The downlow on the GH1

[markyf]

Greetings. I've been away from the forum for much of the last year, at which point I realized I was fooling myself if I thought I had the money to buy a camera. A year later and things are looking much more up. Not only can I buy a camera, I can get some good lenses too. Budget is approx. $5,000, although if I can spend less I will.

I shot a 40 minute short a few years ago on a DVX. I loved the camera and it served its purpose very well, but I decided to sell it in October. I had alway thought I would graduate to a HPX170 (or an HMC150) but I've been intrigued by the GH1 since it was announced.

Basically, I would love some people to give me their impressions of the GH1 in real world situations and how it compares to a traditional video camera like the 170. I'm planning on shooting a feature film starting in November and would like to make the camera choice by July/August. This is a slower-paced drama... no action shots or unpredictable conditions.

What initially attracts me to the 170 is the simplicity as I like to think of myself someone who shoots quickly and doesn't labour over the aesthetics of any one shot. That said, I can't say I'm not attracted to the fact that the GH1 might look more like something one is accustomed to seeing on a movie screen, as videoish looking footage can detract from the story.

So what is the downlow on this camera? Is it a feasible tool for shooting a feature on (I use Final Cut Pro to edit). Apologies for starting a new thread but all the threads I noticed were all dealing with certain aspects of the camera and not it as a whole.

Thanks!

Mark

[ampsonic]

Well, I think you'll find most people are fans here, but I think it's a fantastic camera for the money. And with your budget, that will leave you room for audio, mics, mounts, lens, stabilization, lights, ect...

Get some fast primes to go along with it, I love my 50mm 1.8 on this camera.

[thisisapocalypse]

I think shooting narrative projects is where DSLRs can really shine, when you are taking the time to setup your shots and you know what's going to happen on the shoot, you can minimize all of the disadvantages that DSLRs have over video cameras.

I'm currently shooting a narrative feature on a GH1 - feel free to PM me and I can give you more detailed information on what my experience has been like with it.

But simply, the camera itself has never been the weak link, it's only been as good as I could light, compose a shot and determine exposure, in every instance where it's either shined, or not been what I was hoping for, it's all rested on me, not the camera, the GH1 is amazingly capable. I will say that I don't have/use the kit lens, if you can get a good deal on one it might be nice to have, but I think if you are doing a feature you're gonna wanna go with a kit of fast primes - Nikons, Canon FDs or Zeiss lenses (especially in older mounts where the lenses are a bit less expensive than new versions, like Contax or Rollei SL35) (I'm using some of each) - the Canon FD L lenses are great (can't beat the 24mm f/1.4 L) and the Zeiss lenses are amazing (and you *can* tell the difference in sharpness/color/contrast even in video mode on the GH1).

I use the on board mic for the scratch track, a Fostex FR2-LE for sound recording with Rode NTG-3s and NT-3s and the Rode Blimp setup - the quality of sound and video with this setup is *incredible* - the barriers are totally gone with a setup like this in terms of gear/cost - it's really just about how skilled you are with it and how good your story/talent is.

[ydgmdlu]

The GH1 sucks. :)

[Barry_Green]

ydgmdlu, what purpose does such a post serve?

Okay, the "downlow" on the GH1: it is like the other DSLRs in that you can get absolutely amazing imagery out of it, but just like all the DSLRs, it requires a lot of workarounds and compromises as compared to a more traditional film or video camera. For some examples of how good the GH1 can look, look up anything from Vincent Pascoe (and yes, I'm biased, because he shot two films for us on the GH1 and they look stunningly good!)

Here are a few links to Vincent's GH1 work:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=210294

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=199546

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=178936


I'm very happy with the images we got out of that little GH1. But just because it can deliver fantastic results, that doesn't make it an ideal filmmaking tool. It has its issues with a weak codec, banding, aliasing, fixed-pattern noise, needing dual-system sound, and on and on.

If you want an effortless experience, I'd say stick with a traditional video camera. If you want the luscious shallow DOF look, the GH1 can deliver an incredible look, but it takes more work.

[ATL Media Group]

I agree with Barry, but I think it should also be noted that it's not exactly like the other DSLRs in that the GH1 is MUCH easier to use for video than the other DSLRs.. If you want a DSLR for video, the GH1 is as close as you are going to get to a true hybrid DSLR/Video combo.

I haven't had mine long, but am VERY happy I chose it over the T2i/7D for my purposes.

For me it's very much a replacement for a video camera once you properly equip it.

