, but it has a sort of vintage film look, which reminds me of how the old Takumar 50 1.4 looked, which a lot of people like! The adapter I am using may not be allowing me to infinity focus at 70mm, but still testing... [UNFILTERED] 7artisans 35 1.4 ii Panasonic G85 Natural Difficult lens to get to render a scene accurately (my goal) but with these CUSTOM SETTINGS it looks decent enough. You'll have to increase the SHARPNESS in post-production though, and I will try to get those settings figured out as soon as I have time. FILTER: Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/4 Panasonic 25 1.7 Panasonic G85 Natural Okay, I like this. Starting out, this was a lot different than figuring out the settings for this same combination with the BPM18 (Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/8) but after a few hours of work, I am liking the results. This will need a LUT for sure, but I think the settings are a good starting point. FILTER: Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/8 Panasonic 25 1.7 Panasonic G85 Natural Almost done testing this one...I may need less COLOR (but that is because of the issue with VLC displaying more color on a MacBook Air, I sure wish companies would prioritize color ACCURACY. Same issue with Nvidia updating their display driver on my Dell XPS17). [UNFILTERED] Nikon 17-35 2.8 D Panasonic G85 Natural This lens is legendary, and I have been wanting to test it for a while. I did rent it many, many years ago (when using a Panasonic G5) but I did not know about custom (lens-sensor specific) camera settings. This combination is going to need a LUT to finalize, for sure. [UNFILTERED] Tamron 10-24 3.5-4.5 LD Panasonic G85 Natural There is not much SHARPNESS in this lens to start with, so on this sensor I have to add some in the settings, and it will certainly need some post-production SHARPNESS added as well. It will also need more COLOR, but after working with this a bit I think it is at what I consider a good place for footage you are capturing to start (though I prefer settings be so good they can be used SOOC, of course). I started out with custom settings that had a little bit too much COLOR, but I had to tone it down as it is a strange lens to find a good place to set the COLOR settings to, as the COLOR is not very accurate (which makes even the white balance hard to figure out). [UNFILTERED] Rokinon Cine 85 T1.5 Panasonic G85 Natural Wow...this works, without many corrections (on the G85 sensor). This is probably the 3rd easiest lens-sensor combo I've ever calibrated on the Panasonic G85 (the others were the vintage Vivitar 70-210 3.5, and the Nikon AF-D 50 1.4, both of which could be used, in the NATURAL picture profile, with no settings adjustments). To me, success is when the final image looks REAL, and with these settings, this lens makes a really good image on this camera. All I had to do was add a bit of NOISE REDUCTION (to help highlight rolloff, not for noise issues) and then to add a very slight HIGHLIGHT SHADOW correction, but you could go without it (if you want a slightly more contrasty shot than the scene really was). The only issue might be that it needs a little bit more SHARPNESS added during post-production, but I think these settings are a pretty good starting point. [UNFILTERED] Nikon 85 3.5 DX VR Panasonic G85 Natural For this camera (Panasonic G85) or on ANY Micro Four Thirds sensor camera, I don't really like this focal length for a MACRO lens, and I am starting to lean towards either a 40 or 60mm MACRO lens, or even a 50mm with a HELICOID adapter. The working distance of 85mm on this lens sometimes seems too close or too far away (based on where I can stand) at times. Also, I am getting to the point where I really appreciate making things look REAL, so this focal length of 85mm is introducing too much telephoto compression to look realistic, especially when used for MACRO images (where you are closer to the subject, etc.) Additionally, while the bokeh (out of focus background) is smooth, there is not quite enough blur, even wide open...but that is only f/3.5 so you can see what I mean (and an f/2.8 is where I want to be on M43 sensors when I want to create enough background blur). Lastly, there is not enough SHARPNESS in this lens (even with the compensation set to MAX +5) to work on this sensor (which means that this sensor does not have enough resolution to make the limited sharpness of this lens look realistic). Therefore, I don't think this lens is a good fit for this camera (Panasonic G85)...and maybe not for this M43 size of sensor overall (though the G9 or GH5 or other higher-megapixel M43 sensors might be okay, but I won't say until I test those). [UNFILTERED] Promaster 100-400 4.5-6.7 Panasonic G85 Natural I don't know what to say about this lens yet. On this M43 camera (the Panasonic G85) the focal length has enough reach to pretty much take care of any TELE shots you would ever want to get (with a few exceptions) but the combination of the low optical quality of this lens and the sort of lower pixel count of this sensor (16MP) produces an image that is probably not good enough for professional use. The obvious yet expensive alternative is the (native mount) Leica 100-400...but that's about $1000 US used, and this lens was $30 US. So, for the price I'm not saying this isn't a good tool to have around (though it's much bigger than a 70-300 as far as portability goes). It does really make me appreciate how much better the similarly-priced 70-300 lenses (also from the 1990s) are than this 100-400. Many of the 70-300 lenses I've tested produce professional results (see the lens notes) and they're just much better optically (probably because of the shorter zoom range) and certainly easier to fit into a camera bag. So, I probably will not recommend this inexpensive 100-400mm lens, unless you really need that extra telephoto reach. My custom, lens-sensor settings do improve the SOOC image (Straight Out Of Camera) but the final result is still not too good. Again, this really makes me go towards those 70-300 lenses I've tested, especially the ones with 1:2 MACRO. [UNFILTERED] Koah 50 1.4 Panasonic G85 Natural Still testing, but using the same settings as the Koah 35 1.2 is working pretty well. [UNFILTERED] Koah 35 1.2 Panasonic G85 Natural If you have never heard of Koah Artisan Series lenses (I know I had not) then you are might be pleasantly surprised. If you have heard of them, you may know they were created/distributed by Focus Camera.com (one of the New York photography stores) and that they are super affordable. However, I was not expecting much when I ordered this lens, not only because of the price, but because it was an f/1.2 lens (and every affordable f/1.2 lens I've tried...made me want to buy a 1.4 instead, because they were not any good at 1.2). Yet, I went ahead with the purchase not only because of the the f/1.2, but also because it was the focal length I needed (35mm) but the part that made me not expect much was the 1.2...but I was surprised. I started by testing the lens on a bright, sunny day (a good test for controlling dynamic range) and I began experimenting with the (in-camera) tonal curves using the HIGHLIGHT SHADOW menu (Panasonic G85). It didn't feel as difficult to correct as a lot of the other lenses I have worked with and I got custom settings dialed in pretty quickly. I actually had to ADD SHARPNESS (I usually remove some) as well as do other things in the (Natural) photo style/picture profile. I usually do about 10 tests before I get the settings right, but not for this one. The lens was amazingly consistent at almost all aperture values, and even at f/1.2, which was what surprised me. At f/1.2 it was certainly softer, but it did not show a lot of distracting red and blue color fringing that I've seen in a lot of other low-light primes (even f/1.4 lenses). I like the results with these custom settings enough to say I am going to keep this lens, and I am certainly going to recommend it to people. It creates sort of a vintage feel, but it still realistic, even if that sounds like a contradiction. I will also say that these settings provide a little bit too much COLOR, but overall (with these settings) this is looking REALLY good for a budget f/1.2 lens. FILTER Tiffen BPM18 Panasonic 12-60 3.5-5.6 Panasonic GH5 Natural Using same settings for FILTER version (as BARE version) with a Tiffen BPM18 (Black Pro Mist 1/8). FILTER Tiffen BPM14 Sigma 30 1.4 Panasonic G85 Natural WOW. I did not expect to get results that were as good as this (because this lens WITHOUT the Tiffen BPM14 did not work very well with this camera sensor). So, the custom settings I ended up using include a really strange HIGHLIGHT SHADOW curve (see settings) in conjunction with just a few small adjustments to the picture profile settings (see settings also). What I am really liking is how the combination of this filter and these settings is not only producing a pretty REAL looking image, but is also a little bit filmic too (with a little bit more SATURATION than one might want). Plus, it works pretty well in both INDOOR and OUTDOOR situations (with both low and high amounts of light...from shade to sun, etc.) P.S. I tried testing this combo with the BPM18 (1/8th strength Black Pro Mist) and it did not work as well (for a number of reasons)... [UNFILTERED] Sigma 30 1.4 Panasonic G85 Natural So far, I cannot recommend this lens WITHOUT adding a Tiffen BPM14 (Black Pro Mist 1/4)... It is true that this lens has a lot of SHARPNESS and CONTRAST, but when used with this sensor (the Panasonic G85) it does not render a realistic scene. The corrections I am applying (to the NATURAL profile) include an interesting Highlight Shadow curve, but the shadows are still being rendered too dark, but it's the best I can do without making it obvious there was a curve applied. The result is still not as realistic as I would like, and this means it will be difficult to match the shots from this lens to a lot of the other lenses I use (and therefore the imperfect "Real Rating"). All of this makes me understand why people tend to use diffusion filters (such as the Tiffen Black Pro Mist series) on this lens...which explains why the person I bought it from INCLUDED one with it! I hope to test it with that filter, next. I will say that overall this lens is a very consistent performer as it was difficult to see the difference in quality at different aperture values (unlike like many vintage lenses). The downside of this is that it does lack what some call CHARACTER which is typical of Sigma lenses of this type, but adding the HIGHLIGHT SHADOW compensation does kind of add a bit more character to it (and if you've used the in-camera curves, you know what I mean). Also, a lot of people talk about how the skintones on this camera are too RED, and they certainly are with this lens too...but keep in mind it is the combo of BOTH the lens and sensor that render colors a certain way (I might actually go back to trying an old Minolta MD 50 1.7 with this sensor again, as that has a GREEN bias, which may compensate for this issue). FILTER: None (BARE) Panasonic 12-60 3.5-5.6 Panasonic GH5 Natural Updating...(was at -3 CONTRAST, and a number of tests are showing that is not good)... (Template) Panasonic GH5 Natural [UNFILTERED] Sigma 18-35 1.8 Panasonic G7 Natural TESTING. [UNFILTERED] Promaster 70-300 4-5.6 Panasonic G7 Natural This lens is a 1990s vintage "TELE" kit lens (for Nikon mount). One interesting thing is it seems to be exactly the same as the Quantaray (of this same focal length). I started the test using the exact same custom settings, and the resulting images look almost identical. Also, both lenses have a 1:2 MACRO spec in the same exact focal length range (the macro lock engages between 180-300mm on both lenses). [UNFILTERED] Quantaray 70-300 4-5.6 LD Panasonic G7 Natural [UNFILTERED] TTArtisan 35 1.4 Panasonic G7 Natural FINAL NOTE: I don't recommend this lens for professional work. At first, I was guessing the f/1/.4 maximum aperture and the fact that it's a prime lens would make this lens a good option (at the low price it comes in at). However, after testing it and working with custom settings for a few days, I can say I do NOT recommend this lens, as it has a number of different optical problems that make it very difficult to capture a realistic, professional-looking image. I could go into more detail, but of the 50+ lenses I've tested, it is one of the top 5 worst (and I would never take it on a professional shoot...which is the requirement for each of the lens-sensor settings recommendations on this website). [UNFILTERED] Nikon 50 1.8 D Panasonic G7 Natural Wow...the final results on this lens-sensor (and speed booster) combo are great! All of the properties of contrast, sharpness, noise and color all look REALLY good (even though they're not perfectly realistic). Since the color from this camera is almost always more saturated than my other cameras (currently testing GH4, G85, GX85) I knew it would be a bit on the vivid side and turning it down any more can leave too much work for the LUT to do accurately (in post-production). Another thing I'm considering, is that while the Panasonic G7 seems to produce a lot of color saturation, it may be good to leave my settings a bit on the colorful side if you're going to upload straight to YouTube. However, most of the time I would have to run these through Davinci Resolve (to assemble multiple clips) anyway, so I could easily just add a LUT (or my "YouTube color bump" settings) to deal with the color saturation. FILTER: None Leica 25-400 2.8-4.0 Panasonic FZ1000 Natural I’ve been working on getting my FZ1000 to look realistic, using SOOC (Straight Out of Camera) settings, and I’m pretty happy with what these settings now (and it’s REALLY EASY TO REMEMBER). These settings are mostly for 4K PHOTO mode use, so I'm also doing this so I can either use 4K PHOTO mode to grab stills, or to shoot video and be able to use it without doing color grading (though it may need a little sharpness adding in Davinci Resolve, my video editing software of choice…also super good for color grading). Note that the smaller sensor on this camera produces a little bit more NOISE than I would consider perfect, but it's not bad if you look at it as kind of an organic "film look". IMPORTANT NOTE: One setting that you have to be careful to not forget, is to set the "Luminance Level" to 0-255 (not the default setting of 16-255). The easy way to set it to 0-255, is simply to switch to 4K PHOTO mode (which will default to 0-255). You can set it without doing that, but it's a lot more difficult (I don't remember the exact sequence). I should also say, I've found ISO 200 to create the most real-looking image on this camera (maybe it's the "native ISO"?) So, if you can use ISO 200, I do recommend it even over 125 and 160, even though they're lower. The image degrades noticeably above ISO 400, and I sometimes go up to ISO 800 when needed, but be aware that it's going to look like it has more "film grain" (which isn't always bad, but it won't match your other footage, if the other footage was shot at a lower ISO). Another thing to note, is this camera doesn't work with a VND (variable ND) and so if you need to use a ND filter outdoors (to follow the 180-degree shutter rule, which I sometimes do not) the only option is using a straight ND filter (ND8 has been the best strength in my experience). This is both interesting and somewhat distressing, and the inclusion of internal ND filters in the FZ2500 seems like an admission of this issue. What happens is, at the longer telephoto focal lengths, using a VND filter makes the image look really bad; so bad, you would have to try it yourself to believe it! It's interesting that a similar thing happens with a lot of the 70-300 lenses I've tested (also at and near the long end of the zoom range). My theory is it has something to do with the