Nikon D7100 vs Panasonic Gh2 sharpness test

danyyyel

I already posted that in the Nikon D7100 thread, but I thought that it warranted it own Topic as it was quite revealing and might be of some interest to the community in general.

So I have a little time now and been investigating a bit more the video capability of my newly acquired D7100 (Nikon photo shooter) vs my Panasonic gh2. What I really wanted to know is the sharpness compared to the gh2, because the DR, low light etc... are more or less well documented. I made a series at different sharpness setting in camera, I was going to upload them little latter when I have finish uploading some work. But meanwhile I thought about doing a blind test, because I was surprised how close they looked. I use the same Tamron 17-50 at 50mm on both of them.

bleach551

@Wildranger,

I didn't want you to think that I was calling your video soft. I too used "0" sharpening for a while and I used the 32-bit "Unsharp Mask" Under "Blur & Sharpen" within After Effects. I tried 0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9 and 1.0 Radius and I tried Amounts of: 55, 65, 75, 85, 95, 115. I basically left Threshold alone. The images looked great after I sharpened them. However, when I compared them to the different in-camera sharpening settings I was trying, the In-camera sharpening settings always looked better and smoother IMHO. Now this is probably due to my poor sharpening skills, which are probably not up to par with yours. I think with your skills you may be able to achieve better sharpening in post than in camera. Unfortunately for me, I was not.

Like you said, it's a matter of choice. There is no one right way to sharpen an image, just the one that works best for you.

Wildranger

@danyyyel, @bleach551 I'm not quite sure of my hypothesis, i should do some very "pixel piping" test to confirm that. But even if it looks soft, the image at sharpness 0 holds all the same detail that it has at +1, +2, +3... The only difference is that it came more sharp direct from camera, its a matter of choice, but i prefer adding it in post since the plugin of after effects do a better job than the in-camera processing. ;)

bleach551

@danyyyel, @Wildranger,

Here is a quick 5 second test that I just ran outside and shoot, Sorry for not using tripod, It was taken with a Portrait picture profile , +2 sharpening, -3 contrast, -3 saturation. I added contrast with a Curve in Color finesse in after effects.

bleach551

@danyyyel, @Wildranger,

I am using The "Portrait" picture profile with a +1 sharpness and with the contrast turned all the way down and "saturation" turned down to -2. I also found the "0" sharpening setting a little soft. The "portrait" picture profile has a slight softening effect. So along with a slight "+1" sharpening, It gives a great sharpness without the slight halo with "+2" sharpening. It's kind of a toss-up between "+2" and "+1" sharpening in this camera. Just when I decide on one or the other I change my mind again!

danyyyel

@Wildranger So you say that it is preferable to shoot at the lowest in camera sharpness setting and then sharpen in post? I am asking because I find zero to be a bit soft.

Wildranger

Yes you ca sharpen this camera in post really well. I shot always on sharpness at 0 because at +1 it adds a little bit of halo, its very subtly but when you add post-sharpening it gets very noticeable. here is my test with color grading and After Effects sharpen filter at 50.

Azo

@danyyyel

Wow the D7100 sharpens up quite nicely. Looking at the images it seems as though the sharpness is just about equal when you apply +4 on D7100. The other plus to the D7100 is I did not see any moire in the video that you posted unlike my D600. Thanks again for sharing your findings with the rest of us.

Best Regards

danyyyel

The different frame grab at different in camera sharpening

bleach551

@DrDave,

Thanks, I use the outdoor Staircase endposts with all my cameras to test for moire, aliasing and to check my in-camera sharpness setting. The last clip, the shower curtain, would have looked like an "Ant dancing party" on my D7000 and 7D.

DrDave

Thanks @Bleach551--looks like a nice cam for vid--the fence post had a very nice look.

danyyyel

So people can download and compare for themselves here https://plus.google.com/photos/115991370373823953401/albums/5900467492494614001 between the gh2 and D7100 at different in camera sharpness settings

bleach551

@DrDave,

Here is a quick and dirty that I did for you of a sequence of clips that would have shown serious moire and aliasing on both my Canon 7D and Nikon D7000. I didn't have my tripod with me so I just jiggled the D7100 a bit to try to induce Moire and aliasing.

Please Download the Original 1080p or 720p file from vimeo. I see some artifacts in this smaller size version that is not present in the original file. It maybe do to Vimeo's encoder

Azo

@DrDave

I have the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 as well as the Panasonic 14mm 2.5 lenses, and without a doubt it is the sharpest lenses that I have ever seen in terms of video quality. I was really interested in purchasing the Olympus 45mm 1.8 and based off of the reviews I am sure that I would have been happy with it. The issue that I have with the newer lenses in general be it from Nikon, Canon, Panasonic etc is that for manual focusing it just does not feel right in comparison to the older manual lenses.

