PDA

View Full Version : GH2 Philip Bloom Christmas Shootout



Pages : [1] 2

Boon
12-28-2011, 12:48 AM
Gh2, standing tall against the big boys in resolution test.
I'm sure Gh2 sales will go up now :)

http://philipbloom.net/2011/12/28/christmas-shootout/

roei z
12-28-2011, 01:25 AM
ridiculous GH2 quality.

Zxander34
12-28-2011, 01:39 AM
Makes me happy to be a Gh2 owner.

roei z
12-28-2011, 01:50 AM
not to mention the 1060i will give a superior slo-mo over those blurred 720p options (Sage?)

J Davis
12-28-2011, 03:32 AM
Considering I picked up my gh2 for $650 the quality is reDONKulous !

daveswan
12-28-2011, 06:35 AM
The Driftwood hacked GH2 is stupidly good.

Damn damn damn

Now I'm going to have to buy one

Damn :happy:

Ryan Farnes
12-28-2011, 06:36 AM
This is why I switched from a Canon...

Sage
12-28-2011, 07:37 AM
not to mention the 1060i will give a superior slo-mo over those blurred 720p options (Sage?)

Soon. I've one last card arriving today to test. And, scheduled to shoot some material today as well.

eiker_ir
12-28-2011, 08:16 AM
anyone knows which camera he used to shoot his intro in front of his desk?

c3hammer
12-28-2011, 08:32 AM
I think it says EX1 right at the end of the credits. Have to watch all the way through again to see exactly what it says though.

That is by far the most impressive test of the GH2's resolution I've seen. Super impressive! So much for an easily hackable GH3 coming out down the road :)

Cheers,
Pete

John Caballero
12-28-2011, 09:45 AM
No doubt that the GH2 with the hack is the camera to beat! It looks absolutely great!

diegocervo
12-28-2011, 10:12 AM
I wish the AF100 had the same resolution!

SuperSet
12-28-2011, 10:26 AM
Can someone link to the correct Intra hack that he's using?

Cosimo Bullo
12-28-2011, 10:41 AM
They're all on this page at pv:

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/953/gh2-patch-vault-most-popular-patches-in-one-place

Erik Naso
12-28-2011, 10:52 AM
I dont see the video. where is it?

Found it.

http://vimeo.com/34279033

c3hammer
12-28-2011, 11:32 AM
I just saw on Vimeo comments that they used the F3 with Slog for the desk shots.

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
12-28-2011, 12:09 PM
Considering I picked up my gh2 for $650 the quality is reDONKulous !

"$650"?!

J., you paid too much! :-)

I paid only $630 with free shipping for my body-only GH2 back in Dec. of 2010 ... man, those were the days! ;-)

But seriously: I think you'll agree, the GH2 has always been an amazing value, and an appropriately-hacked GH2 is an astounding value. Of course, I look forward to what Panasonic has in store for us in the new "GH3" (or whatever they call it, whenever it ships).

Cheers & happy shooting!

kurth
12-28-2011, 12:16 PM
my xxxxxxx god. the driftwood gh2 beats them all , easily.

roei z
12-28-2011, 12:34 PM
my xxxxxxx god. the driftwood gh2 beats them all , easily.

up to a point. C300 still has 4:2:2 advantage. but i don't like the canon color.

Razz16mm
12-28-2011, 12:53 PM
No doubt that the GH2 with the hack is the camera to beat! It looks absolutely great!

I'm seriously considering a GH2 for an interim camera now. At least until an affordable raw motion alternative comes along. Looks like the best compromise for the money for sure.

L1N3ARX
12-28-2011, 01:01 PM
OMG... this... is... WOW. I can just see all the people out there with far more expensive offerings just shaking their heads right now in disbelief. It is a fine day to be a GH2 owner!!! This test would have been unreal if Phil still had a red to add the real "bar" by which the rest of the cameras could be judged. Really too bad that all happened. There really is NO doubt, the hacked GH2 will go head to head with cameras 10k +. If you are into video at all, it's almost a crime not to own this camera.

roei z
12-28-2011, 01:10 PM
I'm seriously considering a GH2 for an interim camera now. At least until an affordable raw motion alternative comes along. Looks like the best compromise for the money for sure. Hearing it from you ?A serious cause for celebration ;)

Kholi
12-28-2011, 01:12 PM
Someone in the AF100 forum mentioned an air of REDuser in the gh2 forum...

Cant imagine why....

stoneinapond
12-28-2011, 01:17 PM
Someone in the AF100 forum mentioned an air of REDuser in the gh2 forum...

They're just jealous that they don't have the hack....:cry:

J Davis
12-28-2011, 01:19 PM
lol @ earlier comment, IMO gh2 only beats them all if its pixel / dollar
If cost is not in the equation then f3 slog and c300 are clear winners to my eye!
But we all value different things.

@Peter, wow $630 is quite a bargain price. The body only version wasn't available when I bought last month. My cam was actually $750 with tax - but I sold the 14-40 kit lens to get it down to $650

Ryan Farnes
12-28-2011, 01:45 PM
Someone in the AF100 forum mentioned an air of REDuser in the gh2 forum...

Cant imagine why....

A hacked GH2 is a superb camera, primarily due to its affordability. I'm glad people don't belittle others much if at all here. I do sometimes raise my eyebrows when someone like Andrew Reid says it resolved detail better than an F3, but whatever, its a close call. There is certainly some passion for the camera from time to time. The good thing is, the GH2 can stand on its own and is widely available. Its not premised on some high end $50000 camera that we think it will emulate.

One thing that is nice is that the "noise to substance" ratio here is lower than the aforementioned forum.

Hawk Teflon
12-28-2011, 01:50 PM
I'm not a GH2User (T2iUser here), but the more I hear about it, the more I'm liking it. Very nice.

shrigg
12-28-2011, 01:52 PM
Today is a GREAT DAY for the GH2, thank you Mr. Bloom for a well-produced comparison. Before Vitaliy finished the hack I grabbed my Japanese market GH2 with 14-42mm lens from a fellow DVXuser for $599... best deal I ever got on a camera.

daveswan
12-28-2011, 02:01 PM
Here's another 550D user who's about to jump on a GH2. Just have to think about my shopping list, and in what order to buy.

GH2

Mid-range Glide-Cam stabiliser

GTX580 card as a GPU with Avid / Sorrenson / DaVinci.

Can't afford all together, so probably the Glide-Cam which I can use with my 550D for shots of my current film.
Then the GH2
Finally the GTX580

Just have to be patient

DrDave
12-28-2011, 02:17 PM
Fun video! Is it just me, or is the stereo reversed in the opening spiel?

Razz16mm
12-28-2011, 02:19 PM
Hearing it from you ?A serious cause for celebration ;)

I appreciate the thought. GH2 hits a lot of buttons. The deciding factor for me is the ability to use both my fast 16mm zooms in ETC mode and a set of Minolta MD Rokkor primes for 35mm that are still in the camera cabinet. The easy adaptability of this camera is a real plus.