[Barry_Green]

Agreed with ATL on that aspect, it's much more like a video camera than the DSLRs are. Technically a GH1 isn't a DSLR, because it doesn't have a reflex mirror in it; which means that it has an electronic viewfinder instead of an optical one like the DSLRs have (of course, it also means the viewfinder works during video mode, which a DSLR can't do).

The GH1 is more of a hybrid between a still camera and a video camera than the DSLRs are. It has more video-camera functionality than they do (such as live histogram for exposure, articulating LCD, a viewfinder that works during filming, smooth autofocus during filming, etc). But it has its share of drawbacks too; nothing is perfect, especially at the price bracket of these products!

[ydgmdlu]

ydgmdlu, what purpose does such a post serve?
Sorry, I just couldn't resist being silly for a moment, since every other post was likely to be detailed and positively-opinionated. Apologies if the joke was inappropriate.

[JoeJITSU]

I really think you have to do your " in depth" review. Go to YouTube , vimeo and google and see what other people say as well. It also really depends on WHAT kind of film or shooting you are going to do. If you plan on using a GH1 for alot of fast move captures such as moving events or car racing I would NOT reccomend it(my 2 cents). Maybe others disagree. My setup as well as ATL's setup are the same. I have the HMC40 as well.....the little brother of the HMC150. I use the GH1 for DOF (depth of field) shots...that's where the film looks come in. You have way more control for sport shots, quick move shots with the camcorder. Try looking into the HMC40 as well....very awesome camcorder. U should be ok on your budget as well

[saaby]

The GH1 has some limitations. So does every other camera. I wouldn't necessarily be scared by those limitations. You'll probably have some struggles with it, maybe even bigger struggles than you might have with a more traditional camera.

That said, these days I'm shooting on EX3, 7D, HVX, and GH1. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. Maybe it's because the GH1 is the only one that I put my own cash into, but honestly I still find it the most fun to work with. Just something about this tiny camera with this tiny little card and then I get fantastic images out of it.

I'd say go for it and then, barring any huge technical disasters during the project, don't second guess yourself. By the end of the project you'll have a good understanding of the GH1's strengths and limitations, and you'll know whether you'll use it again on your next project. In the end you may find situations where a different tool might have been more appropriate, but overall I think it's safe to say you won't regret your choice.

[jleo]

GH1- like having RED in a pocket (not really) but...

Here's GH1 footage intercut with RED footage using Zeiss compact primes from Abelcine:

http://blog.abelcine.com/2010/04/12/testing-zeiss-compact-primes-on-the-bicycle/

[insanityfw]

I love the GH1 and think that it would be capable of many things. A feature? Absolutely.

I currently have a t2i, because my shooting partner uses the same camera, and for what we shoot we need to be on the same format. SOOOO, my GH1 and old Nikon lenses just sits there beckoning me :) I love the t2i (with the Nikon AI''s as well), but there's just something about the GH1, especially with fast lenses. I AM, admittedly, biased to that "panasonic look".

I need to only have one camera, so that means that the gh1 needs to go, but I just can't bring myself to get rid of it.

I use the GH1 with a Nikon 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and a Tamoron 28-75/2.8 and it is just a phenominal combination, if you ask me. If I were shooting a feature, I'd not have sold my Tokina 11-16/2.8 and I'd be good to go with no excuses.

If you are shooting a drama and can muster up a few Nikon AI prime lenses you will be golden. This camera rewards you greatly for large aperture lenses.

I've posted these before, but if this kind of imagery won't work for you...then you need to work more on story and acting :)

All pulled from the GH1 quicktimes shot with an old Nikon AI 85mm/1.8 (keep in mind that this was shot in a dark warehouse with 2 500 watt softboxes that cost about $150). Get a few softboxes, couple of 250's, and some Chinese Lanterns and go shoot your feature. IMNSHO


http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=465&pictureid=3253
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=465&pictureid=3252
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=465&pictureid=3251

PS-I can't speak to the HPX170, but for a few grand what you can do with a GH1 rig will be amazing.

Best,

J.

[insanityfw]

GH1- like having RED in a pocket (not really) but...

Here's GH1 footage intercut with RED footage using Zeiss compact primes from Abelcine:

http://blog.abelcine.com/2010/04/12/testing-zeiss-compact-primes-on-the-bicycle/

Shorts like this help to prove the idea that we have no more excuses anymore...from a technological perspective. Get out and make movies. The cameras we have are "good enough". You can beat your brain up trying to find the right combination, but it's just a waste of time. Many of today's cameras will do.