enormous amount of space between the optics when the lens is in the extended telephoto position. [UNFILTERED] Panasonic 12-32 3.5-5.6 Panasonic GX85 Natural IMPORTANT NOTE: I may go back to figure out the custom settings for this lens, but I don't recommend this combination FOR VIDEO use because the GX85 body does not have a manual focus dial, or an autofocus/manual focus switch (like the GX9) so you can quickly turn off AF. The reason you need this for video use, is that the AF is not reliable so it will "hunt" if you leave it on while recording. For instance, if you're in a documentary/interview/talking head situation it may switch from foreground focus to focus on the background, and that can ruin an interview (because you can't just make a person say something over, etc.) The workaround is to set the focus (on a person's nearest eye, typically) and then turn off AF. However, to do this on the GX85, you have to use the menu system instead of a physical switch (as on GX9). This takes too long and doesn't work in real situations. So, because the lens doesn't have a manual focus dial (or an on/off switch, I don't recommend this specific (lens-sensor) combination for video/filmmaking use (it's decent for still photography). FILTER: Tiffen Warm Soft FX 2 Panasonic 12-60 3.5-5.6 Panasonic G85 Natural IMPORTANT: This test is being done for a friend, for still photography use only (and I don't recommend it for video use). FILTER: Tiffen Ultra Contrast 1 Panasonic 12-60 3.5-5.6 Panasonic G85 Natural NEW NOTES: ... (BELOW IS FROM TIFFEN BPM18): (These new settings are for using the lens with the Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/8.) I started this test because I wasn't able to get this lens-sensor combo (or with G85) to work very well UNFILTERED (see my older notes below). So, while testing I noticed a number of interesting things, including that this filter (with the specific settings I use) is reducing the compression artifacts that were occurring in video (when using it UNFILTERED). Also, no surprise, but using this filter makes this lens more prone to flare (need a lens hood or matte box) and though this can reduce the contrast in certain lighting situations (i.e. pointing toward a light source) the flare doesn't look that bad. So, while I didn't like the results of this lens UNFILTERED, I now feel pretty good about using it with these settings (which include the Tiffen BPM18/Black Pro Mist 1/8). OLDER NOTES (from UNFILTERED test): When I started this test, I was surprised, as I had heard so many people say good things about this lens, but when compared with a lot of the vintage lenses I've been testing, this thing isn't very good...so let me explain. When I started this test (at -0-0-0-0 using the Natural profile) what immediately jumped out at me were the outlines on the edges of objects, which I'm pretty sure is due to over-sharpening...yet at the same time, the image was soft and needed sharpening! This is a problem, because to remove the outlines on the edges of things, you have to REDUCE the SHARPENING...but doing that will mean the image needs even MORE sharpening during post production, so I may have to see how far I can take the sharpening in post production (using Davinci Resolve). [UNFILTERED] Novoflex 105 4 AUTO BELLOWS Panasonic GX85 Natural DAMAGE WARNING: The copy of this lens I tested had fungus on the inside of the second element. So, these settings may not work on your copy of the lens (unless your fungus is identical...but does that ever happen?) Even with the fungus, I can see this lens had (even in a clean state) trouble with chromatic aberration, though it's not too extreme, and mainly shows up as RED and YELLOW fringing (and not the super-distracting, yet 3-D looking blue and red of some other lenses). [UNFILTERED] Novoflex 105 4 AUTO BELLOWS Panasonic G85 Natural DAMAGE WARNING: The copy of this lens I tested had fungus on the inside of the second element. So, these settings may not work on your copy of the lens (unless your fungus is identical...but does that ever happen?) Even with the fungus, I can see this lens had (even in a clean state) trouble with chromatic aberration, though it's not too extreme, and mainly shows up as RED and YELLOW fringing (and not the super-distracting, yet 3-D looking blue and red of some other lenses). [UNFILTERED] Minolta MD 50 1.7 Panasonic GH4 Natural (Sold GH4, so only did a preliminary test...if you try, let me know what you think!) [UNFILTERED] Nikon 35 1.8 G DX Panasonic GH4 Natural I don't like this lens-sensor combination. I am using the Viltrox NF-M43x (Nikon mount) speed booster for this test (and that is part of it) but this booster looks really good on other lenses, so I wouldn't blame it on that. It just always comes down to the combination of all the things put together, kind of a synergy if you will...and this combo looks BAD (not good). So, while I think my custom settings do help create a file that is an okay starting point, the image it produces is very un-inspiring, and I hope to make the images into something better with a custom LUT (but I really don't even want to work with this lens!)... [UNFILTERED] Nikon 35 1.8 G DX Panasonic G7 Natural POST-PRODUCTION NOTES: This lens-sensor combination will need some post-production work (these are my recommendations): 1. Add SHARPNESS (in Davinci Resolve) 2. Create/add a LUT (see notes above) 3. Add my "YouTube COLOR Bump" (if you're uploading to YouTube) [UNFILTERED] Nikon 35 1.8 G DX Panasonic GX85 Natural OVERVIEW: This lens, similar to its brother the Nikon 50 1.8G, is not easy to work with on this sensor (the Panasonic G85). When I started the test (at -0-0-0-0, HS -0-0) it had the same deep shadows that the 50mm had, and the same weird color rendering. I think these final settings make this into a lens that is a decent tool, but it will need both sharpening and color added in post-production (to look "REAL"). I might be able to correct some of the strange tonal range problems with the LUT, and I it's easy to boost the SATURATION of the color, but I don't know if I will ever get the color HUE to look accurate. This color issue is hard to describe, but it renders colors with a deeper tone than they really are, and some may like this, but my goal is realism (so this is not one of my favorite lenses). POST-PRODUCTION NOTES: This lens-sensor combination will need some post-production work (these are my recommendations): 1. Add SHARPNESS (in Davinci Resolve) 2. Create/add a LUT (see notes above) 3. Add my "YouTube COLOR Bump" (if you're uploading to YouTube) [UNFILTERED] Nikon 35 1.8 G DX Panasonic G85 Natural OVERVIEW: This lens, similar to its brother the Nikon 50 1.8G, is not easy to work with on this sensor (the Panasonic G85). When I started the test (at -0-0-0-0, HS -0-0) it had the same deep shadows that the 50mm had, and the same weird color rendering. I think these final settings make this into a lens that is a decent tool, but it will need both sharpening and color added in post-production (to look "REAL"). I might be able to correct some of the strange tonal range problems with the LUT, and I it's easy to boost the SATURATION of the color, but I don't know if I will ever get the color HUE to look accurate. This color issue is hard to describe, but it renders colors with a deeper tone than they really are, and some may like this, but my goal is realism (so this is not one of my favorite lenses). POST-PRODUCTION NOTES: This lens-sensor combination will need some post-production work (these are my recommendations): 1. Add SHARPNESS (in Davinci Resolve) 2. Create/add a LUT (see notes above) 3. Add my "YouTube COLOR Bump" (if you're uploading to YouTube) [UNFILTERED] Nikon 80-200 2.8 D Panasonic G7 Natural (NOTES FROM BOOSTED TEST): This lens is too sharp for this sensor, as with the SHARPNESS turned all of the way down (to -5) plus the NOISE REDUCTION turned all of the way UP (to +5, which I do to reduce sharpness even more when needed) the image still has a lot of aliasing. This sensor also renders more compression-related artifacts when a lens is too sharp (which adding NR can help with) but since we've maxed out those 2 settings, we're left with a lens-sensor combo that is bound to be a problem in certain lighting situations. This used to be a top-of-the-line telephoto zoom (it was the first AF 80-200 2.8 Nikon produced) and the build quality is excellent. However, the "focus breathing" is not good for video (image changes size as you focus, etc.) and lenses such as the Promaster 70-300 I've been using, are MUCH better for video (even though the aperture is not constant, but with this breathing, you can't zoom while shooting ANYWAY!) it's also heavy and slow to operate. It's slow because of the push-pull zoom, and because of the focus (there is a focus limiting feature that helps with that). Optically, it's a great lens, and though each lens-sensor combo usually needs some work to look its best. NOTE: With a non-optical adapter, I set the contrast to -2 (instead of -1). [UNFILTERED] Vivitar Series 1 70-210 2.8-4 Panasonic G85 Natural CAMERA-SPECIFIC NOTES: If you need to upload the video footage to YouTube SOOC, use +2 on the in-camera SHARPNESS. If you're planning on adding sharpening in post-production, then use +1 on the in-camera SHARPNESS. CAMERA-SPECIFIC NOTES: After first testing this lens on the Panasonic GH4 (and writing most of the notes in the "LENS-SPECIFIC NOTES" section below) I was amazed at how much better this lens looked on the Panasonic G85 sensor! I was able to cover up that "glowy, purple fringing" easier, and it was much easier to make the color turn out looking "REAL" (the NATURAL profile in the GH4 is not super neutral, but the CINELIKE D is a lot worse). I like using this lens on the G85, and I highly recommend it...though it still does have some "character" (the purple glows are still there, somewhere). LENS-SPECIFIC NOTES: I will say this lens has really nice bokeh (out of focus areas) yet the glowy, purple fringing (or chromatic aberration) is very noticeable on light-colored subjects, and it shows up as mystery purple patches all over. If you WANT that effect, this is a good lens for that, but 'm trying to find lenses that retain what I call a "sense of reality" so this one isn't high on my list. In terms of overall usefulness, the push-pull zoom is surprisingly easy to use even for video, as it sort of sticks in whatever position you set it because it has an angular groove in the motion travel that keeps it from slipping too much. The copy I have was a little bit loose, but that made it fast to focus or zoom with (which I liked). I'm not going to comment much on the corrections I performed, because the lens differs so much from one aperture value and focal length to another. Let's just say "It has character" and is full of lots of surprises. In comparison to the older Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f/3.5, I prefer the optics of the older one, but the ergonomics (zoom and focus feel) of this newer one are better. [UNFILTERED] Minolta AF 50 1.7 ii Panasonic G85 Natural Not sure if test for v2 was done. [UNFILTERED] Kiron 28-85 2.8-3.8 Panasonic GX85 Natural UPDATE: I'm happy with the how my final Highlight Shadow compensation worked, but the notes below about lack of realism still apply. If your goals for a lens-sensor combination include either realism or accuracy, this combination isn't good. If you're going for a vintage look however, this might be worth a try. I do add the word "might" though, as what I'm struggling with is the overall CONTRAST of the lens (it's good, it's a bit too much FOR THIS SENSOR, resulting in too wide of a dynamic range being covered; more than this sensor can handle). I'm still experimenting with Highlight Shadow compensation to see if I can remedy this, but so far doing this undercuts certain other positive traits of the lens in the process (it tones down the pretty red and blue fringing/chromatic aberrations). [UNFILTERED] Vivitar Series 1 70-210 3.5 Panasonic G85 Natural This lens is pretty amazing, because it's one of the few lens-sensor combos out there that actually looks really good at 0-0-0-0 (using the NATURAL photo style). I did do some minor adjustments, but they're not essential. This lens does have some issues with glowing purples (i.e. chromatic aberration) which can be distracting. Also, be aware that it's a really heavy lens (for its size) and I think it needs to be supported by the sort of adapter that has an integrated tripod mount on it (so it doesn't strain the lens mount on the camera). I didn't have a tripod mount on the adapter I used on my initial tests, and it wasn't very ergonomic, but then I found one on Ebay (Minolta MD mount) and it works much better! [UNFILTERED] Vivitar Series 1 70-210 2.8-4 Panasonic GH4 Natural I will say this lens has really nice bokeh (out of focus areas) yet the glowy, purple fringing (or chromatic aberration) is very noticeable on light-colored subjects, and it shows up as mystery purple patches all over. If you WANT that effect, this is a good lens for that, but 'm trying to find lenses that retain what I call a "sense of reality" so this one isn't high on my list. In terms of overall usefulness, the push-pull zoom is surprisingly easy to use even for video, as it sort of sticks in whatever position you set it because it has an angular groove in the motion travel that keeps it from slipping too much. The copy I have was a little bit loose, but that made it fast to focus or zoom with (which I liked). I'm not going to comment much on the corrections I performed, because the lens differs so much from one aperture value and focal length to another. Let's just say "It has character" and is full of lots of surprises. In comparison to the older Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f/3.5, I prefer the optics of the older one, but the ergonomics (zoom and focus feel) of this newer one are better. [UNFILTERED] Vivitar Series 1 70-210 3.5 Panasonic GH4 Natural BELOW IS REVIEW ON OTHER CAMERA This lens is pretty amazing, because it's one of the few lens-sensor combos out there that actually looks really good at 0-0-0-0 (using the NATURAL photo style). I did do some minor adjustments, but they're not essential. This lens does have some issues with glowing purples (i.e. chromatic aberration) which can be distracting. Also, be aware that it's a really heavy lens (for its size) and I think it needs to be supported by the sort of adapter that has an integrated tripod mount on it (so it doesn't strain the lens mount on the camera). I didn't have a tripod mount on the adapter I used on my initial tests, and it wasn't very ergonomic, but then I found one on Ebay (Minolta MD mount) and it works much better! [UNFILTERED] Quantaray 70-300 4-5.6 LD Panasonic G85 Natural (I will be doing 2 different tests here: One for sports action (stills) for printing to an 8x10 printer, and the second is my normal test for video purposes...starting to test now.) PHOTO Settings: (More SHARPNESS is needed the printing process reduces the apparent sharpness due to the substrate, inks, etc.) TEST #1 = NATURAL -0+2+3-1 HS -2+2 (Needs more SHARPNESS, more NR, more COLOR) TEST #2 = NATURAL -0+4+5-0 HS -2+2 (Not sure yet) TEST #3 = NATURAL +4+5+4+1 HS -2+3 TEST #4 = NATURAL +4+4+4-1 HS -2+3 (FINAL) VIDEO Settings: [UNFILTERED] Sigma 75-300 4-5.6 DL Panasonic GX85 Natural The rubber "ZEN" coating is now so sticky I can't use the push-pull zoom/focus! (It got worse after I cleaned it, note to self.) I did finish my testing, but it doesn't zoom anymore, so it's no longer useable! Other than that, this lens is sort of impressive optically, and I stopped testing some of my other old Sigma AF lenses of a slightly newer vintage (mid-1990s) because they weren't good enough optically, but THIS one is a little bit older, and I'm impressed. [UNFILTERED] Sigma 75-300 4-5.6 DL Panasonic G85 Natural The rubber "ZEN" coating is now so sticky I can't use the push-pull zoom/focus! (It got worse after I cleaned it, note to self.) I did finish my testing, but it doesn't zoom anymore, so it's no longer useable! Other than that, this lens is sort of impressive optically, and I stopped testing some of my other old Sigma AF lenses of a slightly newer vintage (mid-1990s) because they weren't good enough optically, but THIS one is a little bit older, and I'm impressed. [UNFILTERED] Canon FDn 50 1.4 Panasonic GX85 Natural WARNING: This lens doesn't focus to infinity with this adapter! CONCLUSION: Due to the fact this specific lens doesn't focus to infinity when used on this speedbooster, I'm going to use this INDOORS at for the TIGHT interview shot. These custom settings also work OUTDOORS, but its usefulness is very limited because you can't focus to infinity (i.e. you can't focus on distant objects...hence, this is truly a tool for blurring the background, etc.) ATEM Mini NOTES: The ATEM Mini seems to increase the CONTRAST, so I may need to reduce this when using the ATEM Mini. [UNFILTERED] Pentax Super-Takumar 50 1.4 ii Panasonic GH4 Natural CONCLUSION: Overall, I don't like this lens-sensor combination. WITHOUT this speedbooster, this lens both has a lot of character AND a lot of integrity, but WITH this (Pixco) speedbooster, it feels like one of the cheap vintage lenses that nobody likes. I do like this speedbooster on other lenses though, so it's just this lens-sensor combination that is uninspiring. ORIGINAL NOTES: So, after testing the original (non-BOOSTED) settings with the speedbooster ON, I can certainly say that they DO NOT WORK, so I'm starting this test from scratch. (Sometimes starting with the non-BOOST settings works, but in this case, it isn't working too well). NON-BOOST NOTES: This was a VERY difficult lens to come up with the set of recommended settings for. My goal is simply to make it easy to get the best original capture as possible (at all aperture settings) and that was difficult because of how inconsistent this lens is at different apertures (in terms of how it renders light, etc.) [UNFILTERED] Vivitar 50 1.8 M42 Panasonic GH4 Natural OVERVIEW: My first impression of this lens-sensor combination wasn't too good, but after getting these custom settings worked out, there are some good things to say about it. Overall, it's got a lot of character, and the strange thing is that it renders the image MUCH differently at different F-stops (in more ways than depth of field and sharpness). It's hard to put in words, but it just kind of makes the image look like it's from different film stocks at different aperture values. This made it difficult to decide on one set of settings, but what I'm using is working pretty well (see the above settings). WIERD NOTES: There's a lot of "weird notes" for this lens-sensor combination, because it behaves so differently than most of the other lenses I've tested. One thing is that it gets MORE contrasty at f/2.8 and LESS at 5.6 or f/8 (most lenses become more contrasty as they stop down). As normal, the SHARPNESS increases as it gets closer to f/8, but I find it weird that the CONTRAST is greater at 2.8. In general, I like using this combination (this lens + PIXCO speedbooster) at f/2.8, as it has just the right amount of bokeh, as well as good sharpness, and contrast as mentioned. Also, focus pulling is really nice at f/2.8, with a short focus throw, and infinity focus being pretty much right on (in my experience). The sharpness isn't good enough below f/2.8 either, so needless to say, I use it at f/2.8 almost all of the time. SHARPENING SETTINGS: This is a very difficult lens to give SHARPENING settings for because the sharpness changes so much at different aperture values! However, I'll start working on figuring this out after I've gathered enough footage to run it through tests (in Davinci). FIRST IMPRESSION (OLD NOTES): The #1 thing I'm starting to notice with this focal reducer/speedbooster, is that it causes a big flare ball (not hair ball) in the middle of the frame, no matter what lens is used. I tried shielding the lens (I put my hand about 6 inches in FRONT of the lens, and slightly above) and it removed the flare, but it's pretty bad without this. The only solution would be to use a BIG French flag above the lens. The lens flare does the normal bad things to the lens really bad flare does (reduces the contrast and color saturation) and in this case, it almost totally destroys the image. So, for now I'm not going to recommend this lens-sensor +BOOST (speedbooster) combination (and I might look into some other speedbooster brands for M42). FILTER: Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/8 Panasonic 12-60 3.5-5.6 Panasonic GH4 Natural UPDATE: I changed the Highlight Shadow settings (from -3+3) to -2+2 and now it has the same HS settings as the UNFILTERED version. This is interesting as it means that, while the LUT will still need to be different for this version (which is using the Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/8) because of tonal range, but what's interesting is the SHARPNESS settings are the only difference (2 points less when using this filter). I know, it would be nice if this pattern was the same for ALL lens-sensor combinations (and I could just apply that logic, and not have to TEST each one) but I know better than to do that by now, LOL! I came back to this test after some time, and I think the old settings looked okay SOOC (Straight Out of Camera) but I think the image would fall apart if any post sharpening was to be added, so I increased the NR (Noise Reduction) to tone down sharpness. This helps to get the image to a better starting point (before adding a bit of sharpening in post). I also increased the COLOR setting by 1 (because adding NR reduced the color saturation too). I need to test the post-production sharpening settings in Davinci Resolve (I will publish them below). [UNFILTERED] Panasonic 12-60 3.5-5.6 Panasonic GH4 Natural Wow. These settings are working really well SOOC (Straight Out of Camera) but are not what I expected at all. I will still make a LUT, but the video from these settings alone looks great. On the first day of testing, I wasn't enjoying myself and didn't know if there was hope for this lens-sensor combo. So, I switched over to the tests using a diffusion filter (Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/8) because things weren't working. Strange enough, the place where I left off was a GREAT place to start with the filter on (I used the same settings) and I got the test WITH the filter done first. Then, when I returned to finish these UNFILTERED tests, I finally got these to look good too, but the settings are way different than the ones for when you're using a Tiffen BPM18. The filtered and UNFILTERED versions will need different LUTs and SHARPENING settings for post-production for sure, but I'm pretty happy with how good of a "starting point" these two sets of settings are providing. Check my YouTube channel for some of the tests. [UNFILTERED] Canon FDn 50 1.8 Panasonic GH4 Natural THE SHORT STORY: I'm super happy with the results coming from these settings (the lens-sensor combo, including the Pixco speed booster)! What was super surprising was that these settings not only look good on the final files, but they also look good on the Panasonic GH4 flip-out screen (while you're shooting) and that doesn't always happen (it's a really good thing!) THE LONG STORY: I just tested this lens-sensor combination on a Panasonic GX85, so I had some expectations for this test...but I must say that it turned out a lot better than I expected! Not only does this turn the very affordable Canon FDn 50 1.8 into a great low light tool (a 35mm 1.2) but it renders quite a filmic look on this GH4 (a super affordable camera nowadays)! I say it looks a lot like film because it's doing a really good job controlling the highlight rolloff, midtones and shadow detail, and it even renders a sort of film grain look by having a bit of digital noise (but it's not too much that it's distracting). The NOISE REDUCTION settings are what I'm using to control how the "film grain" look is rendering, and the final settings I'm using are a result of a lot of back-and-forth trial and error, so I'll have to say that it's important to use these specific settings (try it and I think you'll like it). In regard to the optical quality of this speed booster, it has flaws and imperfections, but I think what's really important is how the image it renders looks, etc. It has issues with lens flare which some people actually like, and has other issues that could normally be considered a negative (such as sharpness reduction, etc.) that are working well with this lens-sensor combination. In the end, I think using this Pixco speed booster with this Canon FDn 50 1.8 is a very cost-effective way to turn this 50 1.8 into a 35mm F/1.2 low light tool. The aperture control is stepless (i.e. de-clicked) though it does have a couple places it seems to catch slightly. GH4 NOTE: One problem with the GH4 is that the sensor seems to render too much BLUE. So, the workaround I use is to shoot in "Cloudy" white balance when it's sunny outside. My "REAL" ratings rate "COLOR" as being pretty accurate, but it's when using this workaround. [UNFILTERED] Canon FDn 50 1.8 Panasonic GX85 Natural IMPORTANT: After having a camera's sensor get scratched (after dropping it with a speedbooster on) I don't recommend using speedboosters anymore on cameras with sensors that have IBIS (In-Body Image Stabilization). The reason is that the optic sticks into the lens mount (more than an OEM lens) and if the camera is dropped, the extra force and motion of the IBIS sensor can cause the two to collide (thus scratching the sensor). This is not only a review of this vintage lens, but also a review of the Pixco focal reducer (specific to this camera) and so far, I like it! This speed booster is inexpensive, and though it DOES create lens flare, it doesn't look too bad, and can be controlled (with a lens shade) if needed. This lens-sensor combination (of the Lumix GX85, the Canon FDn 50 1.8 + Pixco speed booster) is a pretty good way to get an F/1.2 lens, for a low price. What's really weird about this lens-sensor combination is that, even with a LOT of NR (Noise Reduction) added, it is still producing a lot of NOISE. You might wonder how a specific lens could produce MORE noise than another lens (with the same SENSOR) but I think it comes down to what was done to the light before it reaches the sensor, and then the interaction of the sensor and the light affects how the sensor displays things. It sounds really simple, but each lens-sensor relationship is a little different. So, because the digital noise is not going away, what I'm attempting to do is to make it look like film grain (as much as I can). [UNFILTERED] Panasonic 14-42 ii Panasonic G85 Natural UPDATE 2: I just finished the updated settings! I think it still could benefit from doing some tests with some kind of diffusion filter (like the Tiffen GG or BPM) but I have to note that this is my last test with this camera because the shutter speed dial completely stopped working (when I turn it, it only goes HIGHER). The problems with this camera started after using a Viltrox EFM2ii (Canon mount focal reducer/speedbooster) during which the screen glitched, then the camera froze. Since then, it has gotten worse, and now I can't use it at all. (I love the Nikon mount version of the Viltrox focal reducer, the non-electronic version, but now I'm going to warn people about using the Canon mount version (because it has electrical contacts, and tries to communicate, and pull power from, the camera). One thing that is really interesting about these settings, is that the SOOC JPEG (in still photo modes) looks really good (and, in fact a bit more accurate than the video footage, because the video footage is still a LITTLE bit over-sharpened). UPDATE: I recently talked with another photographer about this lens (as well as talking with others in the past) and most people don't like it much. I've been working to figure out CUSTOM SETTINGS that help each lens look its best (specific to each camera sensor) and haven't been able to get this combo to look realistic (it looks too "digital"). I've started testing some lenses using Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/8 filters and may try that here. What the filter does is smooth the transition of light from the highlights to the shadows, keeping the light projected onto the sensor within the dynamic range of the camera. This also causes SHARPNESS to decrease, but I have it turned all of the way down right now, so I can then turn it up on the custom settings, and it should make the image look less digital. FILTER: Gobe ND8 Leica 25-400 2.8-4.0 Panasonic FZ1000 Natural I’ve been working on getting my FZ1000 to look realistic, using SOOC (Straight Out of Camera) settings, and I’m pretty happy with what these settings now (and it’s REALLY EASY TO REMEMBER). These settings are mostly for 4K PHOTO mode use, so I'm also doing this so I can either use 4K PHOTO mode to grab stills, or to shoot video and be able to use it without doing color grading (though it may need a little sharpness adding in Davinci Resolve, my video editing software of choice…also super good for color grading). Note that the smaller sensor on this camera produces a little bit more NOISE than I would consider perfect, but it's not bad if you look at it as kind of an organic "film look". IMPORTANT NOTE: One setting that you have to be careful to not forget, is to set the "Luminance Level" to 0-255 (not the default setting of 16-255). The easy way to set it to 0-255, is simply to switch to 4K PHOTO mode (which will default to 0-255). You can set it without doing that, but it's a lot more difficult (I don't remember the exact sequence). I should also say, I've found ISO 200 to create the most real-looking image on this camera (maybe it's the "native ISO"?) So, if you can use ISO 200, I do recommend it even over 125 and 160, even though they're lower. The image degrades noticeably above ISO 400, and I sometimes go up to ISO 800 when needed, but be aware that it's going to look like it has more "film grain" (which isn't always bad, but it won't match your other footage, if the other footage was shot at a lower ISO). Another thing to note, is this camera doesn't work with a VND (variable ND) and so if you need to use a ND filter outdoors (to follow the 180-degree shutter rule, which I sometimes do not) the only option is using a straight ND filter (ND8 has been the best strength in my experience). This is both interesting and somewhat distressing, and the inclusion of internal ND filters in the FZ2500 seems like an admission of this issue. What happens is, at the longer telephoto focal lengths, using a VND filter makes the image look really bad; so bad, you would have to try it yourself to believe it! It's interesting that a similar thing happens with a lot of the 70-300 lenses I've tested (also at and near the long end of the zoom range). My theory is it has something to do with the enormous amount of space between the optics when the lens is in the extended telephoto position. [UNFILTERED] Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC Panasonic G85 Natural Need to add COLOR with a LUT but have to keep it low during capture to reduce both noise artifacts and the chromatic aberrations (light green blue and red fringing). I'm noticing those aberrations at the WIDE end (17mm or so) but it's pretty clean around 50mm in this respect. It's also sharper (too sharp) at the wide end, and less sharp (but just about right with these settings) at the long (50mm) end. FILTER: Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/8 Panasonic 12-60 3.5-5.6 Panasonic G85 Natural (These new settings are for using the lens with the Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/8.) I