VMT
12-28-2011, 02:32 PM
No doubt the image quality of the GH2vk can stand with the best of the big boys, but I'm still saving money to get a C300. Looks to me the quality, usability and ergonomics of the C300 are worth its price. GH2vk will be my favorite B cam.

roei z
12-28-2011, 02:37 PM
I appreciate the thought. GH2 hits a lot of buttons. The deciding factor for me is the ability to use both my fast 16mm zooms in ETC mode and a set of Minolta MD Rokkor primes for 35mm that are still in the camera cabinet. The easy adaptability of this camera is a real plus.

waiting for a 16mm taste...

fargee
12-28-2011, 02:54 PM
i' ve been saving for af100 ; now im convinced that gh2 has better looking image. i think its time to buy some good lenses for my gh2 . She definitely deserves it.

Kholi
12-28-2011, 03:05 PM
If you haven't seen it, there's a lot of Zeiss S16 + GH2 stuff here: http://vimeo.com/33858689



I appreciate the thought. GH2 hits a lot of buttons. The deciding factor for me is the ability to use both my fast 16mm zooms in ETC mode and a set of Minolta MD Rokkor primes for 35mm that are still in the camera cabinet. The easy adaptability of this camera is a real plus.

Honestly, I am trying very hard ... very very hard, to find a way to justify shooting this entire feature out on S16mm lenses. ETC mode is really awesome, but to get it as clean as Non ETC mode you have to shoot 160-200ISO. But man, you have to just kind of calculate what we're talking about here:

. Zeiss Super 16mm Superspeed Set: 10-100/2, 5.9/2, 8/1.3, 9.8/2.4, 12/1.3, 16/1/3, 25/1.3 (requires shooting in ETC mode, which most of my footage has been from)
-- Downside to this is having to shoot in ETC, which is still pretty awesome looking on a massive screen (2K projector), but sometimes the noise can be overbearing.
-- The 5.9mm (which should equal about an 15mmish with ETC mode) is nice and wide, but with no focus ring (at all) it will be hard to use.
-- Upside? 10-100/2 Zoom? Technically wouldn't need another lens. But when I do, the others are swift and sharp.
-- Incredibly awesome vintage look out of the box. Swear it screams S16 when I look at it and just watch it all come together with color adjustments etc.

. Zeiss Standard Speed T2.1 Set: 16, 20, 28, 32, 40, 85 (all T2.1, which should be equal to F1.3)
-- 28mm Blooms wide open but is good at about 2.8 and on.-
-- No zoom, switching lenses means losing time, especially without an AC present.
-- Slow for exterior night work.

ETC mode = 2.4x Sensor Output but a straight up 1920x1080, and you can see the resolution is there. It's insane. So 2.4 X 5.9/T2 = 15mm ish with S16 DOF. Versus a 1.86 (although I think Gh2 in video mode might be like 1.7ish) x 16mm = 28ish FOV.

It's more about the speed (for me) and then the wide angle. Not to mention the S16s have sick close focus ranges (although the T2.1's are pretty awesome, too) and distortion control is pretty nice.

I've posted this a few times now but I really hope Quantum V6's noise patterns are an improvement over the already sick V2. It seems like the gains trickle down to ETC mode

Those are my two options right now, well that and possibly two Olympic Zooms depending on if I can score them or not. Those would be great: 14-34/2 and a 35-100/2, just the focus throw on the 35-100 is crazy, it's a loud lens and it's bulky. Still... images look quite nice.

bgundu
12-28-2011, 03:31 PM
The GH2 is an amazing camera but I still would prefer to shoot a feature with the AF100. In fact I used both recently in India, and used the GH2 in areas where it was too sensitive to shoot with the larger camera. Essentially I discovered, the lowlight capabilities, skew, audio, ND, waveform, and ergonomics were too important. Mind you, it was gorilla style. Perhaps in a controlled environment, the GH2 is cool. Of course, if you have a limited budget, the GH2 is a no brainer. Here's a teaser of the feature I DP'd:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?270611-Feature-Film-shot-in-India

Kholi
12-28-2011, 03:35 PM
Hey Bob,

Did you use a hack? Loading up the teaser now.

bgundu
12-28-2011, 03:35 PM
No hack. couldn't risk it.


Hey Bob,

Did you use a hack? Loading up the teaser now.

Erik Naso
12-28-2011, 04:38 PM
i' ve been saving for af100 ; now im convinced that gh2 has better looking image. i think its time to buy some good lenses for my gh2 . She definitely deserves it.
I wouldn't go that far. Yes the GH2 is a great camera. I have both and wouldn't trade in the AF-100 for a GH2. 2 XLR inputs and head phone jack, over and under cranking, built in ND. All good reasons. The AF-100 is still the best camera for the money, and I feel the GH2 is as well.

OldCorpse
12-28-2011, 06:33 PM
I wouldn't go that far. Yes the GH2 is a great camera. I have both and wouldn't trade in the AF-100 for a GH2. 2 XLR inputs and head phone jack, over and under cranking, built in ND. All good reasons. The AF-100 is still the best camera for the money, and I feel the GH2 is as well.

True enough, but it's a bit more complicated. Most indie folks don't buy just the GH2 - like all DSLRs, it's too limited for video. So you must spend a bit more $ to bring it up to speed. That's where you start chipping away at the AF100 advantages. Take the ND filters - spend a few bucks and get the Heliopan... not quite as convenient as built-in, but it does level the field. The XLR inputs and headphone jack - not really relevant if you do separate sound not to camera... which you should anyway if you want quality audio, good external recorder, mixer, mic. You gotta also spring for some kind of monitor, maybe a SmallHD. You'll never get the GH2 to be equal to the AF100, but it'll be close enough, and still well under $3K. Plus because it's modular, you have more flexibility. So I would say, it's getting harder and harder to justify an AF100 if you are on a super tight budget and literally every dollar counts. I think the GH2 is a tremendous competitor.

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
12-28-2011, 07:31 PM
Someone in the AF100 forum mentioned an air of REDuser in the gh2 forum ... Cant imagine why....

I get the joke, but: Um, no.

If EVERY. SINGLE. POST. HERE. kissed the *ss of Panasonic's President, then maybe I'd say yeah, we GH2 enthusiasts give off a REDuser-like fragrance.

But since the GH2 users who post here are about as likely to b*tch about the GH2 as praise it, I much prefer these forums.

We GH2 enthusiasts get pretty excited here sometimes, but at least it's reality-based excitement, or maybe more fairly: Proportionally bang-for-the-buck-based excitement.

I can only stand reading REDuser for David Mullen's excellent monster Q&A thread (which he should get a special Oscar for!):
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?2714-Ask-David-Mullen-ANYTHING

Cheers!

fargee
12-28-2011, 09:27 PM
I wouldn't go that far. Yes the GH2 is a great camera. I have both and wouldn't trade in the AF-100 for a GH2. 2 XLR inputs and head phone jack, over and under cranking, built in ND. All good reasons. The AF-100 is still the best camera for the money, and I feel the GH2 is as well.

I wouldn't trade GH2's image quality for any of the AF-100's advantages you mentioned.