We just shot a top 10 finalist video for a commercial contest on the t2i with a stock lens. Sorry to those that have heard this already, but there's a chance that we will be broadcast nationally during the Indy 500..with a commercial shot with a $900 camera, stock lens, a couple of lights, micro dolly and a reflector :) ....and it looks pretty good in low-light as well :)

www.fingerfighting.com

[Ben_B]

Oh yeah. I should probably weigh in. I shot a student feature on the Gh1 (with the climax done on 5D mk II and one scene on EX1.) It worked great and it looked great. There are a few places where I've noticed codec weakness but most viewers will never notice and motion hides it pretty well. We're still finishing up post but are on track for our June 5th premiere. Camera was great to have on set, and really a joy to shoot with...but then again I did have a whole crew helping :)

[Barry_Green]

There are a few places where I've noticed codec weakness but most viewers will never notice and motion hides it pretty well.
Ben brings up a great point to consider -- really, nobody notices even when things go south. On Depth of Phil and especially on Shady, Texas, there were areas where there was significant banding, on the periphery of the frame. Nobody, ever, has ever said a word about it. It took us a few sessions of pixel-peeping around the bigscreen TV before really even seeing it for the first time. And everyone who watched it on the theatrical projection had nothing but praise for it, even though technically I could point out some areas of banding etc.

So, yes -- there are issues, and you will have to work around them, but if you do, and your content is compelling, nobody will notice the various issues.

Where I would be most concerned about the issues with any of these cameras, would be in VFX, match moving, and heavy color correction. If you're not doing a ton of post work, the issues that these various cameras have starts to be minimized.

[jleo]

Here's the 720p version of ZEISS "The Bicycle " shot on RED and GH1.

http://vimeo.com/10875907

[JoeJITSU]

Ben brings up a great point to consider -- really, nobody notices even when things go south. On Depth of Phil and especially on Shady, Texas, there were areas where there was significant banding, on the periphery of the frame. Nobody, ever, has ever said a word about it. It took us a few sessions of pixel-peeping around the bigscreen TV before really even seeing it for the first time. And everyone who watched it on the theatrical projection had nothing but praise for it, even though technically I could point out some areas of banding etc.

So, yes -- there are issues, and you will have to work around them, but if you do, and your content is compelling, nobody will notice the various issues.

Where I would be most concerned about the issues with any of these cameras, would be in VFX, match moving, and heavy color correction. If you're not doing a ton of post work, the issues that these various cameras have starts to be minimized.
So Barry in your humble opinion ...Is the T2i stronger in terms of the GH1 's weaknesses?

[markyf]

Thanks! You guys are awesome. Got a lot of great info in these replies. I think I might be sold on the GH1.

Basically, my reservations had to do with the rare-ish scenario where I might want to go hand-held and have the mood of the film seem a little more frenetic. I mean, hand held with the camera in tight on two people, them filling most of the frame. And call it a medium amount of movement... nothing hardcore. How would the GH1 fare?

In terms of low light, how would the GH1 compare to a 170? Assuming I could afford good fast lenses. Just as good? Better?

What scenarios does the codec start to show it's weakness and to what degree can this be planned around?

What about depth of field? I know this is a double edged sword as it makes for more careful shooting. But I also know the sensor is a little smaller so does this make it a little more forgiving in terms of following-in-focus?

Lastly, what about the m4/3 lenses? Haven't heard much talk about them. If I'm buying just for this camera, worth it?

Thanks again,

Mark

[markyf]

One more thing... Can you set the 'look' in camera? A la scene files or something of the like?

[ATL Media Group]

In terms of low light, how would the GH1 compare to a 170? Assuming I could afford good fast lenses. Just as good? Better?


They don't need to be expensive! You can get awesome lowlight (better than the 170 IMHO) with a fast prime. Get a f2 or faster and it'll be almost like night vision!
Get an adapter and use inexpensive lenses. I use inexpensive FD's... the 50mm 1.4 is a great little jem that will shoot in near dark.


Look on ebay for good used primes... check the hardware/lenses section of this forum (above).



One more thing... Can you set the 'look' in camera? A la scene files or something of the like?

Yes.

[thisisapocalypse]

Lastly, what about the m4/3 lenses? Haven't heard much talk about them. If I'm buying just for this camera, worth it?

Thanks again,

Mark

The m4/3 lenses are very good, just depends what you need. The Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 pancake is excellent, and I personally have the Olympus 17mm f/2.8 pancake and I like it a lot (very difficult to find a 17mm lens as fast as f/2.8 otherwise - they don't really exist when it comes to legacy primes, heck there aren't really any modern 17mm lenses faster than f/2.8 period unless you get into $$$$ Cine Lenses), and you're not going to find a faster 20mm lens than the Panny...period, I don't think one exists (again, save for $$$$ cinema lenses)- so I think both of these lenses are worth consideration for your kit depending on the shots you need.