started this test because I wasn't able to get this lens-sensor combo (or with G85) to work very well UNFILTERED (see my older notes below). So, while testing I noticed a number of interesting things, including that this filter (with the specific settings I use) is reducing the compression artifacts that were occurring in video (when using it UNFILTERED). Also, no surprise, but using this filter makes this lens more prone to flare (need a lens hood or matte box) and though this can reduce the contrast in certain lighting situations (i.e. pointing toward a light source) the flare doesn't look that bad. So, while I didn't like the results of this lens UNFILTERED, I now feel pretty good about using it with these settings (which include the Tiffen BPM18/Black Pro Mist 1/8). OLDER NOTES (from UNFILTERED test): When I started this test, I was surprised, as I had heard so many people say good things about this lens, but when compared with a lot of the vintage lenses I've been testing, this thing isn't very good...so let me explain. When I started this test (at -0-0-0-0 using the Natural profile) what immediately jumped out at me were the outlines on the edges of objects, which I'm pretty sure is due to over-sharpening...yet at the same time, the image was soft and needed sharpening! This is a problem, because to remove the outlines on the edges of things, you have to REDUCE the SHARPENING...but doing that will mean the image needs even MORE sharpening during post production, so I may have to see how far I can take the sharpening in post production (using Davinci Resolve). IDEA: I may try decreasing the NR (Noise Reduction) by 1 (to +3) and increasing the SHARPNESS by 1 (to -4) to see if I can get a little bit more film grain look (the NR is wiping out all of the texture, and you could add it in post, but I prefer to save TIME). FILTER: Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/8 Panasonic 12-60 3.5-5.6 Panasonic GX85 Natural (These new settings are for using the lens with the Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/8.) I started this test because I wasn't able to get this lens-sensor combo (or with G85) to work very well UNFILTERED (see my older notes below). So, while testing I noticed a number of interesting things, including that this filter (with the specific settings I use) is reducing the compression artifacts that were occurring in video (when using it UNFILTERED). Also, no surprise, but using this filter makes this lens more prone to flare (need a lens hood or matte box) and though this can reduce the contrast in certain lighting situations (i.e. pointing toward a light source) the flare doesn't look that bad. So, while I didn't like the results of this lens UNFILTERED, I now feel pretty good about using it with these settings with the Tiffen BPM18/Black Pro Mist 1/8! OLDER NOTES (from UNFILTERED test): When I started this test, I was surprised, as I had heard so many people say good things about this lens, but when compared with a lot of the vintage lenses I've been testing, this thing isn't very good...so let me explain. When I started this test (at -0-0-0-0 using the Natural profile) what immediately jumped out at me were the outlines on the edges of objects, which I'm pretty sure is due to over-sharpening...yet at the same time, the image was soft and needed sharpening! This is a problem, because to remove the outlines on the edges of things, you have to REDUCE the SHARPENING...but doing that will mean the image needs even MORE sharpening during post production, so I may have to see how far I can take the sharpening in post production (using Davinci Resolve). [UNFILTERED] Kiron 28-85 2.8-3.8 Panasonic GH4 Natural While I'm still testing this lens-sensor combo, it looks pretty nice so far. Not only does it have a really nice vintage look, but it's also pretty accurate in terms of COLOR and CONTRAST. [UNFILTERED] Kiron 28-85 2.8-3.8 Panasonic G85 Natural UPDATE: I'm happy with the how my final Highlight Shadow compensation worked, but the notes below about lack of realism still apply. If your goals for a lens-sensor combination include either realism or accuracy, this combination isn't good. If you're going for a vintage look however, this might be worth a try. I do add the word "might" though, as what I'm struggling with is the overall CONTRAST of the lens (it's good, it's a bit too much FOR THIS SENSOR, resulting in too wide of a dynamic range being covered; more than this sensor can handle). I'm still experimenting with Highlight Shadow compensation to see if I can remedy this, but so far doing this undercuts certain other positive traits of the lens in the process (it tones down the pretty red and blue fringing/chromatic aberrations). [UNFILTERED] Kiron 28-85 2.8-3.8 Panasonic G85 Natural [NOTE: The settings with the +BOOST (Viltrox NF-M43x) added are a LOT different (you might expect it to be predictable, but every optical situation is different) and needs custom settings.] This is a really amazing vintage lens! It is very vulnerable to lens flare (so if you want to control it, use lens shade, etc.) but it matches this sensor pretty well and it needed very few changes. The adjustments were important though, as it really helped adding a little CONTRAST, SHARPNESS and NOISE REDUCTION (each of them for controlling the micro-contrast and reducing the digital look of the image, etc.) While the final result is not perfectly "REAL" (especially the inaccurate color) I think it looks very "cinematic" and that a lot of people (who like the "film look") will really, REALLY like the image this lens-sensor combo creates. [UNFILTERED] Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC Panasonic GX85 Natural So far, I really like the type of lens flare this lens produces. I'm noticing chromatic aberration (red and blue fringing) at the WIDE end (17mm or so) but it's pretty clean around 50mm in this respect. It's also sharper (too sharp) at the wide end, and less sharp (but just about right with these settings) at the long (50mm) end. I would say this lens looks similar to the older Sigma (EX series) zoom lenses (in regard to the red & blue fringing) at the WIDE end, but a lot cleaner and more "REAL" looking at the long end. [UNFILTERED] Panasonic 25 1.7 Panasonic G85 Natural (v3) I revisited this UNFILTERED test after testing the settings with both the Tiffen BPM14 and BPM18 diffusion filters (spoiler alert: I like the results better on those two). So, I am realizing that without diffusion, this lens-sensor combination is always going to struggle with overexposed highlights, in high-contrast situations (bright, sunny days). With that in mind, I do think the settings are better than they were before (in v1, v2) but now I will certainly use one of those Tiffen filters (see the CUSTOM SETTINGS for each one of those). (v2) This test is revised (from the original which didn't use Highlight Shadow compensation) and while it's a lot BETTER, I still don't really like this lens, because the color (and contrast) fall apart in non-standard, high contrast light. (When I say I "don't like" it, I'm comparing it to the other lenses I've tested, many of which are vintage lenses.) I think this could benefit from a diffusion filter, because it lacks "micro contrast"...but I will need to test it in the future. [UNFILTERED] Panasonic 12-60 3.5-5.6 Panasonic G85 Natural The final settings here work pretty good, but this lens-sensor combination still has some issues...These include maybe the strangest Highlight Shadow settings I've ever used...and it still has too much contrast. When I started this test, I was surprised, as I had heard so many people say good things about this lens, but when compared with a lot of the vintage lenses I've been testing, this thing isn't very good...so let me explain. When I started this test (at -0-0-0-0 using the Natural profile) what immediately jumped out at me were the outlines on the edges of objects, which I'm pretty sure is due to over-sharpening...yet at the same time, the image was soft and needed sharpening! This is a problem, because to remove the outlines on the edges of things, you have to REDUCE the SHARPENING...but doing that will mean the image needs even MORE sharpening during post production, so I may have to see how far I can take the sharpening in post production (using Davinci Resolve). [UNFILTERED] Panasonic 12-60 3.5-5.6 Panasonic GX85 Natural The final settings here work pretty good, but this lens-sensor combination still has some issues...These include maybe the strangest Highlight Shadow settings I've ever used...and it still has too much contrast. When I started this test, I was surprised, as I had heard so many people say good things about this lens, but when compared with a lot of the vintage lenses I've been testing, this thing isn't very good...so let me explain. When I started this test (at -0-0-0-0 using the Natural profile) what immediately jumped out at me were the outlines on the edges of objects, which I'm pretty sure is due to over-sharpening...yet at the same time, the image was soft and needed sharpening! This is a problem, because to remove the outlines on the edges of things, you have to REDUCE the SHARPENING...but doing that will mean the image needs even MORE sharpening during post production, so I may have to see how far I can take the sharpening in post production (using Davinci Resolve). [UNFILTERED] Tokina 12-24 4 Panasonic G85 Natural (NOTE: Color should be reduced -1 if not uploading to YouTube...as I'm learning YouTube sucks the color, out of images. I'm planning on making LUTs that compensate for this, but this will work in the interim). Overall, I am liking the Tokina 11-16 2.8 a lot more, but this one is workable OUTDOORS if needed. INDOORS, you really need an F/2.8 + BOOST (speed booster) for it to gather enough light FOR THIS CAMERA. [UNFILTERED] Panasonic 14-42 ii Panasonic GH4 Natural This latest test was in the NATURAL profile (first test was in CINELIKE D). I'm trying to get away from using CINELIKE D (when it's possible) because the colors don't look too "REAL". Also, I decided to use Highlight Shadow compensation instead of reducing the CONTRAST excessively, for a better image. This sensor produces a lot of noise and so I added a lot of NOISE REDUCTION as I usually do (for this sensor) but could not max it out because I needed to leave a little bit of definition in it's image. [UNFILTERED] Nikon 18-70 Panasonic GH4 Natural I think it may need a LUT, because I need to turn the color down to remove some fringing, but it's going to make the image have too much color overall. I'm going to need to experiment with this, but if you use the current SETTINGS and are making your own LUT, you might be okay (but if you're going for SOOC, these SETTINGS may not work without a LUT). Also, I had to push up the NOISE REDUCTION quite a bit, because this sensor produces a lot of noise, but the CONTRAST looks pretty good (and realistic) as a result of this, as NR tends to reduce not only the SHARPNESS but CONTRAST as well (which this lens needed). [UNFILTERED] Nikon 18-70 Panasonic GX85 Natural This is a decent lens because it has enough sharpness to be able to turn NOISE REDUCTION up a bit (helpful with the small sensor) and still be sharp enough to look "REAL". It's also a nice lens because the contrast isn't so intense that I have to turn it way down (for this camera). I don't like the color, but I think this lens is just not very color accurate, and I noticed this when testing on other cameras (sensors) as well. [UNFILTERED] Nikon 18-70 Panasonic G7 Natural This is a decent lens-sensor combo, but the propensity of this sensor to oversaturate color (in combination with a lens that's not super balanced or accurate to begin with) makes color accuracy a difficult task, which makes it tough to match other lenses/sensors to. FILTER: B+W F-PRO UV Promaster 70-300 4-5.6 Panasonic GX85 Natural I started this test using the settings from the Panasonic G85 + BOOST (Viltrox NF-M43x) and all I have had to change so far was to add 1 positive point to the CONTRAST (because the Viltrox focal reducer lowers the contrast a bit). [UNFILTERED] Vivitar Series 1 70-210 3.5 Panasonic GX85 Natural This lens is pretty amazing, because it's one of the few lens-sensor combos out there that actually looks really good at 0-0-0-0 (using the NATURAL photo style). I did do some minor adjustments, but they're not essential. This lens does have some issues with glowing purples (i.e. chromatic aberration) which can be distracting. Also, be aware that it's a really heavy lens (for its size) and I think it needs to be supported by the sort of adapter that has an integrated tripod mount on it (so it doesn't strain the lens mount on the camera). I didn't have a tripod mount on the adapter I used on my initial tests, and it wasn't very ergonomic, but then I found one on Ebay (Minolta MD mount) and it works much better! FILTER: Neewer MRC CPL Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX Panasonic G85 Natural (NOTE: Test turning OFF Highlight Shadow for HDR still photos.) (Also, these settings are for WITH the Neewer CP Circular Polarizer filter, and WITH the filter I think NOISE REDUCTION should be set to +4, but WITHOUT, I'd put the settings at +5 because there is too much SHARPNESS without the filter). I had never heard of this lens until recently when I saw it at a local camera store (for a good deal). I've tested the Sigma 17-50 2.8 EX and the Sigma 18-35 1.8 ART, but I didn't know this one even existed! It isn't as "good" as the 18-35 1.8 ART (in a technical sense) but WITH THE CUSTOM SETTINGS I think it's doing a good job (and that's WITH a CPL/circular polarizer attached!!) [UNFILTERED] Nikon 80-200 4 AIS Panasonic G85 Natural [Vintage lens, and the condition may vary.] This is the "push pull" type of lens, and so I was initially not too excited to test, or recommend it, but this copy didn't have any issues with zoom creep (even when I was pointing the camera upward at birds!) [UNFILTERED] Nikon 80-200 4 AIS Panasonic G7 Natural [Vintage lens, so condition may vary.] (If you want SOOC, add +1 SHARPNESS, but if you're sharpening in post, leave it at -0.) When I started this test, I wasn't sure if I liked this lens, but after getting these SETTINGS right, I'm starting to like it. What was interesting was that the copy I am testing was NO WHERE near as good as my Nikon Series E 70-210 F/4 at the default settings (-0-0-0-0). This lens has problems with too little sharpness, a LOT of chromatic aberrations (blue, red and purple glows) and inaccurate color rendition, but again, after figuring out these corrective settings, I'm liking it! [UNFILTERED] Nikon 80-200 4 AIS Panasonic GH4 Natural [Vintage lens, and the condition may vary.] When I started this test, I wasn't sure if I liked this lens, but after getting these SETTINGS right, I'm starting to like it. What was interesting was that the copy I am testing was NO WHERE near as good as my Nikon Series E 70-210 F/4 at the default settings (-0-0-0-0). This lens has problems with too little sharpness, a LOT of chromatic aberrations (blue, red and purple glows) and inaccurate color rendition, but after figuring out these corrective settings, I'm kind of liking it! FILTER: Tiffen CP (Circular Polarizer) Nikon 18-55 Panasonic GH4 Natural NOTE: This test was using a Tiffen CP (Circular Polarizer). Also note that this filter is prone to flare (so use lens shade when possible). FILTER: CPL (Neewer) Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX Panasonic GX85 Natural I'm really enjoying using this lens on a SHIFT adapter (on the Panasonic GX85. The shift adapter doesn't work on the G85 (because of the obstruction of the popup flash over the lens mount) so that's something to keep in mind. I had never heard of this lens until recently when I saw it at a local camera store (for a good deal). I've tested the Sigma 17-50 