Cosimo Bullo
12-28-2011, 10:19 PM
If you haven't seen it, there's a lot of Zeiss S16 + GH2 stuff here: http://vimeo.com/33858689




Honestly, I am trying very hard ... very very hard, to find a way to justify shooting this entire feature out on S16mm lenses. ETC mode is really awesome, but to get it as clean as Non ETC mode you have to shoot 160-200ISO. But man, you have to just kind of calculate what we're talking about here:

. Zeiss Super 16mm Superspeed Set: 10-100/2, 5.9/2, 8/1.3, 9.8/2.4, 12/1.3, 16/1/3, 25/1.3 (requires shooting in ETC mode, which most of my footage has been from)
-- Downside to this is having to shoot in ETC, which is still pretty awesome looking on a massive screen (2K projector), but sometimes the noise can be overbearing.
-- The 5.9mm (which should equal about an 15mmish with ETC mode) is nice and wide, but with no focus ring (at all) it will be hard to use.
-- Upside? 10-100/2 Zoom? Technically wouldn't need another lens. But when I do, the others are swift and sharp.
-- Incredibly awesome vintage look out of the box. Swear it screams S16 when I look at it and just watch it all come together with color adjustments etc.

. Zeiss Standard Speed T2.1 Set: 16, 20, 28, 32, 40, 85 (all T2.1, which should be equal to F1.3)
-- 28mm Blooms wide open but is good at about 2.8 and on.-
-- No zoom, switching lenses means losing time, especially without an AC present.
-- Slow for exterior night work.

ETC mode = 2.4x Sensor Output but a straight up 1920x1080, and you can see the resolution is there. It's insane. So 2.4 X 5.9/T2 = 15mm ish with S16 DOF. Versus a 1.86 (although I think Gh2 in video mode might be like 1.7ish) x 16mm = 28ish FOV.

It's more about the speed (for me) and then the wide angle. Not to mention the S16s have sick close focus ranges (although the T2.1's are pretty awesome, too) and distortion control is pretty nice.

I've posted this a few times now but I really hope Quantum V6's noise patterns are an improvement over the already sick V2. It seems like the gains trickle down to ETC mode

Those are my two options right now, well that and possibly two Olympic Zooms depending on if I can score them or not. Those would be great: 14-34/2 and a 35-100/2, just the focus throw on the 35-100 is crazy, it's a loud lens and it's bulky. Still... images look quite nice.

I don't think it's worth the color quality loss to shoot ETC with S16 lenses vs full sensor, even if that means struggling through with Nikkors....

Kholi
12-28-2011, 10:25 PM
I don't think it's worth the color quality loss to shoot ETC with S16 lenses vs full sensor, even if that means struggling through with Nikkors....

Where did "color quality loss" come from? There's no discernible difference in that area shooting ETC or Non, only the differences the glass introduces in cast, sharpness, etc and the greater noise dB that ETC mode introduces.

Cosimo Bullo
12-28-2011, 10:29 PM
I feel like the ETC stuff I've shot (using 16mm lenses from my Bolex) looked much noisier colorwise, but I may be off-base as in fact I've not tested much in ETC mode since installing the hack a few days after it became available.

Also, for what it's worth, the ETC stuff in the link above did look sharper to my eye than the 200 crop. Love seeing Santa Monica again!

Kholi
12-28-2011, 10:35 PM
I feel like the ETC stuff I've shot (using 16mm lenses from my Bolex) looked much noisier colorwise, but I may be off-base as in fact I've not tested much in ETC mode since installing the hack a few days after it became available.

Ah, that's because it is noisier. My guess is about 2 stops noisier than non ETC mode. My threshold for ETC mode is 800, non ETC is 1600. And, of course, your 16mm Lenses weren't' designed for digital sensors, so naturally you're going to experience some strange things. The ETC mode itself and shooting the subset of 2K/1080 pixels wouldn't be any different if you had a lens designed for the application and an identical one designed for the full sensor.

Even shooting through the center of modern lenses kinda shows that.

I do, however, agree that it's a bit of a challenge to justify. I've seen the footage on a large enough screen at its noisiest and I love the look, I also would like to be able to shoot at a 200ISO (no higher than 320) for a serious project in ETC mode. It's nowhere near as bad if you "convert" the chroma noise to luma noise.

Could justify shooting 640~800 in non ETc mode... on up to 1600 if need be. =\ Which sucks because that also means I need to go and get a 10mm Ultra prime to satisfy the need for a fast wide.

Hence... using the 5D for wide interiors...

Phenixone
12-28-2011, 10:37 PM
As said before, All the AF100's advantages have now been compensated with external tools that will even survive the Camera refresh.

-No XLR? Use an external recorder and my personal tip, feed back a wireless to the gh2 as a backup/sync sound. Your sound gear will survive your camera for sure.
-No waveform? invest in a DP6 from SmallHD, you can even use this monitor on a RED or even on an AF100, so... yeah
-No ND's, err I believe that a nice matte box with ND's are the best way personally, otherwise you have the Helioplan NDs, but Polarizers are tricky.
-Camera is in plastic and may break? For the price of one AF100, buy 3 GH2's and you are safe. Personally the choice is made..
-Focus nudges the lens. Same issue on the AF100, it's due to the mount. Get a good mount with a rail fix. There you go
-Color shift on monitor and HDMI out. After some training you get to learn how it behaves and the problem disappears.
-Battery life. I use Dolgin's battery plate. I power both my GH2 and DP6 on one battery for 4 hours.
-No slow motion. You have the 30% slow. not real slow but not bad. Okay, rent an AF100 for the day in case of slow mo (AF100 is great for that with cranking)
That's it.

Now the great things about this camera.
-Small, I mean super freaking tiny! I had situation where my rig would not fit (thinking subway and crowd) the gh2 is so small and light!
-Versatile. You want ti to look like a 35mm camera, no problem. dress it up and you're good to go.

-- Actually I really consider the GH2 close to the film mentality. No (good) sound, no auto tools. All manual. Now go tell me that Spielberg's monitor is slightly shifting color when recoding on a Panavision HAHA! SD video tap rules! --

Me? REDuser like fan? No! If Canon, or Sony or anyone else, even RED (super cheap RED would be nice) comes up with a better camera in my budget, the bye bye Panasonic hello (name of new cheap revolutionary camera here)


To get back to PB's testing. Let's see for the rest of the tests, GH2 is pretty contrasty, even in soft settings and may fail more in this part. Wait and see

Kholi
12-28-2011, 10:41 PM
You forgot professional monitoring connections... which is a serious issue. One I'd say is more serious (to me at least) than any issue on that list. Feeding a signal to a solid production monitor is a severe pain.

Are people actually complaining about battery life? I can function with no worries on two if there's power around to keep the other one charging, three to four if there isn't.

What's the big deal??? Am I missing something?

bgundu
12-28-2011, 10:43 PM
I had both the Af100 and GH2 kitted out on location and I always reached for the Af100. I was also shooting to the Ninja (more for backup). But damn that skew is pretty bad on the GH2. They certainly both have there place. I have a scarlet on the way too. Different tools. Heck I still have my HVX200 with the Brevis!

yoclay
12-28-2011, 11:41 PM
as said before, all the af100's advantages have now been compensated with external tools that will even survive the camera refresh.

-no xlr? Use an external recorder and my personal tip, feed back a wireless to the gh2 as a backup/sync sound. Your sound gear will survive your camera for sure.
-no waveform? Invest in a dp6 from smallhd, you can even use this monitor on a red or even on an af100, so... Yeah
-no nd's, err i believe that a nice matte box with nd's are the best way personally, otherwise you have the helioplan nds, but polarizers are tricky.
-camera is in plastic and may break? For the price of one af100, buy 3 gh2's and you are safe. Personally the choice is made..
-focus nudges the lens. Same issue on the af100, it's due to the mount. Get a good mount with a rail fix. There you go
-color shift on monitor and hdmi out. After some training you get to learn how it behaves and the problem disappears.
-battery life. I use dolgin's battery plate. I power both my gh2 and dp6 on one battery for 4 hours.
-no slow motion. You have the 30% slow. Not real slow but not bad. Okay, rent an af100 for the day in case of slow mo (af100 is great for that with cranking)
that's it.

