(None)

Panasonic 14-45

BPM14

Panasonic 25 1.7

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!

(None)

Panasonic 25 1.7

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!

(None)

Panasonic 14-42 iii

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).

(None)

Quantaray 70-300 4-5.6 LD

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).

(None)

Raynox DCR-150 MACRO

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

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).

(None)

Vivitar Series 1 70-300 4.5-5.6

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)!

(None)

Vivitar Series 1 70-300 4.5-5.6

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!

(None)

Tamron 28-300 3.5-6.3 LD

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).