2.8 EX and the Sigma 18-35 1.8 ART, but I didn't know this one even existed! It isn't as "good" as the 18-35 1.8 ART (in a technical sense) but WITH THE CUSTOM SETTINGS I think it's doing a good job (and that's WITH a CPL/circular polarizer attached!!) FILTER NOTE: This test was with a Neewer CPL (Circular Polarizer) and while I think the filter is pretty good, Neewer has so many versions of their CPL that it's hard to say which one it is in writing. For this reason, I'm going to try to stick to filter brands that make it easy to identify exactly which filter it is. [UNFILTERED] AUTO Mamiya-Sekor 55 1.4 Panasonic GX85 Natural [UNFILTERED] AUTO Mamiya-Sekor 55 1.4 Panasonic G7 Natural It's amazing that this lens-sensor combination is almost useable at -0-0-0-0 (default settings) but I worked with the settings further because it has a strange problem of rendering a lot of colorless black in the mid to shadow areas (I know, it seems like it would just be the shadows). I'm not completely happy with these settings, and I don't know if this lens is something I'd recommend. (It also has a sharp aperture coupler that has almost cut my hand a few times). [UNFILTERED] AUTO Mamiya-Sekor 55 1.4 Panasonic GH4 Natural This lens started out looking pretty good, because it's a lower contrast lens that still has good sharpness. It had a bit too much CONTRAST, but after correction the details are rendering really well. I did reduce the SHARPNESS a bit, and now it looks more "REAL", less "digital" though it's as technically sharp as before correction. One of the big problems of this lens-sensor combination was that it revealed a lot of noise (which is typical with the GH4) but the lens had enough sharpness to start with that I could turn NR to +5 (pretty high) and it creates an image that is MUCH easier to work with in post (not the normal Swiss cheese you normally get from the GH4). [UNFILTERED] Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX Panasonic G7 Natural [UNFILTERED] Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX Panasonic GH4 Natural (For HDR, Turn Highlight Shadow OFF) [UNFILTERED] Nikon 50 1.8 G Panasonic GX85 Natural Strange, super sharp lens, but it also has a strong bias toward making the shadow regions stay dark (my final, corrected settings even include a -0+4 Highlight Shadow correction, something I have never done before. I will need to create a LUT to finish these settings, and I'm not looking forward to it, due to the complexity its issues)! [UNFILTERED] Nikon 50 1.8 G Panasonic G7 Natural While I still need to make a LUT (for final adjustments) these SETTINGS make this lens-sensor combination (including the Viltrox NF-M43x speed booster) produce very useable results. It could use a little sharpening and color added in post... [UNFILTERED] Nikon 50 1.8 D Panasonic G7 Natural Wow...the final results on this lens-sensor (and speed booster) combo are great! All of the properties of contrast, sharpness, noise and color all look REALLY good (even though they're not perfectly realistic). Since the color from this camera is almost always more saturated than my other cameras (currently testing GH4, G85, GX85) I knew it would be a bit on the vivid side, and turning it down any more can leave too much work for the LUT to do acurately (in post-production). [UNFILTERED] Nikon 50 1.8 AIS Panasonic GX85 Natural [TESTING...] [UNFILTERED] Tokina 11-16 2.8 ii Panasonic G7 Natural [TESTING...] [UNFILTERED] Nikon 50 1.8 AIS Panasonic G7 Natural This lens-sensor combo is a little bit contrasty when used in the middle apertures, but because this speed booster looks pretty good with this lens wide open (and at 1/2 click down) I chose to err on the side of too much contrast, so it can be more accurate when used wide open. Also, adding a filter (or not using a lens hood) can also reduce contrast... [UNFILTERED] Nikon 50 1.8 D Panasonic GH4 Natural I was going to add +1 more color, and if you want a little more "character" and a more film grain look to the noise, try that, but I am stopping here, and it needs a LUT to finalize it (add color and remove a bit of contrast). I tested this lens-sensor combo WITHOUT THE BOOST previously, and those settings were in CINELIKE D. I'm trying the NATURAL profile out this time because it works both for stills and video...Also, I just tested the same vintage 50 1.4 D, and that lens has much better bokeh than this one. [UNFILTERED] Nikon 50 1.4 D Panasonic G85 Natural Wow! Except for adding the -2+2 "Highlight Shadow" compensation, this is looking pretty good at -0-0-0-0 in the Natural color profile! [UNFILTERED] Nikon 50 1.4 D Panasonic G7 Natural This is my 2nd test of this lens, the 1st was on the GH4, and it's interesting that I've been able to get a really accurate image without using a focal reducer, but when I tested WITH one, the image wasn't so good. So, should I even continue on to test this lens WITH the +BOOST next? Oh, the only thing that isn't getting a super good letter grade for being "REAL" is the NOISE; this lens-sensor combo has a bit too much digital noise (although it looks pretty close to film grain, which is okay). [UNFILTERED] Nikon 50 1.4 D Panasonic GH4 Natural The corrected (lens-sensor specific) settings get this lens pretty close to a perfect "REAL" rating (realistic/accurate contrast, sharpness and color). The only thing that's not real about this lens is the chromatic abberration (glow) at (the max) 1.4 aperture. [UNFILTERED] Nikon 50 1.4 D Panasonic GX85 Natural Wow! Except for adding the -2+2 "Highlight Shadow" compensation, this is looking pretty good at -0-0-0-0 in the Natural color profile! [UNFILTERED] Nikon 50 1.8 G Panasonic GH4 Natural I think this could benefit from some kind of diffusion filter (test to come later) but for now it looks acceptable. The "REAL" ratings are going to be pretty low, but I think it's the best I can get it for now... [UNFILTERED] Nikon 50 1.8 G Panasonic G7 [UNFILTERED] Nikon 50 1.8 G Panasonic GX85 [UNFILTERED] Nikon 50 1.8 G Panasonic G85 Natural Strange, super sharp lens, but it also has a strong bias toward making the shadow regions stay dark (my final, corrected settings even include a -0+4 Highlight Shadow correction, something I have never done before. I will need to create a LUT to finish these settings, and I'm not looking forward to it, due to the complexity its issues)! [UNFILTERED] Vivitar 50 1.8 M42 Panasonic GX85 Need to buy an M42 adapter. [UNFILTERED] Vivitar 50 1.8 M42 Panasonic G7 Need to buy an M42 adapter. [UNFILTERED] Vivitar 50 1.8 M42 Panasonic GH4 Natural I NEED TO TEST MORE (and I really need to be using a Pixco speed booster on Micro Four Thirds, because it's only an F/1.8) I was hoping this lens would share the settings of the Vivitar 135 2.8 M42 (that was in the camera case with it when I bought) but it doesn't (I may go with using Highlight Shadow adjustments because the CONTRAST is still too great, and the COLOR is not accurate). [UNFILTERED] Vivitar 135 2.8 M42 Panasonic GH4 Natural REALLY needs a LUT to fine tune the image further. I think these SETTINGS are a good starting point, but it's going to need more contrast and less color to look "REAL" and the only clean way to do that is by adding a LUT (Coming Soon!) [UNFILTERED] Vivitar 135 2.8 M42 Panasonic G7 Starting to test [UNFILTERED] Vivitar 135 2.8 M42 Panasonic GX85 Starting to test [UNFILTERED] Pentax Super-Takumar 50 1.4 ii Panasonic G7 Natural I am amazed at how differently this sensor (camera) handles this lens (compared to the GH4). As I mentioned in other reviews of this lens, it is inconsistent in terms of how it renders light. It's really interesting how much I was able to push the COLOR with these settings, and while you could tone it down a bit, I did it to show what the lens is capable of. It's a very different type of color than newer lenses usually produce, but some tend to like the more vintage feel. If you want to start with less color, go +1 (not +2) but if you upload to YouTube, you may still need that extra color (as of 2022 anyway). [UNFILTERED] Pentax Super-Takumar 50 1.4 ii Panasonic GH4 Natural [Needs a "REAL" LUT to finish it.] This was a VERY difficult lens to come up with the set of recommended settings for. My goal is simply to make it easy to get the best original capture as possible (at all aperture settings) and that was difficult because of how inconsistent this lens is at different apertures (in terms of how it renders light, etc.) [UNFILTERED] Pentax Super-Takumar 50 1.4 ii Panasonic GX85 Natural [Note: This also is using an M42 screw mount to Nikon F adapter, in addition to the Nikon F to M43 SHIFT adapter noted.] I will have to admit this lens has a lot of character but it, like so many of these vintage lenses, is inconsistent in terms of how it renders light. [UNFILTERED] Nikon 80-200 2.8 D Panasonic GX85 Natural This used to be a top-of-the-line telephoto zoom (it was the first AF 80-200 2.8 Nikon produced) and the build quality is excellent. However, it's heavy and slow to operate. It's slow because of the push-pull zoom, and because of the focus (there is a focus limiting feature that helps with that). Optically, it's a great lens, and though each lens-sensor combo usually needs some work to look its best (this one did) I think these settings are rendering a pretty nice image, one that is "REAL" in almost every respect. [UNFILTERED] Nikon 80-200 2.8 D Panasonic G7 Natural This lens is too sharp for this sensor, as with the SHARPNESS turned all of the way down (to -5) plus the NOISE REDUCTION turned all of the way UP (to +5, which I do to reduce sharpness even more when needed) the image still has a lot of aliasing. This sensor also renders more compression-related artifacts when a lens is too sharp (which adding NR can help with) but since we've maxed out those 2 settings, we're left with a lens-sensor combo that is bound to be a problem in certain lighting situations. This used to be a top-of-the-line telephoto zoom (it was the first AF 80-200 2.8 Nikon produced) and the build quality is excellent. However, the "focus breathing" is not good for video (image changes size as you focus, etc.) and lenses such as the Promaster 70-300 I've been using, are MUCH better for video (even though the aperture is not constant, but with this breathing, you can't zoom while shooting ANYWAY!) it's also heavy and slow to operate. It's slow because of the push-pull zoom, and because of the focus (there is a focus limiting feature that helps with that). Optically, it's a great lens, and though each lens-sensor combo usually needs some work to look its best. NOTE: With a non-optical adapter, I set the contrast to -2 (instead of -1). [UNFILTERED] Nikon 80-200 2.8 D Panasonic GH4 Natural This used to be a top-of-the-line telephoto zoom (it was the first AF 80-200 2.8 Nikon produced) and the build quality is excellent. However, it's not super good for video because the "focus breathing" is so bad (the image changes size as you focus, etc.). Lower cost 70-300 lenses such as the Promaster I've been using, are MUCH better for video, as some are even parfocal. (One thing to note about those, is that even though they don't have a constant aperture, you don't normally zoom while shooting.) This lens is also heavy and slow to operate. It's slow because of the push-pull zoom, and because of the focus (there is a focus limiting feature that helps with that). Optically, it's a great lens, and though each lens-sensor combo usually needs some work to look its best. [UNFILTERED] Nikon 80-200 2.8 D Panasonic G85 Natural This used to be a top-of-the-line telephoto zoom (it was the first AF 80-200 2.8 Nikon produced) and the build quality is excellent. However, it's heavy and slow to operate. It's slow because of the push-pull zoom, and because of the focus (there is a focus limiting feature that helps with that). Optically, it's a great lens, and though each lens-sensor combo usually needs some work to look its best (this one did) I think these settings are rendering a pretty nice image, one that is "REAL" in almost every respect. [UNFILTERED] Canon 50 1.8 ii Panasonic GX85 Natural It works pretty well to just set the "Highlight Shadow" to -2, +2 and call it good, but I added NOISE REDUCTION to keep the sharpness (and contrast) looking more "REAL". As I mentioned in the other reviews of this lens, it has a pretty decent close focus distance, and while the manual focusing ring is very thin (probably too narrow for focus gears to be added) it's easy for me to use by hand. [UNFILTERED] Sigma 75-300 4.5-5.6 Panasonic GH4 Natural This lens is AMAZING...it delivers so much contrast and color that I had to tone those down (to get a "REAL" image) and the SHARPNESS is almost a perfect match for this sensor (not to sharp, etc.) though I had to use some NOISE REDUCTION to keep things looking real. [UNFILTERED] Sigma 75-300 4.5-5.6 Panasonic G7 Natural This lens is AMAZING...it delivers so much contrast and color that I had to tone those down (to get a "REAL" image) and the SHARPNESS is almost a perfect match for this sensor (not to sharp, etc.) though I had to use some NOISE REDUCTION to keep things looking real. [UNFILTERED] Sigma 75-300 4.5-5.6 Panasonic GH4 CineLike D This lens is AMAZING...it delivers so much contrast and color that I had to tone those down (to get a "REAL" image) and the SHARPNESS is almost a perfect match for this sensor (not to sharp, etc.) though I had to use some NOISE REDUCTION to keep things looking real. [UNFILTERED] Sigma 75-300 4.5-5.6 Panasonic GX85 Natural This lens is AMAZING...it delivers so much contrast and color that I had to tone those down (to get a "REAL" image) and the SHARPNESS is almost a perfect match for this sensor (not to sharp, etc.) though I had to use some NOISE REDUCTION to keep things looking real. [UNFILTERED] Sigma 75-300 4.5-5.6 Panasonic G85 Natural This lens is AMAZING...it delivers so much contrast and color that I had to tone those down (to get a "REAL" image) and the SHARPNESS is almost a perfect match for this sensor (not to sharp, etc.) though I had to use some NOISE REDUCTION to keep things looking real. [UNFILTERED] Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 D Panasonic G7 Natural [NEW] [UNFILTERED] Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 D Panasonic GX85 Natural [NEW] [UNFILTERED] Pentax Super-Takumar 50 1.4 ii Panasonic G85 Natural These settings are not as "REAL" as I would normally prefer, as the color is more saturated than normal, but I did this to capture the unique color this lens can render. It's also a bit light in the shadows, but this forces you to underexpose a little, which protects the highlights and just seems to bring out the magical properties of this lens. As I've said before about this lens, it has a lot of "character" and it can be inconsistent in terms of how it renders light (from aperture to aperture). FILTER: Promaster HGX UV Canon 70-200 2.8 Panasonic G85 Natural In the future I may try adding a Tiffen GlimmerGlass or Black Pro Mist filter to attempt to control the dynamic range, etc. [UNFILTERED] Minolta MD 50 1.7 Panasonic G7 Natural I had to resort to using the "Highlight Shadow" corrections (-2 Highlights, +2 Shadows) to make it work, because this is a very CONTRASTY lens, and it renders a very unique image (that is not "REAL" and therefore will not match my other lenses easily) before correction. This lens-sensor combination is rendering a lot more GREEN than it should, and therefore receives negative "REAL Ratings" because of it. [UNFILTERED] Pentax Bellows-Takumar 100 4.0 SMC Panasonic GX85 Natural [Note: This also is using an M42 screw mount to Nikon F adapter, in addition to the Nikon F to M43 SHIFT adapter noted.] I don't (normally) like to review lenses that are rare (because I want you all to be able to try them out) but since I found this for a good deal online at shopgoodwill.com, I thought I'd better test it. While it was difficult to figure out, I