Now the great things about this camera.
-small, i mean super freaking tiny! I had situation where my rig would not fit (thinking subway and crowd) the gh2 is so small and light!
-versatile. You want ti to look like a 35mm camera, no problem. Dress it up and you're good to go.

-- actually i really consider the gh2 close to the film mentality. No (good) sound, no auto tools. All manual. Now go tell me that spielberg's monitor is slightly shifting color when recoding on a panavision haha! Sd video tap rules! --

me? Reduser like fan? No! If canon, or sony or anyone else, even red (super cheap red would be nice) comes up with a better camera in my budget, the bye bye panasonic hello (name of new cheap revolutionary camera here)


to get back to pb's testing. Let's see for the rest of the tests, gh2 is pretty contrasty, even in soft settings and may fail more in this part. Wait and see


banding.

lawriejaffa
12-29-2011, 12:45 AM
Yeah i was delighted with how it performed utilising the hack as well, but was the mega bit rate not really high for Blooms short clip? 170mb+ or something (maybe i got that wrong!) So im just wondering with the hack what levels are sustainable, because you know what, like so many folks id happily plonk down for a gh2 b cam if with a hack like that could deliver such promising results!

Danielvilliers
12-29-2011, 02:38 AM
I am starting to believe Vitaliy when he says the Lumix division is much better than the Panasonic video division. They have there $ 700 photo camera competing against the + 10K Sony and Canon cameras, while their $ 5000 video camera that was suppose to be an upgrade to the dslr barely out-resolve them. I won't talk about the DR (highlight) also which is below the dslr again. It is true that it has other qualities but in terms of image quality it is barely better than the dslr if you factor in things like moire/aliasing/skew. But the gh2 would loose only on skew and win in every other department. For me image quality is the most important thing, the rest, I will deal with it, perhaps because of my shooting (more controlled) for short or commercial. I can understand that people that d events etc will prefer a camera like the Af-100.

I hope that Panasonic will bring some of their lumix people to their video division. A next generation gh3 sensor with one stop better DR and Iso (Hope the resolution stays the same 16 megapixel is good enough), put in the shell of a proper video camera with at least 50 mbs (option for 100 would be better), 10 bit and a log picture profile, will sell a lot more camera in the AF-100 price bracket. I sincerely wish that they open to what they have (gh technology) and not become defensive and try to stick to their AF type of technology.

qap15
12-29-2011, 04:46 AM
Does Panasonic really realize that the little GH2 "David" is fighting their battles in an almost saturated market and a competition stiff as never before. I 've heard that robots would one day turn to their owners, but didn't know how or when? A camera which the other wing don't want to hear a word of is defending itself gallantly.

dcloud
12-29-2011, 05:46 AM
As said before, All the AF100's advantages have now been compensated with external tools that will even survive the Camera refresh.

-No XLR? Use an external recorder and my personal tip, feed back a wireless to the gh2 as a backup/sync sound. Your sound gear will survive your camera for sure.
-No waveform? invest in a DP6 from SmallHD, you can even use this monitor on a RED or even on an AF100, so... yeah
-No ND's, err I believe that a nice matte box with ND's are the best way personally, otherwise you have the Helioplan NDs, but Polarizers are tricky.
-Camera is in plastic and may break? For the price of one AF100, buy 3 GH2's and you are safe. Personally the choice is made..
-Focus nudges the lens. Same issue on the AF100, it's due to the mount. Get a good mount with a rail fix. There you go
-Color shift on monitor and HDMI out. After some training you get to learn how it behaves and the problem disappears.
-Battery life. I use Dolgin's battery plate. I power both my GH2 and DP6 on one battery for 4 hours.
-No slow motion. You have the 30% slow. not real slow but not bad. Okay, rent an AF100 for the day in case of slow mo (AF100 is great for that with cranking)
That's it.


i dont see the point in comparing both af100 & gh2. I wouldnt do any of your suggested workarounds if i were to shoot. it all comes down simply to the user.

to me, I dont see any discernable difference in resolution between AF100 & GH2. and after seeing papa's comparison, (which included desaturating the GH2) its not that big of a problem. Yes when it comes to fine details, the AF100 blurs it out.

I still see moire on the GH2 and if you tell me its something you can live with, its the same thing ill tell you with the af100, I can live with the blurred out fine detail.

now mind you, i own both. I love how papa;s test made me see how close you can make both cameras look.

bottomline, we all have different way of shooting (i wouldnt buy all that gear when it will cost almost the same as an af100 :\) I prefer my style of shooting with the gh2 guerrilla on the fly and without setups. I like the AF100's features when i simply want to shoot faster on the set.

Razz16mm
12-29-2011, 06:04 AM
It is smart for Panasonic to let people hack the GH2. Think how much they can learn from the process themselves that could apply to future models.

yoclay
12-29-2011, 06:13 AM
It is smart for Panasonic to let people hack the GH2. Think how much they can learn from the process themselves that could apply to future models.

Panasonic isn't letting anyone do anything. The hack is happening despite them. If they were really smart they would have an S35 sensor on the market in the form of the Gh2 and make it open source.

TheDingo
12-29-2011, 07:43 AM
It is smart for Panasonic to let people hack the GH2.

Panasonic encrypted the GH-2 firmware to stop anyone from hacking the camera, but Vitaliy Kiselev ( an extremely talented and resourceful programmer ) found a way around this and made the hacked GH-2 possible. We all owe Vitaliy a big show of gratitude ( a donation at his site is a start ) for the work he has done.

TheDingo
12-29-2011, 07:51 AM
So im just wondering with the hack what levels are sustainable, because you know what, like so many folks id happily plonk down for a gh2 b cam if with a hack like that could deliver such promising results!

You need high speed memory cards to be able to shoot reliable long form videos with these ultra high bit rates. ( 170+ Mbit/sec )

The Sandisk 95 MB/sec 64 GB SDXC card ( $190 at B&H Photo ) is the only card I've heard that can reliably "span" ( split long videos in to 4 GB segments ) at the 176 Mbit/sec data-rate.

Osslund
12-29-2011, 07:56 AM
GH2 is a camera with super value just like the GH1 is and compared to the other videocameras AF100 is also a camera with great value. Go Panasonic!

HotConductor
12-29-2011, 10:16 AM
The GH2 is simply a stunning camera. The only drawback for me is its appearance. It looks like a dang toy. I hate it when clients see my work and then say 'oh, you must shoot on Canon!' No, and I don't edit on a Mac either. I have honestly thought about buying a broken 5Dmkii body, carving it out, and fitting a GH2 in there, JUST to be the guy that people walk up to and say "awesome, LOOOOOVE the 5D", only for me to turn around a go "AAAHHHHH HA! Gotcha! Its a hacked GH2 running an Intra-frame codec at 80Mb onto SD cards, with no overheating and less moire than your 5D. Wha wha whaaaaaattt???"

For many of us it is ALL about the image. Everything else is secondary. Run around the world with a GH2, 20mm pancake lens and TONS of batteries and cards, you can go all day/night/week/year-long. Audio can be recorded on a field recorder and for many people (commercials, promos, documentaries) audio is done entirely in post production.

