GH2: Alcatraz Island (The Rock)

[Dan Carter]

Alcatraz Island is an island located in the San Francisco Bay, 1.5 miles offshore from San Francisco, California, United States. Often referred to as "The Rock", the small island served as a lighthouse, a military fortification, a military prison, and a Federal Bureau of Prisons federal prison until 1963. Later, in 1972, Alcatraz became a national recreation area and received landmarking designations in 1976 and 1986.

Today, the island is a historic site operated by the National Park Service as part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and is open to tours.

Alcatraz Island (The Rock) on Vimeo

Panasonic GH2
Lumix 14-140 lens
Benro Travel Angel tripod
Manfrotto 700RC2 head

[Jeff Anderson]

what type of setting did you use to record this at?

What were the settings used in exporting?

[Jeff Harper]

Killer video, Dan. That 14-140mm is an awesome lens outdoors, isn't it?

[Dan Carter]

Originally Posted by Jeff Anderson

what type of setting did you use to record this at?

What were the settings used in exporting?

Jeff,

I primarily shoot at 1080-60i, Vibrant, and +1 Saturation. Edit the files natively with Vegas Pro, then render 720-30p.

Thanks for watching.

[Dan Carter]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Killer video, Dan. That 14-140mm is an awesome lens outdoors, isn't it?

Thank you for the good words Jeff.

The Lumix 14-140 is indeed a fine lens. For my last three projects, though I carry the Lumix 20mm f1.7, I've used the 14-140 for all indoor shots as well. Many at ISO3200 with no noise in sight.

[Jeff Harper]

I shot one event with the 14-140mm indoors, and it was so slow, I just sold the darned thing.

But then I got a 18-50 F/2.8 for shooting indoors (wedding work) and even it is too slow at times when I'm running next to my fast primes.

I have the Sigma 30mm F/1.4, Panny 20mm, and Canon 50mm F/1.4 and they just outshine the 2.8s.

So while the F/2.8 holds up well, in low light there really is a significant difference between them and my faster lenses.

I also have the Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8, and that is a nice lens also, but just the same as the Sigma zoom, not nearly as crisp, etc in low light. The primes really have me spoiled!

Outdoors, my Tamron and Sigma zooms really shine, and I love them both, but as with anything I have to pick and choose where I use them for best results.

[Dan Carter]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

I shot one event with the 14-140mm indoors, and it was so slow, I just sold the darned thing.

But then I got a 18-50 F/2.8 for shooting indoors (wedding work) and even it is too slow at times when I'm running next to my fast primes.

I have the Sigma 30mm F/1.4, Panny 20mm, and Canon 50mm F/1.4 and they just outshine the 2.8s.

So while the F/2.8 holds up well, in low light there really is a significant difference between them and my faster lenses.

I also have the Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8, and that is a nice lens also, but just the same as the Sigma zoom, not nearly as crisp, etc in low light. The primes really have me spoiled!

Outdoors, my Tamron and Sigma zooms really shine, and I love them both, but as with anything I have to pick and choose where I use them for best results.

That is a fine lens collection Jeff. I'm convinced we all need a more objective measure of what low-light means to each of us. Where low-light to me might be a small room lit by one window, your church might be a different story. Where F4.0 works for my room, F2.0 may be insufficient for your church.

I'm going to experiment with light meter LUX readings on my projects when shooting F4.0, ISO3200. This may give others a more objective idea of what low-light means to the lens I'm using.

[Jeff Harper]

Dan, I am embarrassed. The post above was not meant for this thread. I was responding to another thread where the poster asked about the 14-140mm lens, and apparently was here instead.

Not my intention to randomly go on about the lens here. I was, unintentionally off-top, and I apologize.

I actually see that my very similar post in this thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasoni...ork-worth.html showed up where it was supposed to, but is another version. I must have copied and pasted while editing my own comment and somehow, Lord knows how, put it here.

So never mind. The 14-140mm is a fine lens, particularly outdoors, and yes I find it slow, but only for what I do. Heck, I find my 2.8 zooms slow for my taste, if that tells you anything. I'm going to remove much of what I posted above, it is just too weird. It appears I'm just randomly dissing the lens.

edit: OK, I can't edit my original post so never mind.

[Dan Carter]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Dan, I am embarrassed. The post above was not meant for this thread. I was responding to another thread where the poster asked about the 14-140mm lens, and apparently was here instead.

Not my intention to randomly go on about the lens here. I was, unintentionally off-top, and I apologize.

I actually see that my very similar post in this thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasoni...ork-worth.html showed up where it was supposed to, but is another version. I must have copied and pasted while editing my own comment and somehow, Lord knows how, put it here.

So never mind. The 14-140mm is a fine lens, particularly outdoors, and yes I find it slow, but only for what I do. Heck, I find my 2.8 zooms slow for my taste, if that tells you anything. I'm going to remove much of what I posted above, it is just too weird. It appears I'm just randomly dissing the lens.

edit: OK, I can't edit my original post so never mind.

No worries Jeff. I thought your post was quite relevant.