think it is looking pretty good with these custom settings. (The only thing that is off a bit is the color, and it's not bad, but is just not "REAL" and therefore won't match other lenses that get a better rating for that attribute, etc.) [UNFILTERED] Canon FD 50 1.4 Panasonic G85 Natural I feel like these settings are working okay for capturing what this lens is capable of, but as I mentioned in the GX85 review of this lens, the lens has optical imperfections (that give it an interesting character) but it's so inconsistent from one aperture value to the next (the contrast, sharpness and color intensity change quite a bit) that makes it difficult to come up with a single settings recommendation (as I can with most optics). [UNFILTERED] Canon 50 1.8 ii Panasonic G7 Natural Known as the "plastic fantastic" this lens is a decent optic, for a not much money. It has a good close focus distance, and though the focusing ring is very thin (probably too narrow for focus gears to be added) it's somewhat easy for me to use when focusing by hand. I don't think the color rendition of this lens is very accurate. [UNFILTERED] Canon 50 1.8 ii Panasonic GH4 CineLike D After getting these settings figured out, the lens is rendering a pretty realistic image, yet I will need a LUT to increase the contrast a bit. This lens has a pretty decent close focus distance. The manual focusing ring is very thin, and while it's easy for me to use by hand, it may be too narrow for focus gears to be added. [UNFILTERED] Canon FDn 50 1.4 Panasonic GX85 Natural These CUSTOM SETTINGS will need a LUT to finalize the image (it needs more CONTRAST and COLOR saturation) but I feel like they are a good starting point. In the future, I may try to get this closer to SOOC, but I think these settings match the lens to get the most dynamic range out of this sensor (my goal). However, I think these settings still preserve and showcase the flaws so many people love about this lens (a diffused but sharp and dreamy rendering). Initially, I was disappointed in this lens because of how inconsistent the COLOR and SHARPNESS are when changing aperture values, and I had a difficult time figuring out a single set of settings that would work for it. [UNFILTERED] Canon FD 50 1.4 Panasonic G7 Natural This was my second test of this lens (the first was on the GH4) and while I was not impressed with this on the GH4, on the G7 I am starting to see why some people like this lens (and I suspect they're using it on sensors with a lot more sharpness, such as Sony full-frame sensors). It is still an inconsistent and difficult lens to work with though (as the optical properties change so much when varying the aperture). [UNFILTERED] Canon FD 50 1.4 Panasonic GH4 Natural I've heard a lot about this lens, but after testing (this copy) I'm not too impressed. It looks "dreamy" (wide open of course) but even stopped down, it doesn't render a realistic-looking image, something that is central to my goal of Realism. FILTER: Promaster HGX UV Canon 70-200 2.8 Panasonic G7 CineLike D It looks pretty good, but there is still a little bit too much contrast, which makes it difficult to stay within the dynamic range capabilities of this camera. In the future I'd like to try a Tiffen GlimmerGlass or Tiffen Black ProMist to see if it will help. [UNFILTERED] Kalimar 500 8 MIRROR [M42] Panasonic G85 Natural This lens doesn't seem to have much hope. It just can't render a sharp image, and this is the second copy I've tested (first one had haze, but this one is clean). FILTER: Promaster HGX UV Canon 70-200 2.8 Panasonic GH4 Natural Use -0 COLOR for sports photography shoot... FILTER: Promaster HGX UV Canon 70-200 2.8 Panasonic GX85 Natural I don't like these results so far. When using this lens on a Canon DSLR, it always produced excellent results, but something about this lens-sensor combination (maybe the METABONES speedbooster) is making this look pretty bad (not realistic looking in a lot of ways). The SHARPNESS is good, but the CONTRAST and COLOR are strange. The CONTRAST makes it difficult to achieve realistic looking dynamic range, and the COLOR either looks fake when turned up, or drab when turned down. In the future I may try adding a Tiffen GlimmerGlass or Black Pro Mist filter to attempt to control the dynamic range, etc. FILTER: Promaster HGX UV Canon 70-200 2.8 Panasonic GH4 CineLike D I'm not really liking the results of these settings yet, but what's funny is I tried these settings (as of 2022-05-25) on the Panasonic G7 and they LOOK GREAT. On the GH4 there's still a little bit too much contrast, and it's difficult to maintain highlight detail in sunlit conditions. [UNFILTERED] Canon 50 1.8 ii Panasonic G85 Natural It works pretty well to just set the "Highlight Shadow" to -2, +2 and call it good, but I added NOISE REDUCTION to keep the sharpness (and contrast) looking more "REAL". As I mentioned in the other reviews of this lens, it has a pretty decent close focus distance, and while the manual focusing ring is very thin (probably too narrow for focus gears to be added) it's easy for me to use by hand. [UNFILTERED] Sigma 18-35 1.8 Panasonic G7 CineLike D For some reason, this lens-sensor combination, while not a "PERFECT MATCH" works really well together. Normally, this has been a REALLY difficult lens to work with (on the GX85, G85 and GH4) but this camera just has the right properties (whatever they may be) that create a very accurate image with smooth gradations through the 11 steps of the Zone System. I don't like this lens for field use (because it's too big and heavy to carry around on my multi-camera rigs) but I think it can be a great lens for INDOOR, STATIC use (for low light reasons as well)! This test was done with a straight (non-optical) adapter, but I hope to test this with a speedbooster/focal reducer in the future. [UNFILTERED] Sigma 18-35 1.8 Panasonic GH4 Natural +3 SHADOWS (Highlight Shadow) Sigma 17-50 2.8 [UNFILTERED] Sigma 17-50 2.8 Panasonic G85 NATURAL The Panasonic G85 and GX85 tests almost always come out identical, but I tested this lens on the both just to make sure (again) and yep, they both work well with these settings (for this lens). Remember that it's always "lens-sensor specific" but because the G85 and GX85 keep coming out the same (test after test) I am going to start interpolating the results to either one (I'll explain more later). [UNFILTERED] Sigma 17-50 2.8 Panasonic GX85 Natural WARNING: This test was using a Viltrox EF-M2ii focal reducer/speedbooster which (in conjunction with this old lens and the noisy, high-powered AF pulling too much power) resulted in damage to my Panasonic GX85 camera. The camera started glitching and freezing up during the test, then electronics of the camera stopped working within a couple of months. NOTES: I got this lens because having the constant f/2.8 aperture was appealing, but this lens has a lot of problems. This lens in particular had a lot of chromatic abberations (which showed up as red, blue and purple fringes) and the overall CONTRAST and COLOR rendering are really weird (the contrast is not smooth in the transitions from shadow to highlight, and with this sensor the COLOR is not only inaccurate but incomplete). This is also the second pro Sigma lens that needed a +3 SHADOWS correction (using Highlight Shadow) because the lens is too contrasty (which is a bad thing with this sensor). All I can say is that I struggled to make the lens render a REAL-looking image, which is my goal. [UNFILTERED] Sigma 17-50 2.8 Panasonic G7 CineLike D This lens-sensor combination was difficult to work with because the contrast and sharpness of the lens is so strong (and the sharpness isn't very even in terms of smooth gradation from highlight to shadow noticeable in detailed areas). So, I had to be quite dramatic with the settings I chose, and resorted to using a +3 SHADOW (under Highlight Shadow) which I don't normally like doing. Overall, I don't really like the result because my goal is almost always to render a real-looking image, and I think this lens-sensor combination falls short in this area. P.S. The Canon mount Viltrox EF-M2ii froze the camera several times, and I like it even less than I did before (but I highly recommend the Nikon mount version of the Viltrox focal reducer for this camera (the Viltrox NF-M43x). [UNFILTERED] Sigma 17-50 2.8 Panasonic GH4 CineLike D INDOOR test using Metabones ULTRA .64x speed booster. [UNFILTERED] Sigma 18-35 1.8 Panasonic GH4 Natural [TESTING...] [UNFILTERED] Sigma 18-35 1.8 Panasonic G7 CineLike D ...Still testing (not happy with settings yet). [UNFILTERED] Sigma 18-35 1.8 Panasonic GX85 Natural While these settings create A GOOD STARTING POINT, they do need a LUT (on my website) to perfect the shots. What I did with the settings was I added +3 SHADOWS (by creating a custom curve within the "Highlight Shadow" menu) and this is very important, in addition to the adjustments to the "Photo Style" settings (adjustments to CONTRAST, SHARPNESS, NOISE and COLOR). [UNFILTERED] Sigma 18-35 1.8 Panasonic G85 Natural I wanted the Sigma 18-35 1.8 for quite a long time, but after testing it (this time with a speed booster, instead using the shift adapter). Even with the .71x speed booster/focal reducer, it isn't wide enough for a lot of situations, and because it doesn't need the 1.8 max. aperture OUTDOORS, I'm not sure I recommend this. It's also too big and heavy for my DUAL-CAMERA RIGS. [UNFILTERED] Nikon 18-55 Panasonic G7 CineLike D Test looks decent (so far) but I need more sample footage to get a better feel for this lens-sensor combo. [UNFILTERED] Nikon 18-55 Panasonic GX85 Natural NOTE: For use with ATEM Mini, I'm adjusting the settings slightly: CONTRAST: -5 SHARPNESS: -5 NOISE: +3 COLOR: -0 HIGHLIGHT SHADOW: OFF [UNFILTERED] Panasonic 45-150 4-5.6 Panasonic GH4 Natural Initial tests good. Starting to test filters... [UNFILTERED] Panasonic 25 1.7 Panasonic GH4 NO LUT CineLike D Test (v2) looks good (almost good enough with no LUT, but could use a bit more contrast for FINAL). [UNFILTERED] Promaster 70-300 4-5.6 Panasonic GH4 Natural Initial test done, but need more footage... [UNFILTERED] Minolta AF 50 1.7 ii Panasonic GH4 [NEW] [UNFILTERED] Minolta AF 50 1.7 Panasonic GH4 Natural [TEST STARTED, but not complete] [UNFILTERED] Tamron 70-300 4-5.6 LD Di Panasonic G7 Natural [TESTING...] [UNFILTERED] Panasonic 14-42 ii Panasonic GH4 CineLike D Test is done (but may need to use Highlight Shadow compensation instead of reducing CONTRAST, for a better image). LUT is needed either way. [UNFILTERED] Nikon 18-70 3.5-4.5 Panasonic GX85 [TESTING...] [UNFILTERED] Tamron 75-300 4-5.6 LD Panasonic G7 Natural [NEW] [UNFILTERED] Tamron 75-300 4-5.6 LD Panasonic GX85 Natural Looks good so far... [UNFILTERED] Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 D Panasonic GH4 CineLike D Initial tests done. Need a LUT. [UNFILTERED] Nikon 28-80 3.3-5.6 G (Silver) Panasonic G7 [UNFILTERED] Nikon 28-80 3.3-5.6 G (Silver) Panasonic GX85 INDOOR test started...OUTDOOR needed. [UNFILTERED] Nikon 55-200 VR Panasonic GH4 CineLike D Test looks GOOD! May need LUT... [UNFILTERED] Vivitar 135 2.8 M42 Panasonic G85 Starting to test [UNFILTERED] Vivitar 50 1.8 M42 Panasonic G85 Need to buy an M42 adapter. [UNFILTERED] Panasonic 25 1.7 Panasonic GH4 CineLike D Works good with LUT (but want to figure out settings that DO NOT require a LUT)... [UNFILTERED] Nikon 50 1.8 D Panasonic GX85 Natural Started test with macro helicoid adapter (no optic in adapter). [UNFILTERED] Nikon 50 1.8 D Panasonic G7 Natural [NEW] [UNFILTERED] Nikon 70-300 4-5.6 D ED Panasonic G7 Natural [TESTING...] [UNFILTERED] Nikon 70-210 4 Series E Panasonic GH4 Natural While these settings may be a good starting point if I add a LUT, they are not good SOOC (not enough CONTRAST, SHARPNESS, COLOR). I used to shoot this way a lot (because it's pretty easy to color grade) but now that I'm shooting for SOOC, these settings aren't good enough anymore (though they do help to avoid overexposure, etc.) [UNFILTERED] Promaster 70-300 4-5.6 Panasonic GX85 Natural [Needs a LUT to finalize, if I add this Highlight Shadow compensation. The highlights were a little bit too bright without the B+W F-PRO UV filter, so I'm trying to compensate with Shadow Highlight, to -1-0. This test used the settings from the Panasonic G85 + BOOST (Viltrox NF-M43x) and all I had to change was to add 1 positive point to the CONTRAST (because the Viltrox focal reducer lowers the contrast a bit). [UNFILTERED] Promaster 70-300 4-5.6 Panasonic G7 Natural [NEW] [UNFILTERED] Tokina 11-16 2.8 ii Panasonic G7 Natural This test has been a real struggle, because this lens isn't that sharp when used with this sensor (Panasonic G7). The reason is that it's from the time period when the Panasonic sensors still had anti-aliasing filters over them, and that makes them less sharp than those without them. One of the problems it causes is that I usually turn the SHARPNESS down, both to reduce the contrast to help smooth the transition from shadows to highlights, and to remove the look of digital aliasing (the pixels seen in angled lines). I also turn UP the NOISE REDUCTION to reduce the sharpness more yet doing this with this lens-sensor combination doesn't create a super sharp image. So, in the end what I had to do is to err on the side of having less sharpness VIA in-camera settings, and then recommending settings for sharpening in Davinci Resolve (in post-production). ALWAYS CHECK THE "USED" MARKET!

Wow. I'll write more about this later, but this is the second Rokinon prime lens that turned out super good when using the Panasonic G85 sensor (the other was the Rokinon Cine 85 T1.5). For some reason, they just have enough, but not too much SHARPNESS, and the CONTRAST is very manageable. I'll have to say, I just tested the same lens on a full-frame Nikon Z5 v1, and that camera cannot handle the level of contrast this lens has...but I am really starting to appreciate the custom settings of these LUMIX cameras, even these older ones that don't have real-time LUT capability. Any links below are affiliate links. FILTER: CPL (PolarPro) Rokinon Tilt-Shift 24 3.5 ADAPTER: Sony A to M43 Panasonic G85 Natural "PHOTO STYLE" -4 CONTRAST -1 SHARPNESS +4 NOISE -0 COLOR -3+2 HIGHLIGHT SHADOW OFF iDYNAMIC OFF iRESOLUTION 16-255 LUMINANCE LEVEL Unsharp Mask* ADOBE POST-PRODUCTION AMOUNT RADIUS THRESHOLD Blur / Sharpen DAVINCI RESOLVE POST-PRODUCTION LENS @FULL WIDE LENS @MID-ZOOM LENS @FULL TELE REAL RATINGS After testing each lens-sensor combo, I like to know if the rendering is going to look realistic SOOC (S traight O ut o f C amera) or if it will need a LUT (to match the shots to other lenses and cameras). CONTRAST B IS THE CONTRAST "REAL"? SHARPNESS B IS THE SHARPNESS "REAL"? NOISE C IS THE NOISE "REAL"? COLOR A IS THE COLOR "REAL"? *Click here to learn more about "REAL" Ratings . These ratings are AFTER my custom settings are applied (most combos don't look real good with default settings). NOTES: Wow. I'll write more about this later, but this is the second Rokinon prime lens that turned out super good when using the Panasonic G85 sensor (the other was the Rokinon Cine 85 T1.5). For some reason, they just have enough, but not too much SHARPNESS, and the CONTRAST is very manageable. I'll have to say, I just tested the same lens on a full-frame Nikon Z5 v1, and that camera cannot handle the level of contrast this lens has...but I am really starting to appreciate the custom settings of these LUMIX cameras, even these older ones that don't have real-time LUT capability. The goal of our camera settings is to improve what we call the "lens-sensor relationship" by adjusting the contrast, sharpness, noise reduction and color to create an image that looks less digital and more organic (more like film, etc). Therefore, the first step is to apply the custom settings while shooting, and the second is to add a lens-sensor LUT, to finalize the image.