DrDave
12-29-2011, 11:06 AM
One thing I would note about this test is that Philip Bloom chose a very revealing frame to judge the resolution of the camera: a brick structure at a considerable distance with both straight lines and curved arches. Lots of other details packed into that frame, plus some water which is also revealing. But I would say for sure the bricks at a distance with the arches (and shadows) are a much more interesting test than a flat, regular wall at nearfield, or even a chart which is always artificial. I've looked very carefully at footy from the Nex 5N, and in literally three seconds I was willing to give it the thumbs down after seeing the way it rendered complex objects and colors in that frame. Very revealing.

Ian-T
12-29-2011, 11:22 AM
Werd!!

maarek
12-29-2011, 11:43 AM
I've looked very carefully at footy from the Nex 5N, and in literally three seconds I was willing to give it the thumbs down after seeing the way it rendered complex objects and colors in that frame. Very revealing.

That's because Philip deinterlaced the Sony nex5n 25p material. It looks 50% worse than it is. Look at the 50p nex5n shot, it has none of those aliasing lines that the previous 25p shot has. That's because they had their settings completely wrong in FCP.

It's a pretty bad mistake on their part.

nigelbb
12-29-2011, 12:11 PM
Does the hack increase resolution of the sensor? I thought that it improved detail in the shadows & rendering of motion plus provided a better basis for colour grading. This video is no test at all of the improvements that the hack might bring. Resolution of GH2 video is already outstanding for the price & better than the AF101. The GH2 clips would likely have looked just the same with stock firmware. Sorry if this isn't the answer for those looking for Hack validation alongside GH2 validation:-)

Razz16mm
12-29-2011, 12:24 PM
Does the hack increase resolution of the sensor? I thought that it improved detail in the shadows & rendering of motion plus provided a better basis for colour grading. This video is no test at all of the improvements that the hack might bring. Resolution of GH2 video is already outstanding for the price & better than the AF101. The GH2 clips would likely have looked just the same with stock firmware. Sorry if this isn't the answer for those looking for Hack validation alongside GH2 validation:-)

No but the hacked high bit rate intra frame codecs preserve much more detail in moving shots than the stock version. Phillip's test was not so useful for judging the relative quality of the codecs involved for motion since it was a static shot.

mpgxsvcd
12-29-2011, 12:52 PM
No but the hacked high bit rate intra frame codecs preserve much more detail in moving shots than the stock version. Phillip's test was not so useful for judging the relative quality of the codecs involved for motion since it was a static shot.

Do you have an example of any footage to back up your claim?

mpgxsvcd
12-29-2011, 12:54 PM
That's because Philip deinterlaced the Sony nex5n 25p material. It looks 50% worse than it is. Look at the 50p nex5n shot, it has none of those aliasing lines that the previous 25p shot has. That's because they had their settings completely wrong in FCP.

It's a pretty bad mistake on their part.

Does Philip know this? I am kind of surprised that an experienced filmmaker like that would make such a rookie mistake.

Kholi
12-29-2011, 01:08 PM
Do you have an example of any footage to back up your claim?

I share his view. We've already seem the proof in gh1 vs gh1 hack tests. The same can be applied to Gh2 on a basic level, although not all flavors of avchd are created equal

Is there footage showing otherwise?

DrDave
12-29-2011, 01:19 PM
That's because Philip deinterlaced the Sony nex5n 25p material. It looks 50% worse than it is. Look at the 50p nex5n shot, it has none of those aliasing lines that the previous 25p shot has. That's because they had their settings completely wrong in FCP.

It's a pretty bad mistake on their part.
Interesting. I would not be able to tell deinterlaced just by looking at it. But it did look pretty dreadful, and I have come to expect unpleasant surprises from Sony. Maybe they should change the name to "Next!" And seriously, Sony, why no built in IS in the cam for stills??? I mean, Olly can do it. I still think the "Curved bricks at a distance" is very revealing. Going to look around for something similar, although brick is not common here in California.

maarek
12-29-2011, 01:38 PM
Does Philip know this? I am kind of surprised that an experienced filmmaker like that would make such a rookie mistake.

I gave him a message on his board, he kinda overlook the issue because I was firstly blaming it on Premiere. (They used FCP). But the underlining issue is the same. With FCP it's also very easy to get them mixed up because the program will uncorrectly detect certain material as interlaced. Then when the sequence interlace setting is set to none, FCP will deinterlace all material that it thinks is interlaced. That's why the Nex 5n looks very bad and that's why the next shot with 50p Nex5n material looks better aliasing wise as the software didn't deinterlace that.

It's actually quite easy to make those mistakes with FCP as the program doesn't really tell you what it's doing. I've seen about a dozen sequences that have been messed up because of that while working in a post house.

One thing that kinda bugs me is that it appears he will not fix this which is completely a software fault. Not of the cameras. A more realistic sample of the nex5n is this:

http://vimeo.com/28751834

qap15
12-29-2011, 02:25 PM
............A more realistic sample of the nex5n is this:

http://vimeo.com/28751834 where are the bricks, i cannot see them in your sample?

Ian-T
12-29-2011, 03:37 PM
Do you have an example of any footage to back up your claim?

Seriously?? Surely you (of all people) jest.

Mike@AF
12-29-2011, 08:37 PM
Zeiss Standard Speed T2.1 Set: 16, 20, 28, 32, 40, 85 (all T2.1, which should be equal to F1.3)

Do you really think it loses that much light? An article by Matthew Duclos on the Zeiss CP.2's made it seem like there was much much less loss when comparing F to T. You're basically saying a full stop, which seems like a lot.

http://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/cp2vszf2/

"The Compact Primes will provide a much smoother, creamier bokeh thanks to the 14 bladed aperture design but you won’t be able to pull off the crazy shallow depth of field shots because the CP.2 lenses are all limited to f/2 (T2.1) at most."

Mike@AF
12-29-2011, 09:15 PM
I own both an AF100 and a GH2. Personally, I am considering selling my AF100 and sticking to the GH2 with the hack. With the hack, the GH2 should have more detail in the images than the AF100, which we're told will not ever be able to be hacked. However, it's too early as far as Philip Bloom's shootout goes to make a decision if you were to make a decision based on that. We've only seen part 1 of the shootout, and being that resolution and detail isn't the only thing that makes up an image, there's much more to be seen (no pun intended). The AF100 has many benefits over the GH2, namely in the customization of the scene files. That could go a long way in being able to record superior image over the GH2.

As far as other benefits the AF100 has over the GH2, I agree with others that those can be overcome with the GH2 by adding additional components to the camera system such as an external monitor, recording double system sound, matte box (which an AF100 user might have anyway) with filters or screw-on filters, etc. However, certain shooting situations would still benefit from those features being built-in to the camera, just as certain shooting situations would benefit from a camera as small as the GH2.

It boils down to each individual shooter and each individual project that's being shot. Everyone is going to be different. I've shot films with solely the GH1 (when I had it), solely with the AF100, and a combination of the AF100 and GH2 (because the AF100 wouldn't work for the shots we got with the GH2 due to size and portability). So it really just depends. That said, what I shot with the AF100 could have easily been shot with the GH2.