The other issue that I found with the Pany 20mm/14mm lens is that if I want to use a follow focus it is really difficult to do because the lens is so compact and close to the body of the lens, add a matte box to that scenario and good luck. I have found work arounds for the follow focus but not the matte box. Please chime in if you have a solution for the matte box.

On a side note, I really like the quality and workmanship of the older lenses and although some of the newer lenses maybe a little sharper or have better coatings etc I am still willing to sacrifice just little in that department for the overall build quality that will last for years to come. The Minolta Rokkor X PG 50mm 1.4 is a prime example of this, solid piece of metal and glass, extremely smooth manual focus ( actually better then my Nikon's ) and I basically got it for free ($60.00) with Hoya filter shipping included.

I do agree with your general statement of just get out there have fun and shoot. Thank you for reminding me off that :)

@bleach551

Thank you for sharing your experience with me. Based on what you and @danyyyel have said I feel confident in making this purchase. I have a shoot coming up in a couple of weeks, after that shoot I will have some extra money to spend on the D7100. Thanks again for you input this pretty much seals the deal for me. I don't plan on selling my GH2's because they will come in handy for certain shoots, but I am going to purchase the D7100 to add to my quiver.

Best Regards

DrDave

@bleach551 sometime it would be great to see a test where you shoot some straight lines, like on roofs or the siding on houses, and rotate the cam on the tripod 5 degrees or so, I'm always looking for the lowest aliasing cams.

bleach551

@Azo,

I came to nikon from An almost Identical path. I started from the Canon 7D but started with all Contax Zeiss lenses( 28mm 2.8 (MM), 50mm 1.4(MM), 50mm 1.7(MM), 85mm 2.8(MM) and 135mm 2.8(MM)). Then I switched to all Nikon manual glass(35mm 1.4 Ais, 50mm 1.4 and 1.8 Ais, 55mm 2.8 Ais micro, 85mm 1.4 Ais and 105mm 2.5 Ais).

However, the 7D just never did it for me in sharpness and the moire and aliasing was just terrible. So, I went to the Panasonic GH1(7). The sharpness was much better with the Hacks( I used most all Lpowell hacks), but the size, the crop factor, and the SD card door, which I had to tape shut made me leave it.

Next, I thought I would try the Nikon D7000. I loved the feel and the amount of tweaking to the settings I could make, and I thought at the time that it had a better sharpness than the 7D and that it was close enough to the GH1(7) so it was great. But it had, to a slightly lesser extent, the same moire and aliasing problems as the 7D.

Now I have the D7100. I love the resolution and, as I might have mentioned before, I have yet to get it to show moire. The only problem is the Fixed Pattern Noise that can show up in some situation more than others.

DrDave

Sharpness is a general term that covers a bunch of different scenarios. In the famous PB test, where no one could guess which camera was which, he was very clever about picking a scene that highlighted processing flaws in the camera, and of these, bricks and long straight lines revealed these flaws. What we learn from this is two things: first, if you don't label the samples and put a bunch of them online, people will just pick random cameras including point and shoot cameras. Second, you have to be careful about the subject matter. I video a lot of musical instruments, and the GH2 and many other cameras have noticeable, annoying stair-stepping. But on a panoramic landscape, with the 14mm attached, you can get a great, sharp, hyperfocal image. So for the straight lines I use a different camera.

So you won't know which camera is sharper, but you will get plenty of opinions. You will also get many more opinions, and different ones, if you label the samples. that is, the unlabeled opinions will be different from the labeled opinions. Good luck sorting that out.

I wouldn't use the Rokkor PG, I like the later models better, so you can see even here you have basic disagreements about what is sharp. It should be obvious, testable, yet here, people disagree. Also, with a really old lens, it is better to buy one that hasn't been dropped. Good luck figuring that out as well. For me, the lens has to have color, microcontrast, etc. I don't use the 50mm any more because I have the Olly 45mm, which is better in all respects than any lens Minolta ever made. Sad, but true. So many Minoltas, unused, like AOL CDs.

Lastly, whatever imagined sharpness advantage a camera may have is worth 6 months until the next model comes out, and more than negated by the lighting. It used to be--think GH1--that there were no sharp, detailed options at the low end. Now there are many cameras to choose from. For my work, I use the Canon HF G10 camcorder when I need low stair stepping and the GH2 for vistas, panoramas, and so on. It doesn't matter which one is sharper, and for sure the GH2 often looks oversharpened, even at -2.

Old Nikkor lenses: these are great, but on the GH2 maybe too much contrast. The GH2 is kind of contrast heavy, and the super contrasty old Nikkors can give you an overcontrasted look, with odd transition areas. Also, with the new nano coatings, the Panny 20mm for example has a cleaner look to the image, Hard to identify what it is, but it is as if a film has been liften, or a filter. The Vivitar 55mm has a nice balance of sharpness, color, microcontrast, bokeh and of course macro.