Our goal is to make budget filmmaking cameras create a more film-like image by using custom, Lens-Sensor SETTINGS & LUTs for each of the lenses we test. We mainly do affordable lenses, because this is the main "focus" of SilverLight Photo Company (making good stuff on a budget). ABOUT EVERY LENS NEEDS "LENS-SENSOR" RECIPES (& LUTS ) LEARN WHY EVERY LENS & SENSOR CAN BE BETTER...& WHY RELATIONSHIPS MATTER. LENS-SENSOR RECIPES (& LUTS) FOR BUDGET HYBRID CAMERAS Schedule a Calibration (in Seattle area) or check out our database of CUSTOM RECIPES & LUTs ABOUT Why Use Custom, Lens- Sensor Recipes? The main reason to use custom "Lens-Sensor Recipes" (& LUTs ) is that every lens sends light to a sensor differently. Some sensors like sharp lenses (especially those with an optical low-pass filter) and some don't like a lot of sharpness. Some sensors love lots of color saturation, yet some can only take a little. Before I knew this, I was searching (for years) to find the perfect lens-sensor combo...until I realized that they need CUSTOM SETTINGS (now called Recipes ). So, I began testing every lens I could afford, and taking notes for each lens-sensor combination. I finally realized I would need a database to store all of this information, so I made this website (and now I offer a local LENS-SENSOR CALIBRATION SERVICE too). READ MORE Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link CAMERAS Lens-Sensor Recipes Here's is a list of all of the cameras we've tested. When I started out, I was using extremely low budget hybrid cameras like the Panasonic GH2, G5, G7, GH4, GX85, G85, and GH5 and soon realized they could produce really good footage (as long as you figured out the right CUSTOM SETTINGS ). So, I began taking notes of all of the CUSTOM SETTINGS that worked for each lens...and had to make this website to access the information fast, on-location. SEE SETTINGS Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link LUTS Lens-Sensor LUTs Thank you for trying out these LUTs! It's super important to realize that these LUTs are the #2 step of the method (and that without our CUSTOM SETTINGS these LUTs won't do much). The goal for our "Lens-Sensor LUTs" was to help get the most out of budget lenses & cameras, by customizing the CUSTOM SETTINGS & LUTs to every combo. So remember, you need to use the lens-sensor camera settings while shooting (and then add a LUT during post-production). SHOP LUTS Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link BLOG 100% REAL Budget Photo Video Blog When some people say "BUDGET" they still talk about cameras that are WAY MORE expensive than we can afford, but this blog is actually a low-budget blog. When I started out I was using super-low-budget filmmaking cameras like the Panasonic GH2, G5, G7, GH4, GX85 and G85...but I soon realized they could produce really good footage (as long as you use CUSTOM SETTINGS, LOL). READ BLOG Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link REVIEWS 100% REAL Budget Gear Reviews These are real, long-term reviews of gear I actually use. Keep in mind these reviews are just my opinion, and are not supposed to be comprehensive or the final say about these products. These are mostly to help me remember what items worked for me, and what didn't. So, the product may work for you and your needs, but it didn't fit into my Q-P-A-C-E system. VIEW REVIEWS Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link PHOTOS 100% REAL Photos & Videos Our goal is to create 100% REAL photos & videos (without A.I.). So, we came up with our "Lens-Sensor" CUSTOM SETTINGS (& LUTs ) to process the images. The reason we do this, is we think it renders a more realistic-looking image (than using heavy post-processing) and the key ingredient in these settings recipes is to use custom camera settings, specific to each lens-sensor combination. VIEW PHOTOS Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link REAL Our Content is Always 100% REAL With all of the A.I. development going on, there is certainly enough "FAKE" content out there. So, not only did we decide to never use (generative) A.I. when creating images, but also to use realistic-looking LENS-SENSOR SPECIFIC CUSTOM SETTINGS (& LUTs ) to make it easier for the cameras to render scenes accurately (with little post-processing). LEARN MORE Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link

INTRO: As I’ve been testing budget camera systems—especially Micro Four Thirds (M4/3) I started looking for a simple, reliable way to set up shots regardless of the "format". This really opened up a new way of thinking about sensor sizes and trying to figure out how to make one sensor size do everything; now I play to the strengths of each format, while separating them into my 3 Simple Shots  ( WIDE , TIGHT  and TELE ). BTW, this post may contain affiliate links, which means we receive a commission (at no cost to you) if you make a purchase through a link. There's a difference between the wide shot on an action camera and a REAL camera...but exactly why does the (wide angle) shot look so different? It's a combination of both the sensor size AND the lens focal length. Can't Micro Four Thirds Do Everything? I love using Micro Four Thirds cameras, but there's a lot of advice online that is just wrong, and there's kind of a myth about "equivalent" focal lengths. People say things like, “A 25mm lens on M4/3 is like a 50mm on full frame” but that really isn't true. Yes, 2x 25mm does equal 50mm, but 25mm and 50mm lens designs are totally different...and so they produce different distortion and subject/background relationships. For example, the “non-distorting” focal length (what looks most like what our eyes see) is about 42.5mm in full frame terms. When you go wider (lower numbers: 35, 28, 24mm) you start getting into wide angle optics which distort the image to capture more of the scene, on a sensor with a smaller physical size. Bridge cameras (1" sensors or smaller) and action cameras face the same small-sensor issue (of needing wider optics to cover the scene) and tiny phone sensors are even worse. The main point is, it's the lens, not the sensor that decides what the image is going to look like. The SENSOR is only determining how much of that lens’s image you are able to capture, kind of like cropping. So, when you use different lenses—say, a 25mm on a M4/3 sensor or a 50mm on full frame—the images really aren’t the same. Therefore, I think it's better to learn what each type of lens optic does, and then decide what camera (sensor size) you need, based on how much of the image you need to capture (from said lens). Table of Contents: PART 1: About The WIDE, TIGHT and TELE Thing PART 2: The WIDE Shot = Full Frame is King PART 3: What's Wrong With Wide Angle? PART 4: The TIGHT Shot: Any Sensor Works (1x, 1.5x, 2x) PART 5: The TELE Shot: Micro Four Thirds! PART 6: The Importance of Working Distance PART 7: Use Multiple Cameras PART 8: Extra Tips About The WIDE, TIGHT and TELE Thing Most people use the classic language: wide, medium, and tight shots. I like to say wide, tight, and tele. The reason is that a “tele” shot always uses a telephoto lens, while “tight” and “medium” aren’t always clear about what lens you need to use. And in practice, what matters is both what the shot looks like and how you get there—lens and sensor size together. Hollywood technically names shots by how much of the subject is in the frame (not just the lens), but as someone trying to systematize real-world setups , I think it makes sense to focus on both how the scene appears and the tools we use to get there. The WIDE Shot: Full Frame is King For wide shots—the kind that cover a whole room, landscape, or scene—full frame shines. Why? Because full frame sensors let you use more “normal” focal lengths (35mm, for example), which naturally distort less. On M4/3, a 35mm becomes your tight shot; on full frame, it’s a true wide shot with realistic proportions. That realism is why photojournalists historically loved 35mm on film: It was wide, but not crazy. Full frame simply gives you a more honest, un-distorted view for wide shots than any crop sensor or phone (which rely on intense wide-angle distortion to get more in frame). Why a Full-Frame WIDE Shot is More Realistic: Full-frame sensors can produce wide shots with less distortion at moderate focal lengths (35mm–42.5mm). This can result in a more natural, immersive view with accurate proportions. Historically, 35mm on full-frame has been a standard for photojournalism due to its perspective. Most people don't see wide angle distortion unless it's pretty extreme (as is the case here). The reason is that we've seen so many half-way distorted images, that we don't know it's not normal. What's Wrong With Wide Angle? Wide angle lenses stretch the image out at the edges and make subjects in the center look smaller. Classic “fisheye” lenses are an extreme case—think of old peephole door viewers, where the middle is tiny and the edges are curved and stretched. More “rectilinear” wide lenses (the kind that try to keep straight lines straight) didn’t arrive until the late 80s/early 90s, and even those can’t escape every bit of distortion, especially as you shoot wider than 14mm. This distortion is obvious in real estate photography; small rooms look huge, doors look unnaturally wide, and buyers wonder why reality doesn’t match the photos. That’s the lens at work, not a “lie,” but definitely a stretch. I’m currently experimenting with ways to minimize this, including tilt-shift lenses, but the key takeaway is: Sensor size and lens type have a huge effect on how wide shots feel. Wide Angle Distortion & Architecture: Ultra-wide lenses are often used to make spaces look bigger, but this can misrepresent reality. Distortion may cause features like doors and windows to appear stretched or out of proportion. This effect can be noticeable in real estate photography, where rooms may appear larger and features like doors and windows may look distorted. Wide-angle lenses (24mm and below) can stretch the edges of the frame, making objects near the edges appear larger and those in the center smaller. Tilt-shift lenses may help correct perspective and reduce stretching. Tilt-shift lenses** can help correct perspective distortion, maintaining straight lines and accurate proportions. Using moderate wide angles and correcting distortion in post-production are also options. The TIGHT Shot: Any Sensor Works (1x, 1.5x, 2x) For basic tight shots—think from the waist or chest up, or showing half a room—M4/3 and APS-C (1.5/1.6x crop sensors) are where it’s at. They give you a wide choice of affordable 25–50mm lenses (vintage or modern), and you can control working distance easily. Full frame cameras lag here: The lenses cost more, and you have less reach for a given size and price. Unless your full frame camera can crop into APS-C mode on demand, I’d give this job to crop sensors (with a slight edge to M4/3 for value and no recording limits on many Panasonic bodies). About Medium ( Tight ) Shots: Focal lengths of 25mm–50mm on micro 4/3 (50mm = 100mm equivalent) are commonly used. Full-frame cameras may have limitations such as shorter recording times or overheating. Micro 4/3 cameras may offer longer recording times and good value for this purpose. The "TIGHT" shot (which most call the "Medium" shot) is pretty easy to capture with all sensor sizes. If you're on a full-frame sensor, you'll need to use a little telephoto; I prefer a crop-sensor with a less-distortive 50mm. The TELE Shot: Micro Four Thirds! For tight and telephoto shots, especially things like distant details, you need a lot of “reach.” On full frame, getting a true 600mm-equivalent telephoto is both outrageously expensive and really heavy. But put a 300mm vintage autofocus lens (from the bargain bins!) on a Micro 4/3 body, and you get the same field of view for $30–$50, and a lot less weight. Another bonus: In-body image stabilization (in cameras like the Panasonic G85 or G95) is really effective with those older, non-stabilized telephoto lenses. With M4/3, keeping your subject in focus is actually easier at high “equivalent” focal lengths, since they don’t have razor-thin depth of field like 600mm on full frame. M4/3 simply does telephoto and tight shots best for cost, handling, and results. Why Micro Four Thirds Works for Telephoto Shots: Micro 4/3 sensors can provide a 600mm equivalent field of view with a 300mm lens. Lenses for micro 4/3 are often lighter and more affordable. In-body image stabilization (IBIS) on certain Panasonic models can be helpful with older, non-stabilized lenses. Some vintage 70-300 lenses (the Tamron, Promaster, Quantaray 1:2 MACRO version) are a really good value. Cost, size, and weight are why I like Micro Four Thirds for TELE shots. This shot was taken with a vintage Nikon AI-S 80-200 that only cost around $40. You could get this on a full-frame camera too, but not at this distance. The Importance of Working Distance Another crucial factor is how far you need to be from your subject to get the shot. For portraits, you hear the advice: use 85mm or 100mm, not 50mm (for full frame). Why? Because on a 50mm, you need to get closer for a head-and-shoulders crop. Closer means faces start to look distorted—noses grow, features warp a little—even with “normal” lenses. Working distance matters for macro/close-ups, too. With a short lens, you have to get close, which blocks light, startles insects, and creates practical issues. So, the right lens/sensor combo isn’t just about field of view, but how you physically work. How Sensor Size Influences Working Distance: Micro 4/3: A 50mm lens may require standing 7–10 feet from the subject for a tight shot. Full-frame: Getting a tight shot with a 50mm requires getting closer (sometimes results in big noses) Portraits: Lenses such as 85mm or 135mm on full-frame are often chosen to avoid distortion and provide flattering compression. The last question is: What's the solution to all of this madness? What I do is use multiple cameras (change your camera, not your lenses!) P.S. I use a lot of adapted Nikon-mount lenses, so they work on full-frame too! Using Multiple Cameras One of the things I try to avoid at all costs, are "jump cuts". Jump cuts are abrupt changes in framing that occur when a person only used a single camera for a talking head shot, and edits things out of the footage. This can be very distracting in interviews or narrative work...and the solution is to "Always shoot with (at least) two cameras". Using two or more cameras allows for simultaneous capture of WIDE, TIGHT, and TELE shots . This can provide more flexibility in editing and help create a more dynamic final product. Extra Tips:  TIP  1    MATCH CAMERA (SENSOR) TO SHOT TYPE Telephoto: Micro 4/3 for reach, stabilization, and affordability. Medium/Tight: Micro 4/3 for flexibility and longer recording. Wide: Full-frame for minimal distortion and natural perspective.  TIP  2    SELECT APPROPRIATE LENSES Vintage lenses can be useful for telephoto work on micro 4/3. Tilt-shift or moderate wide-angle lenses may be helpful for architectural photography. Fast, sharp primes are often chosen for tight shots.  TIP  3    UTILIZE IN-BODY IMAGE STABILIZATION Panasonic micro 4/3 bodies are noted for effective stabilization, especially with manual lenses.  TIP  4    PLAN FOR MULTI-CAMERA SHOOTS Using at least two cameras can be beneficial for interviews or dynamic scenes. Consistent color and exposure settings across cameras can simplify editing.  TIP  5    DON'T BE EXCLUSIVE TO ONE SENSOR SIZE Each sensor size and camera system has its own strengths and limitations. Assigning each task to the most suitable tool may be more effective than relying on a single system.  CONCLUSION: When you stop trying to make one camera do everything, everything else gets simpler. Give each sensor size the job it does best. You’ll spend less, your shots will look better, and you won’t be wrestling with the limitations of any one system. Breaking down the workflow down this way—by matching the right tool for each shot type—has taken away a lot of pointless complication. Instead of worrying which focal length “matches what on another sensor,” I just ask: Which setup does THIS job best, at a practical price? It’s made things faster, easier, and more consistent, and freed me up to focus on the creative work (while keeping the image looking REAL ). So, next time you plan your shoot —whether it’s corporate interviews, documentaries, interiors, or anything else—consider splitting the load: WIDE, TIGHT, and TELE ... and let each camera and lens do what it does best. The following ads help fund THIS BLOG  (Click one to send me money for  100% free ) I know, sometimes these ads look the same... ...But I figure if I'm trying to make money, so why not post 3  of them eh?