Part of the reason for me to sell my AF100 is that I really want a Scarlet or an Epic. Selling my AF100 now and still having the GH2 lets me keep a camera I can continue to shoot with, but also lets me have additional money ready to put towards a Scarlet.

Lastly, I don't think anyone should make a decision based solely on what Philip Bloom's shootout shows us, or what Philip Bloom or anyone else says. Do your own tests, come to your own conclusions, and choose the camera or cameras that's right for you and your situation.

Kholi
12-29-2011, 09:27 PM
Do you really think it loses that much light? An article by Matthew Duclos on the Zeiss CP.2's made it seem like there was much much less loss when comparing F to T. You're basically saying a full stop, which seems like a lot.

http://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/cp2vszf2/

"The Compact Primes will provide a much smoother, creamier bokeh thanks to the 14 bladed aperture design but you won’t be able to pull off the crazy shallow depth of field shots because the CP.2 lenses are all limited to f/2 (T2.1) at most."

T stop to F Stop scaling/conversion depends on lens set. Standard Speed T2.1's are older, I believe they F-Stop @ T2.1 is about 1.3, but may be more like 1.6. I don't have the exact measurements.

CP.2's were original Zeiss ZF's, it's definitely going to be closer there as it's newer and more "refined" glass, and the design really hasn't changed much more than (not sure again, would have to fact check) the blade count?

Edit here: I know Superspeeds aren't going to get you to 0.95 @ T1.3, that should be like F1.2 at the max. So maybe Standards are more like F1.6 or F1.8.

Mike@AF
12-29-2011, 09:42 PM
Makes sense that the age of the glass is definitely a factor. I wasn't thinking about that. Seems like a lot of light loss though.

I think CP.2's are based on the ZF.2's, which are still very similar to the ZF's, but just a little slower. I'd be interested to know what the F-stops on the original ZF's translates to in T-stops. Part of the reason I still have my ZF's is because I'm assuming they're faster than the CP.2's. But if it's possible for my ZF 50 f1.4 to be just like the CP.2 50 T2 as far as light transmission, then I'll have to search for some crazy deals on the CP.2's. I'd much rather have the cinema mechanics and extra aperture blades on the CP.2's.

Kholi
12-29-2011, 09:47 PM
Makes sense that the age of the glass is definitely a factor. I wasn't thinking about that. Seems like a lot of light loss though.

I think CP.2's are based on the ZF.2's, which are still very similar to the ZF's, but just a little slower. I'd be interested to know what the F-stops on the original ZF's translates to in T-stops. Part of the reason I still have my ZF's is because I'm assuming they're faster than the CP.2's. But if it's possible for my ZF 50 f1.4 to be just like the CP.2 50 T2 as far as light transmission, then I'll have to search for some crazy deals on the CP.2's. I'd much rather have the cinema mechanics and extra aperture blades on the CP.2's.

The good about the T2.1 set is that, for old glass, they're actually pretty decent wide open. The 28/T2.1 is a bit of a headache to be honest, it blooms terribly so and guess which lens I'm inclined to reach for the most?

However, I'm sort of revamping my thought process and considering grabbing the 20, instead.

One thing about the CP.2 50, which I haven't been able to qualify personally but have heard it from set owners, is that it is definitely a better piece of glass than the 50/1.4 at the same apertures. I am still considering going to a set of CP.2 Nikons as a back-up for size/weight, but the widest in the set I have access to is a 21mm and that's not wide enough at all.

Otherwise, they're sick lenses and I sincerely cannot wait to see the new Zooms and Anamorphics heading our way.

Mike@AF
12-29-2011, 10:04 PM
I've heard the comparison of the CP.2 50 to the ZF.2 50, but never to the old ZF 50. So maybe the CP.2's are based on the old ZF's or a combination of the old and new depending on the focal length.

I agree that the 21mm still isn't quite wide enough in some situations with the 4/3 sensor. On a S35 sensor I think it's okay. 18 would be better, but I've heard terrible things about the CP.2 18 and ZF/ZF.2 18, plus it's pretty slow.

I think those Zeiss anamorphics are going to be really expensive. $20k range each. Should be cool to see how they stack up against the Hawks though. In general I prefer the Zeiss image.

simonpwood
12-29-2011, 10:14 PM
Love it.

This sums up the difference between Canon DSLR users and GH2 users quite eloquently.

The Canon folk bought their DSLRs so they could get everything in the background out of focus. The GH2 users realized they couldn't get the background out of focus so they start raving about the fine detail in the far distance! Har har! That, and the fact that they have to take ten big steps backwards to get a decent composition....

BTW, I seem to remember the distance was in perfect focus back in the 'ye olde 3 CCD' days when the whole DSLR craze started. Back to square one it seems.

Fun test though.

(BTW - this is just an observation - no need to go all 'RedUser' on me - I think that all of these cameras are great)....

DrDave
12-29-2011, 10:33 PM
I bought the GH2 because I needed a new camera that would fit my lens collection. I have zero issues getting things in focus or outta focus, unless I'm wearing the wrong glasses.

Mike@AF
12-29-2011, 10:39 PM
Love it.


This sums up the difference between Canon DSLR users and GH2 users quite eloquently.

The Canon folk bought their DSLRs so they could get everything in the background out of focus. The GH2 users realized they couldn't get the background out of focus so they start raving about the fine detail in the far distance! Har har! That, and the fact that they have to take ten big steps backwards to get a decent composition....

BTW, I seem to remember the distance was in perfect focus back in the 'ye olde 3 CCD' days when the whole DSLR craze started. Back to square one it seems.

Fun test though.

(BTW - this is just an observation - no need to go all 'RedUser' on me - I think that all of these cameras are great)....

Your post seems rather pointless unless your aim was to start an argument. I've had no issue with getting shallow depth of field with my 4/3 cameras and wider lenses has solved almost all FOV issues.

Thomas Smet
12-29-2011, 11:16 PM
Love it.

This sums up the difference between Canon DSLR users and GH2 users quite eloquently.

The Canon folk bought their DSLRs so they could get everything in the background out of focus. The GH2 users realized they couldn't get the background out of focus so they start raving about the fine detail in the far distance! Har har! That, and the fact that they have to take ten big steps backwards to get a decent composition....

BTW, I seem to remember the distance was in perfect focus back in the 'ye olde 3 CCD' days when the whole DSLR craze started. Back to square one it seems.

Fun test though.

(BTW - this is just an observation - no need to go all 'RedUser' on me - I think that all of these cameras are great)....

Please read this article on the myth of Canon depth of field vs GH2.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/4279/how-the-gh2-is-still-top-dog-for-video-quality

Kholi
12-29-2011, 11:47 PM
[FONT=Times]

Your post seems rather pointless unless you aim was to start an argument. I've had no issue with getting shallow depth of field with my 4/3 cameras and wider lenses has solved almost all FOV issues.


Please read this article on the myth of Canon depth of field vs GH2.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/4279/how-the-gh2-is-still-top-dog-for-video-quality

At least something came of it.

I am a little lost on Andrews calculation of 7mm's off, though. It's not an equal calculation of 1.86x in video mode that we got with the GH1 a while back.

He's saying that a 7mm would become a 14mm, which is around 1.86x, but a 32 becomes a 39. Maybe I've been calculating the FOV all wrong and not comparing enough.

Mike@AF
12-30-2011, 12:17 AM
Yeah, it's not a blanket 7mm off.