So "all you" cameras are sharp enough! Have fun and make movies. There is a new camera around the corner that will make what we have seem like a phone cam.

danyyyel

You don't have too, I find some remarks to be a bit harsh. It was never my idea that this threat should descend to this level. Everyone is entitled to there opinion, from there perspective and experience and people can disagree but still stay civil. I just shared concretely with example my experience with those two cameras.

Azo

@danyyyel @everyone else

Sorry for going off topic and if I offended anyone once again please accept my apology.

Azo

@Butt

Are you offended because I feel that Nikon glass is better then Canon? Or are you offended because I said that the Olympus OMD and GH2 does not stand a chance in terms of still imaging compared to the Nikon? Either way based on your last comment I really don't appreciate your tone. If you have another opinion I am cool with that and we can agree to disagree and as I said please elaborate. But if you are just going to post comments that are offensive please back the fuck off and don't act like a punk. Because I for one will not tolerate you acting like one.

Just for clarification!

I am not partial to any particular company when it comes to camera gear. What works best for me and my particular needs is what I am going to purchase. Case and point I just purchased a 50mm 1.4 Minolta Rokkor X PG lens for the GH2 because from what I had read it is supposed to be one of best 50mm primes considering the price of course. I have a Nikon 50mm prime but purchased the Minolta because it is supposedly better. More then likely I will purchase 24mm 2.8 Minolta Rokkor X as well.

In regard to Canon glass I am not saying that Canon glass is crap, but for my needs the older Nikon lenses with the aperture rings was better suited for video. Like I said I did some testing with the Canon lenses that I had at the time and the older Nikon primes were actually sharper and had more contrast then the Canon lenses.

We all have opinions and as the old saying goes opinions are just like assholes every body has one. As I said if you would like to counter my opinion in a constructive and productive way I am cool with that. If not then keep your comments to yourself.

Butt

My GH3 is a lot sharper and just better than my GH2.< ho, ho, ho - Santa is there. . . what the heck is that GH3 is not sharper than the GH2, GH3 but it produces a lot of really mud green stuff

Butt

@Azo your text is a self-fulfilling prophecy

Azo

@Butt I am not sure what you are trying to say. If I offended you I am sorry :( This is my experience and my opinion. I am not sure what you are calling bullshit on or really what you mean buy that, but I am interested in hearing what you have to say so please feel free to elaborate on your comment :)

Best Regards

Butt

@Azo Here, a man once again confirms its own purchasing decision - Bullshi *, sorry

Azo

@johnnymossville

There is no doubt that the GH2 is awesome and in a lot of ways actually better then the D7100 for video. The ability to use just about any lens from any manufacturer is HUGE, add in the fact that you have patches to choose from depending on the subject matter and scene is another huge benefit.

"QUOTE"

It's all about lenses for me. If I had a bunch of nikon lenses that worked on the camera I'd be tempted to look at the 7100, but there's nothing dramatically better as far as stills or video for me to make the switch.

You know what is funny about that statement. I was actually a Canon guy and switched from Canon to Nikon after using my 7D with Nikon Glass! I purchased a Nikon 28mm, Nikon 50mm, Nikkor 105 2.5, along with several other old school push and pool zooms to test out for video. The older lenses where actually sharper and had more contrast then the Canon glass that I had at the time, I was floored! I immediately sold off almost all of my Canon gear and switched to Nikon. Because IT IS all about the lenses...

I guess different strokes for different folks, but for me I want excellent stills quality as well as excellent video quality so this is what I am striving for. I am not sure if I can achieve this but this is what I am hoping for. I also considered purchasing the Canon 5D III when I heard about the raw footage hack, but the files sizes and workflow brought me down to earth really quick :) LOL

I guess if you are strictly into video then yeah it really doesn't make sense to consider the D7100, but if shooting stills is equally important as video then it totally makes sense. In regard to M4/3 for stills. I have a full frame Nikon D600 as well as a Nikon F100/F5 for film and there is no way that the GH2 can compete with any of those cameras.

Prior to purchasing the GH2 my good friend had purchased the Olympus OMD and told me to sell my D600 and switch because the gear is smaller lenses are cheaper etc etc. Well I performed several tests of my friends OMD with the Oly 45mm 1.8 vs D600 with the Nikkon 85mm 1.8D lens. Long story short and no offense to anybody with the Olympus OMD there is NO COMPARISON. The D600 is in another class in terms of still imaging period!

Here is a review of the Nikon D7100 where they actually compare it to the D600. Based on this particular review it compares favorably to the D600 in terms of still imaging. Add in the 51 point autofocus system, 1/8000 sec shutter speed, and the ability to use two groups of Nikon Speedlights and you have one heck of a APSC camera. IMO the only area where the D600 wins is depth of field and low light sensitivity. Of course this is just one review, but so far almost all of the reviews seem very positive to say the least.

Anyway just wanted to share my thoughts on this camera.

Best Regards

belzeruf

First have best colour, second more sharp, but images equal detailed

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Tags in Topic

Top Posters