[Barry_Green]

So Barry in your humble opinion ...Is the T2i stronger in terms of the GH1 's weaknesses?
The t2i's codec is definitely stronger than the GH1's, by a goodly margin. But then the t2i has its own share of weaknesses where the GH1 is quite a bit stronger. The GH1 is a much better video camera than the t2i, for example, because it has autofocus, a live histogram during shooting, a functional viewfinder during shooting (no need for a Zfinder), and an articulating LCD. As a digital cinema camera, things start to shift back into the t2i's favor, with its larger sensor and that it can have HDMI output to a monitor while recording, which the GH1 can't do.

Look in the Articles section for my review of the GH1 vs. 7D, and just about everything will apply to the t2i as well. Except that prices have changed obviously; the GH1 is less expensive than it was (about $1200 now, vs. $1500 back then), and the t2i is way less expensive than the 7D, so that has to be taken into account.

[Vitaliy Kiselev]

Except that prices have changed obviously; the GH1 is less expensive than it was (about $1200 now, vs. $1500 back then), and the t2i is way less expensive than the 7D, so that has to be taken into account.

I want to specifically accent that GH1 body is about $640 now and this is cheaper than T2i body.
Plus you could mount very good old and cheap FD and MD lenses on GH1.
But not much wide lenses due to 2x crop factor.

[markyf]

As a digital cinema camera, things start to shift back into the t2i's favor, with its larger sensor and that it can have HDMI output to a monitor while recording, which the GH1 can't do.

Hey Barry,

Just read your great article on the GH1 vs. 7D. For the 7D, what you're saying is unless the camera operator is looking at a monitor, he or she can't see any video on the camera if the hdmi out is plugged in. Might make the camera tricky to operate, no?

[Barry_Green]

Very much so. But you can get a splitter and run two monitors if necessary, so the operator has one and the director has one.

In the end, you have to understand that these cameras (and especially the DSLRs, not so much the GH1) are just not made for video, and if you're going to try to incorporate them into a video workflow, you're going to have to do some frankensteining.

[markyf]

One more thing, DSLR vx. 170 type of camera. I am beginning to see that the real issue with DSLR isn't really skew, which can be worked around, but artifacting, which is always going to be there to some degree. All things being equal, would you get a cleaner image with a GH1 or a 170? Do the noise/low light issues of a smaller chip camera like a 170 make it somewhat less clean in some scenarios, making it kind of a pick your poison situation in terms of getting a clean image?

[Barry_Green]

Depends on what you mean by "clean". The DSLR has a definitely smoother texture to it; the 170 has a grittier texture to the footage. As far as grainy noise goes, the GH1 is cleaner in that aspect. But its "cleanness" is probably directly attributable to its main weakness, which is its weak codec. Noise is very difficult to compress, so I think the codec just eliminates all that detail, smoothing it out. Which also leads to the "mud" look.

A 170 is going to be a predictable, reliable, repeatable performer in every imaginable scenario. It's oriented towards professionals, with excellent onboard sound capability including XLR inputs, phantom power supply, manual audio controls, great pre-amps for a camcorder, and a headphone jack. GH1 has none of that. 170 has the most robust, solid codec of any camcorder anywhere near its price range; GH1 definitely doesn't have that. 170 has operational tools that make it a dream to work with in the field, such as an onboard waveform monitor and two levels of zebras and a spotmeter and built-in ND filters to give you incredible control over exposure; GH1 has none of that (but it does, at least, have a live histogram). The 170 has variable frame rates for all sorts of slow-mo and fast-mo effects; the GH1 has a much more limited set (1080/24, 720/60, and 720/30). The 170 can be hooked up to an external monitor, even using HD-SDI. The GH1 can't, unless you use the button press hack and then you'll get only standard-def composite, and even then you only get that as long as you're not recording; once you start recording you lose that monitor feed. The 170 has a power zoom, and manual zoom that keeps focus during the zoom; GH1 doesn't. There's a million things the 170 does that the GH1 doesn't.

But, you could buy three GH1 kits for the price of a single 170. And the GH1 can deliver 35mm cinema film-style shallow DOF; the 170 doesn't. And the GH1 can take an f/1.4 or even an f/0.95 lens for extreme low light performance, the 170 can't match that.