I use Abel Cine's FOV calculator and that shows a 1.4x crop factor when compared to S35 film at 16x9. Compared to Red it's 1.3x for the Red One/Scarlet and 1.5x for the Epic, also 1.3x for F3, F35, and 1.4x compared to Alexa. A lot of people compare 4/3 to FF (that's where the 2x crop factor came from when compared to the 5D), which is wrong because typically movies are not shot FF. Really, the crop factor isn't that bad.

http://www.abelcine.com/fov/

Kholi
12-30-2011, 12:23 AM
Yeah, it's not a blanket 7mm off.

I use Abel Cine's FOV calculator and that shows a 1.4x crop factor when compared to S35 film at 16x9. Compared to Red it's 1.3x for the Red One/Scarlet and 1.5x for the Epic, also 1.3x for F3, F35, and 1.4x compared to Alexa. A lot of people compare 4/3 to FF (that's where the 2x crop factor came from when compared to the 5D), which is wrong because typically movies are not shot FF. Really, the crop factor isn't that bad.

http://www.abelcine.com/fov/

GH2's not up there, though. I wish we knew EXACTLY what the dimensions of a GH2 non ETC mode and ETC mode recorded frame was. That would help a TON in calculating the FOV to specifics.

simonpwood
12-30-2011, 12:46 AM
Please read this article on the myth of Canon depth of field vs GH2.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/4279/how-the-gh2-is-still-top-dog-for-video-quality

Wow. That article really shows the extent of the crop factor on the GH2. I'll have to get some seriously wide and seriously fast lenses if I ever get one. The guy who wrote that article really loves his camera though; almost to the point of seeking validation.

BTW - like I say I like all of these cameras, including the GH2. There is no denying that the GH2 cameras resolution trumps the other Canons, and seems to be punching way above its weight with the large sensor video cameras.

However, looking at videos online you get a sense that shallow DOF is harder to attain, and the colors and the overall 'look' doesn't have the same 'mojo' as the canons.

Now maybe the DOF thing is simply that people have moved past it, or maybe that they simply don't have the choice of lenses for the M4/3.

The fact is that I thought long and hard about getting GH2, but eventually settled on a Canon. The main reason being that I have a collection of lenses that would work better with the more standard sized Canon sensor, but would be unacceptable cropped with the M4/3.

That said there seems to be more and more lenses available for the M4/3 format, but I imagine that a number of people would be reticent to invest in glass for a niche sensor size that is not supported by the majority of manufacturers.

Anyway, fun test, look forward to seeing more.

Mike@AF
12-30-2011, 12:49 AM
GH2's not up there, though. I wish we knew EXACTLY what the dimensions of a GH2 non ETC mode and ETC mode recorded frame was. That would help a TON in calculating the FOV to specifics.

Use AF100. They both are m4/3.

Mike@AF
12-30-2011, 12:51 AM
Wow. That article really shows the extent of the crop factor on the GH2. I'll have to get some seriously wide and seriously fast lenses if I ever get one. The guy who wrote that article really loves his camera though; almost to the point of seeking validation.

In that article it's being compared to the 5D, which is a full frame sensor. For video, you don't want to compare to full frame. For stills, full frame is okay to compare, but not for video. Try the Abel Cine calculator linked to in a few posts back.

Kholi
12-30-2011, 01:00 AM
Wow. That article really shows the extent of the crop factor on the GH2. I'll have to get some seriously wide and seriously fast lenses if I ever get one. The guy who wrote that article really loves his camera though; almost to the point of seeking validation.

This is true. I struggle with it as well.



However, looking at videos online you get a sense that shallow DOF is harder to attain, and the colors and the overall 'look' doesn't have the same 'mojo' as the canons.

Arbitrary. Everything can be run through post. If I added a five pixel blur radius to GH2 footage and graded it, I bet you couldn't tel it from Canon footage, which can't touch Nikon for color representation to begin with.



Now maybe the DOF thing is simply that people have moved past it, or maybe that they simply don't have the choice of lenses for the M4/3.

Or maybe some people think it's not important in comparison to overall image clarity? DOF versus resolved Detail. I guess it's a choice, right? The good thing is that you actually can compose more than adequately with a GH2, as long as you have the glass to do so. You will never be able to find anymore clarity in a camera that doesn't resolve it to begin with.

But, of course, everyone should always make choices based on what they feel they need to be comfortable.

For some the dreamy low resolution but "shot wide open" look of Canons.

For others, the hyper resolute, slightly claustrophobic look of a GH2.

What will always remain a fact is garbage in, garbage out.

We do own a 5D, by the way.

blofeld
12-30-2011, 03:18 AM
This is starting to get way off topic, but still have to chime in. Voigtlander 25mm 0.95 on mft equals about 50mm f2 on FF sensor, which is very shallow dof in my opinion. Canon aps-c folks can use sigma 30mm f1.4 for similar fov and dof. But then again, voigt 25mm has silky smooth and long focus throw with zero breathing. Very nice lens for moving pictures. There is also that 12mm f1.4, t1.6 lens hitting markets soon. 24mm f2.8 in FF terms. You can't get that with aps-c without zeiss cine master primes. There are plenty fast lenses above 35mm, so no problems with micro four thirds here.

simonpwood
12-30-2011, 03:30 AM
Sure. But the point is that the camera itself in the long run is the cheapest part of the equation, and will be obsolete in a few years. Not so with lenses. I have an old Rebel camera that is junk today, but the lenses will work with the modern Rebels. Likewise, I have some vintage nikons, I bought a couple from a guy who had used them on a 35mm adapter in the medieval age, and then used them on a Canon DSLR, and a Red One. They can also be used on the current crop of S35 cameras like the F3 and C300 (and presumably on the Epic, Alexa etc)? The same could not be said of M3/4 lenses.

So, if you start investing in expensive M3/4 Glass for the GH2 are you assured of those lenses being future proofed?

Like I say, no one is disputing the resolution of the GH2; its amazing. If they had that kind of power in a APS sized sensor the GH2 would be hands down the winner. The sensor size is the elephant in the room that GH2 owners seem to be avoiding, but not because of the size per se, but more to do with the investment in lenses that you will have to gamble with to get the most out of it (at least in the wider end).

yoclay
12-30-2011, 04:15 AM
I recently purchased a couple of GH2's after using the 5D Mark III for 3 years. I own 35 lenses as well as 3 anamorphics. I think there is a very filmlike quality to the GH2 (hacked) and as a mod on another forum it is the only camera I am currently recommending until Canon steps up to the plate. Like many people here I am tired of the slow, completely opaque response of Canon to the 5D crowd. The GH2 makes sense during the interim period before the arrival of the next generation and continues to evolve. What the GH2 has going for it beside the camera itself is also a thriving community, a great hack and a lack of certain typical Canon artifacts. We all know what they are. It looks great in many, many situations.

Having used the Gh2 for now however, I can say wholeheartedly that there is more than one elephant in the room. Fast, quality, wide angle lenses for this camera are rare in anything but world class PL flavors. Yes, there are a handful, but nothing like what is available for 5D users. It can be a problem sometimes, but there are solutions. I do wish that more of them were available and faster, so that I could at least have the CHOICE of narrow DOF in certain situations, but so be it.