INTRO: If full-frame cameras weren't so expensive (here's a list of affordable full-frame cameras ) wouldn't everyone just buy full-frame cameras? Well, as of now cost is still the problem, but if it were not that's a good question. However, I think each sensor size has both strong areas and weak areas, and some where they just can't compete with each other; so I think people would buy both. But, for some reason in the world of media production, filmmaking and "content creation" this battle between camera formats (sensor sizes) has often involved heated debates. The horrendous insults and peer pressure of this battle has pushed people toward taking "sides" and most have found themselves firmly aligned with one format or the other! To address this, I've been considering using both formats. If you've seen my lens-sensor settings tests of budget cameras , you'll know I've been using Micro Four Thirds. Yet, most of the lenses I use are old, full-frame Nikon F-mount lenses...and so using these on a full-frame sensor won't be a problem (unless I start to think I need autofocus). So now, other than the cost of full-frame cameras , I'm excited about this approach, and I hope it can not only make people argue less (because we'll experience the benefits of both formats) but also help us to be prepared for any shooting situation we encounter (which is the goal after all). BTW, this post may contain affiliate links, which means we receive a commission (at no cost to you) if you make a purchase through a link. When deciding which sensor size works the best for you, one of the biggest factors is the LENSES! WHICH SENSOR SIZE IS BETTER? In my opinion, if you're just starting out (or are just on a limited budget and/or just want to travel lighter) Micro Four Thirds can make a lot of sense (especially if you want to " always shoot with (at least) 2 cameras " like I do). The prices of the camera bodies and lenses are much cheaper than their full-frame equivalents, and so you can build a 2 or 3 camera system  for much less. Yet, there are some things that smaller sensors just cannot do. They can't blur the background as easily (when you need to). Then, in low-light situations, certain Micro Four Thirds sensors (GH4, G7, G85, GX85) really need an f/1.4 lens. Full-frame cameras on the other hand, usually work better in low-light situations and have no trouble blurring the background with most lenses...but there are some downsides. Full-frame camera bodies are getting smaller (see the LUMIX S9) but the lenses are not only bigger, heavier, and less portable, but they've been way more expensive (though there are a few new brands working on solving this). There are lots of things to compare though, so let's do details. Comparison of Formats WHY MICRO 4/3? WHY FULL-FRAME? A DUAL CAMERA SETUP? LENS DIFFERENCES... A GOOD LEARNING EXPERIENCE? WHY MICRO 4/3? THE LENSES ARE SMALLER AND... Micro 4/3 cameras, such as the Panasonic GX85 or G85, are particularly appealing for beginners and those on a budget. They offer a range of affordable lenses and accessories, making it easier to build a versatile kit without breaking the bank. Additionally, the crop factor of micro 4/3 cameras can be beneficial for sports and wildlife photography, where a longer effective focal length is often required. For example, using a budget 70-300 lens (from the 1990s) on a micro 4/3 camera provides an equivalent focal length of 600mm, which is perfect for capturing distant subjects. That is one of the main reasons I like using Micro 4/3 (because the optics of a 70-300, for example, are a LOT smaller and lighter than an equivalent crop on full-frame). A Micro Four Thirds camera and a 70-300 can provide decent framing of almost any shot, even from a distance! Keep in mind that for TELE shots especially, it's important to have a camera with good IBIS, which many of the popular M43 cameras is do (the GX85, G85, G9, GH5, etc.). Having said all of this, I really do like using a Micro Four Thirds body with a wide angle lens on a TILT/SHIFT adapter  (see that post)! This tiny lens is actually a TELE zoom lens (for Micro Four Thirds). The full-frame equivalent would be a 90-300mm...but there are optical differences between formats. For example, an actual 300mm lens on a micro 4/3 camera would provide a 600mm equivalent, but the optical characteristics differ significantly. The depth of field and telephoto compression are different, which will impact the overall look of the shot. M43 Positives: You can adapt almost any lens (for real) Lenses are usually less expensive (except for Leica lenses) Lenses are usually smaller and lighter (more portable) A telephoto lens is effectively longer (good for sports, wildlife, etc.) IBIS is better on Micro Four Thirds (especially on Panasonic) TILT/SHIFT Adapters are available (no other format can do this as well) Good M43 camera bodies are cheap (G85, GX85, G9, GH5) M43 Negatives: 1. Worse in low light 2. Wide Angle shoots look more distant (due to shorter focal length) 3. Some older bodies have bad AF (pre-phase-detect Panasonic) WHY FULL-FRAME? THE LENSES ARE BIGGER AND... Full-frame cameras aren't really affordable for me (yet) so they're not really a viable option, and full-frame  lenses are not only more expensive, but also bigger and heavier most of the time. So, what are the advantages of full-frame? Full-frame sensors do typically deliver superior image quality (especially in low-light) and the ability to blur the background more (i.e. shallow depth of field) is appealing to many people. (I think the blurred background trend has been leveling out, thanks to the video about bokeh addiction and the follow-up historical tutorial ) because people are realizing most real, professional movies don't always blur the background. it's really still photographers who still believe it's a good idea. The truth is, you can actually get a blurred background using smaller sensor cameras...and not just with an F/1.4 (or a TELE lens). It also depends on the subject distance, etc. If you're trying to get your TELE (telephoto) shots, full-frame is not the best option. TELE lenses are much heavier, larger and more expensive on full frame. I learned this first hand when I had this old Nikon 80-200 2.8. FULL-FRAME IS BETTER (FOR THE WIDE SHOT) Are there any unique strengths of full-frame sensors then? I think there are, but it's in something not many people are talking about: less-distortive WIDE shots. The reason is, full-frame cameras don't require as short of a focal length to capture a wide angle image. Therefore, a wide angle can be closer to that magical, non-distortive focal length of 42.5mm (where there's the least distortion from optics). If you go wider than 42.5mm, you'll introduce wide-angle distortion characteristics (and there are a variety of them) which range from being almost non-noticeable to looking like a full-on fisheye lens. The benefit of full-frame is that you can use a moderate wide angle lens (such as a 35) and capture enough of the scene...and it still look pretty realistic (and accurate). If you're creating a WIDE shots on a Super 35 (1.5x crop) sensor however, it's not going to look as real. (Super 35 is perfect for TIGHT or or medium shots, but not so much for the WIDE shots.) The worst format for WIDE shots would be Micro Four Thirds (2x sensor crop) then, because you will need the shortest focal length to project the image onto a smaller (2x crop) sensor. Full-Frame Positives: Superior image quality (especially in low-light conditions) It's easier to blur the background (if you need to) Less distortive WIDE shots (provides a more natural perspective) Full-Frame Negatives: Camera bodies are more expensive (they are going down though) Most lenses are bigger and heavier (than M43) Lenses are often more expensive (than M43) Telephoto lenses are REALLY huge (and SUPER expensive) AN AFFORDABLE FULL-FRAME CAMERA (<$1,000)? Here's a quick list (if I missed any options let me know in the comments) of the best mirrorless (not going with a DSLR, for a number of reasons) full-frame cameras being sold for under $1,000 US, and it's clear there isn't much available for around $600, which is where I want to be. These are average Ebay prices (taken from both auction and buy it now listings) and you can find better deals at times, but it would be the exception. The links are Ebay affiliate links (see above notes for disclaimer). *I don't always mind having a crop in video mode, because I'm used to the 2x crop of Micro Four Thirds sensors! Product Price (Used) Notes (Good) Notes (Bad) Canon RP ~ $600 ? No IBIS, limited video specs (only 24p in 4K) and bad AF in 4K video mode. Nikon Z5 ~ $634 IBIS, 2 SD card slots (Z6 v1 has NONE!) 1.7x crop in 4K video mode (I don't mind*) Nikon Z6 ~ $789 IBIS, No crop in 4K video mode No SD card slots (only expensive CF Express, etc.) Panasonic S1 ~ $875 IBIS, combo tilt/flip-out screen Bad AF, no real-time LUTs Panasonic S5 ~ $860 IBIS Bad AF, no real-time LUTs, 30-minute video recording limit Sony A7rii ~ $757 IBIS (first generation) 4K video is only good in 1.5x crop sensor mode (I don't mind*) MY SOLUTION: A DUAL-CAMERA SETUP! As I delve deeper into the advantages of both formats, I recommend that filmmakers consider a dual-camera setup. For instance, pairing a micro 4/3 camera with a full-frame camera can provide the best of both worlds. One camera can be mounted on top of a rig, and the other on the bottom. This configuration gives you greater flexibility as it prepares you for a lot more shooting scenarios (and it also makes people think you're weird, but we need to stop caring about that anyway, right?) One advantage of smaller, lighter cameras, is you can mount multiple cameras ON ONE CAGE! Also, keep in mind that it really helps if the cameras have good IBIS (especially for the top camera/cameras). Two Cameras On One Cage: Helps you get two shots (WIDE & TIGHT) using just one tripod! I usually put the camera with the WIDE shot on the bottom, and the TIGHT shot on the top  SUMMARY: Which ever way you go (either all full-frame, all M43...or some of both) I'm thinking it might be good to embrace the learning experience that comes with using both formats. By experimenting with micro 4/3 and full-frame cameras, we can actually experience the strengths and weaknesses of each format. Hey, maybe by stepping outside of our comfort zones and exploring different sensor sizes, we can learn why people are so loyal to the other? Each format really does offer unique advantages and when used together, they can really enhance your content creation capabilities. The following ads help fund THIS BLOG  (Click one to send me money for  100% free ) I know, sometimes these ads look the same... ...But I figure if I'm trying to make money, so why not post 3  of them eh?

INTRO: Once you experience using a perspective control (shift) lens, you probably won't be able to shoot architecture without one (and you'll probably find other shots that can benefit from the perspective control too). However, those of us who aren't terribly rich probably gave up on the dream of tilt/shift lens ownership long ago because of the high price tag (a new Nikon or Canon version is around $1,500). The good news is, for Micro Four Thirds users, there is a less expensive (and more flexible) option: An inexpensive ($123 US) tilt/shift adapter #ad that can turn almost any (Nikon F mount) lens into a tilt/shift lens (yes, you read that right)! Keep in mind it only works with specific Micro Four Thirds cameras but this is still pretty great for the price. Let's talk about how to do it. ABOVE:  There's a number of tricks you can do with Micro Four Thirds that you can't with full frame cameras, including buying an inexpensive TILT/SHIFT adapter to turn almost any (Nikon F mount) lens into a perspective control lens. WHY IS THIS SO AMAZING? Well, not only does this mean you can turn almost any (Nikon F mount) lens into a TILT/SHIFT lens, but it ALSO means you can do this with variable focal length lenses (zoom lenses). The reason this is so important, is that having a zoom lens with TILT/SHIFT capability means you have a ton of compositional control over the image. Not only can you zoom in or out a little bit to change composition, but you can SHIFT up or down to frame the shot as well. This is something that you have to experience to understand (at least I did) but we'll go into exactly how to do this in a little bit. DOES THIS ONLY WORK ON M43? So, this is also works on 1.5/1.6x crop sensors, but not as well. It also sorta works on full frame, but let's talk about why that doesn't work very well (hint: you'll need medium format lenses). The biggest reason why the smaller Micro Four Thirds sensor works with TILT/SHIFT adapters, is because of the principle of these adapters: they use a lens from a larger sensor format to create a larger image circle, and then it will move ("shift") within that larger image circle. So, on M43 (MIcro Four Thirds) you can do this with either full frame or DX/cropped sensor lens, but If you use a DX/cropped sensor lens on a cropped sensor camera, there's nowhere to go (the image circle is used up). The reason is that the “image circle” of the lens has to be larger than your sensor. That's why if you try doing this with a full frame camera, you’d have to adapt a MEDIUM FORMAT LENS to make it work. There are full frame TILT/SHIFT adapters available (for medium format lenses) but the problem is it's difficult to find a lens that's WIDE enough from the medium format lineup (because what's considered a wide on medium format is not the same on full frame). So, on an APS-C/Super 35 sensor (such as the Sony A6500, etc.) the problem is much less of an issue, but you still can only use full frame lenses and that makes it harder to get a good wide lens (for a low price). ABOVE:  An example of an image taken with a wide-angle lens, WITHOUT a perspective control adapter. The camera had to be angled upward toward the building, which causes distortion. (Taken with the overly sharp Sigma 18-35 1.8.) ABOVE:  This image was taken WITH a shift adapter (this time using a cheap Nikon 18-55 v1). The camera is level, and the lens was "shifted" up. How To Use TILT/SHIFT (on Micro Four Thirds): STEP 1: BUY A (COMPATIBLE) M43 CAMERA STEP 2: BUY A TILT/SHIFT ADAPTER STEP 3: BUY A NIKON F-MOUNT LENS STEP 4: PRACTICE USING SHIFT (NO TILT) STEP 5: PRACTICE USING TILT (NO SHIFT) STEP 1 BUY A (COMPATIBLE) M43 CAMERA I need to quickly point out that not all Micro Four Thirds cameras work with TILT/SHIFT adapters. The reason is silly, and it's not because of any differences between Micro Four Thirds sensors (they're all the same size, I would guess). Rather, it's the design of the exterior of the camera that matters. The rangefinder-style cameras work, but some of the smaller SLR-style cameras usually don't (see the M43 compatibility list below). The actual reason is that the part of the camera that is just above the lens mount CANNOT BE OBSTRUCTED (for the lens to "shift" up). The non-rangefinder style cameras often have either a pop-up flash or just an un-necessarily large awning that extends over the lens mount. I jokingly call it an "awning" but the bad news is that it renders a lot of otherwise great M43 cameras useless for using with TILT/SHIFT adapters. So, below is the compatibility list (as far as I know at time of writing): (M43) CAMERAS THAT WORK*: Panasonic GH2 #ad Panasonic GH3 (?) Panasonic GH4 #ad Panasonic GH5    #ad     Panasonic GX85 #ad Panasonic GX9 #ad Panasonic G9 #ad (M43) CAMERAS THAT DON'T* Panasonic G7 Panasonic G85 Panasonic G95 *I'm working on testing this TILT/SHIFT adapter #ad on as many camera bodies as I can, so I'm sure I'm missing some. if you know of any that don't work, leave a comment below. The main reason certain cameras won't work (with TILT/SHIFT adapters) is they have sort of an "awning" that obstructs the upward "shift" movement of the adapter. STEP 2 BUY A TILT/SHIFT ADAPTER As I mentioned, the Panasonic GX85 #ad is probably my favorite camera for using a TILT/SHIFT adapter, because of the "rangefinder" design of the body. I shoot all of my WIDE shots with this camera and the TILT/SHIFT adapter #ad I use is only $125 US on Ebay! I just can't imagine not shooting without one now (it adds so much realism to each shot). I have used a few of these adapters, but this one is the best I've found (the others have problems such as being loose, only taking Nikon F, not G lenses, or having a metallic, blue coating THAT COMES OFF, AND COULD GET ON THE SENSOR). The only thing about the one I like is it is only available on Ebay (not on Amazon). STEP 3 BUY A NIKON F-MOUNT LENS Let's talk about buying a lens to use with a SHIFT or TILT/SHIFT adapter. My main point is to get a Nikon F-mount lens, but the reason isn't that the adapters aren't available in other lens mounts (they are) but that most of the LENSES I like are either made by Nikon or are available (cheaper) in the Nikon mount, for some reason. Here's a short list of lenses I've tested on the TILT/SHIFT adapters I've had. Most of the time people use SHIFT or TILT/SHIFT with WIDE lenses, so that's what this list is, but you could pretty much use any Nikon F or Nikon G mount lens on this adapter (I even use telephoto lenses on it once in a while, LOL). MY FAVORITE LENSES (FOR TILT/SHIFT): Tokina 11-16 2.8 #ad Nikon 17-35 2.8 #ad Sigma 17-50 2.8 EX #ad Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX #ad Sigma 18-35 1.8 ART #ad *The Sigma 18-35 1.8 is a bit too heavy for most of the TILT/SHIFT adapters I have. ABOVE:  Another example of using a TILT/SHIFT adapter    #ad    with the Panasonic GX85. This might be my favorite camera EVER, as it can use a TILT/SHIFT adapter due to the rangefinder-style design and 2x crop sensor (the GX9 works too but has more crop in 4K). STEP 4 PRACTICE USING SHIFT (NO TILT) Let me first take a shot at simplifying the definition of "shift". I think by telling you how the shift function works in practice (which is super simple) you'll feel less worried about whether or not you can do this. To use a shift lens, all you have to do is make sure the camera is level (I use a bubble level on the hot shoe) and then shift up or down to compose the image. That's it. Yes, you can rotate the shift mechanism to allow for left and right shift (for use as panoramic tool) but we're focused on using this for video, so we're not going to go there. We'll keep it simple, and just repeat that using a shift lens is as easy as keeping the camera level and then composing your shot by shifting up or down (instead of pointing the camera up or down, which would introduce linear distortion in architectural lines). ABOVE:  Using a SHIFT lens (or adapter) is a lot easier than you might think. All you have to do is level the camera, then compose the shot using the shift movement (seriously)! STEP 5 PRACTICE USING TILT (NO SHIFT) Describing lens "tilt" in a practical way, is a bit more difficult than describing "shift" but let's give it a try. TILT refers to the ability to control the focus plane, by changing the angle of the lens to the film (or sensor) plane. Most often, you'll see people using the tilt function to create a "miniature effect" but it can also be used in the opposite way (to increase how much is in focus). This can really help for macro purposes, and also helps when you want to shoot wide open (usually in low light) and need more of the foreground in focus. ABOVE:  Using a TILT lens (or an adapter with TILT) is all about changing the angle of the focus plane. The benefit is that you'll be able to get more in focus with a shallower depth of field, meaning you can keep more of the foreground in focus, but still blur the background.  SUMMARY: I can't help being excited about this topic, because TILT/SHIFT adapters for Micro Four Thirds made my dream of owning a tilt/shift lens a reality. I mean it when I say I can hardly use a "normal" lens for WIDE shots anymore, because I just can't ignore the angular distortion (in architecture) that happens when you have to angle upward (on a non-shift lens) to compose the shot. If you're worried about the added complexity, I will tell you that using TILT/SHIFT is a lot easier than you might think, and all you're giving up (compared to a native lens) is autofocus and electronic aperture control, which to me is totally worth it, in most cases. The following ads help fund THIS BLOG  (Click one to send me money for  100% free ) I know, sometimes these ads look the same... ...But I figure if I'm trying to make money, so why not post 3  of them eh?