However, there are two other elephants that I definitely see over and over again: noise in flat grey areas (especially in the shadows) - even at low ISO's. This is very strange but far more prevalent than people would like to admit. They prefer to call it "organic looking grain". The other one is very obviously - banding. I tremble when I see skies today, because I know I may be spending some serious time with the Sapphire Debanding plug-in later.

Someone listed the pros and cons of the GH2 the other day and talked about how they really weren't an issue with his workarounds. I am totally amazed that he forgot to mention these two last bugaboos. I am certain too that the size of the sensor has a part in it. A larger sensor would clearly compensate for them, though they might still be present, just less noticeable.

I think the GH2 is a great camera and holds up very well in the under 10K market. I have worked with some of it's bigger siblings and I can say though, that it does not really compare to a quality output from an Epic or the SLog of the F3, nor do I expect it to. I prefer to keep things in perspective.

I would prefer not going into a time consuming and defensive debate, being asked to provide lots of references and explaining my workflow, the patches I am using (Seaquake just so you know), etc.
I am just sharing my observations. Take it for whatever it's worth.

Mike@AF
12-30-2011, 04:16 AM
This is starting to get way off topic, but still have to chime in. Voigtlander 25mm 0.95 on mft equals about 50mm f2 on FF sensor, which is very shallow dof in my opinion. Canon aps-c folks can use sigma 30mm f1.4 for similar fov and dof. But then again, voigt 25mm has silky smooth and long focus throw with zero breathing. Very nice lens for moving pictures. There is also that 12mm f1.4, t1.6 lens hitting markets soon. 24mm f2.8 in FF terms. You can't get that with aps-c without zeiss cine master primes. There are plenty fast lenses above 35mm, so no problems with micro four thirds here.

Again, you're comparing the GH2 to full frame, which makes the crop look worse than it actually is. Movies are not shot with full frame. If they were then you'd have to use a crop factor on all cameras besides the 5D, such as 1.4x on Super 35 film, 1.5x on the Alexa, F3, F35, FS100, 1.6x on the Red One and Scarlet, 1.4x on the Epic, and 2.1 on the AF100 and GH2. Looking at all those, yes the AF100 and GH2 have the most crop, but it's not that bad knowing they all have at least a 1.4x crop. The 5D is the exception, not the rule. We're talking about video here, so you start with Super 35 as the standard, as it's been for years.

Mike@AF
12-30-2011, 04:22 AM
Sure. But the point is that the camera itself in the long run is the cheapest part of the equation, and will be obsolete in a few years. Not so with lenses. I have an old Rebel camera that is junk today, but the lenses will work with the modern Rebels. Likewise, I have some vintage nikons, I bought a couple from a guy who had used them on a 35mm adapter in the medieval age, and then used them on a Canon DSLR, and a Red One. They can also be used on the current crop of S35 cameras like the F3 and C300 (and presumably on the Epic, Alexa etc)? The same could not be said of M3/4 lenses.

So, if you start investing in expensive M3/4 Glass for the GH2 are you assured of those lenses being future proofed?

Like I say, no one is disputing the resolution of the GH2; its amazing. If they had that kind of power in a APS sized sensor the GH2 would be hands down the winner. The sensor size is the elephant in the room that GH2 owners seem to be avoiding, but not because of the size per se, but more to do with the investment in lenses that you will have to gamble with to get the most out of it (at least in the wider end).

I agree with you. As great of a lens the Voightlander 25mm f0.95 lens is (I own one) and as much as I'd like to have the Olympus 12mm f2 lens to get a wider FOV with my AF100 and GH2, I'm not sure investing in m4/3 glass is the right move for me personally, namely because what I really want is a Scarlet and you can't get m4/3 glass to work on a Scarlet. As far as future-proofing your lens set, it might be best to go with Nikon mount or PL mount. You can mount PL lenses to just about anything with an adapter (and maybe modification) and put Nikon glass on Canon and Sony E mounts. But you can't mount a Canon lens on a Nikon mount.

manakiin
12-30-2011, 04:49 AM
You CAN use m4/3 glass on Scarlet X in 3K mode or lower...

simonpwood
12-30-2011, 05:47 AM
Yeah but that would be a compromise. No one is going to go out and buy a Scarlet, and then decide to buy an expensive M4/3 mount lens to use with it.

To put it into context: answer these 2 questions:

1) Do you see people requesting Canon to build a 4/3 sized camera?
2) Do you see people requesting Panasonic to build a APS sized camera?

So; where is the demand at? And which of the 2 scenarios is most likely to happen at some point in the future?

Razz16mm
12-30-2011, 05:55 AM
You CAN use m4/3 glass on Scarlet X in 3K mode or lower...

There is no mount for this, and you would not get electronic lens controls. Red is supporting full electronic lens controls for Canon L and Nikon.
I really prefer fully manual lenses and will use mostly PL or C-mount glass on a GH2. It is this easy adaptability that makes the GH2 a practical low cost option for me.
I will probably get the 14-140 Kit lens, but won't invest in 4/3 glass for the most part. Probably look for a PL solution for wide and fast.

blofeld
12-30-2011, 07:12 AM
Lenses are not investments for me, lenses are tools. If I would switch from micro four thirds, I would sell my lenses and buy more appropriate set for new system. Yes, 35mm PL-mount true cinema primes are future proof, produce beautiful images, fit cameras with zero wobble and are mechanically superior, but a set costs at least 15k and weight 1 kg per lens. Regarding the debate about 'crop factors' I see it like this: There are no wrong or correct crop factors, just different preferences to talk about field of view and depth of field. I have a background in still photography, been shooting since 2006 with a 5d and later with a d700, so FF 35mm is just the way I visualize fov and dof.

Ian-T
12-30-2011, 07:22 AM
I recently purchased a couple of GH2's after using the 5D Mark III for 3 years. I own 35 lenses as well as 3 anamorphics. I think there is a very filmlike quality to the GH2 (hacked) and as a mod on another forum it is the only camera I am currently recommending until Canon steps up to the plate. Like many people here I am tired of the slow, completely opaque response of Canon to the 5D crowd. The GH2 makes sense during the interim period before the arrival of the next generation and continues to evolve. What the GH2 has going for it beside the camera itself is also a thriving community, a great hack and a lack of certain typical Canon artifacts. We all know what they are. It looks great in many, many situations.

Having used the Gh2 for now however, I can say wholeheartedly that there is more than one elephant in the room. Fast, quality, wide angle lenses for this camera are rare in anything but world class PL flavors. Yes, there are a handful, but nothing like what is available for 5D users. It can be a problem sometimes, but there are solutions. I do wish that more of them were available and faster, so that I could at least have the CHOICE of narrow DOF in certain situations, but so be it.

However, there are two other elephants that I definitely see over and over again: noise in flat grey areas (especially in the shadows) - even at low ISO's. This is very strange but far more prevalent than people would like to admit. They prefer to call it "organic looking grain". The other one is very obviously - banding. I tremble when I see skies today, because I know I may be spending some serious time with the Sapphire Debanding plug-in later.

Someone listed the pros and cons of the GH2 the other day and talked about how they really weren't an issue with his workarounds. I am totally amazed that he forgot to mention these two last bugaboos. I am certain too that the size of the sensor has a part in it. A larger sensor would clearly compensate for them, though they might still be present, just less noticeable.

I think the GH2 is a great camera and holds up very well in the under 10K market. I have worked with some of it's bigger siblings and I can say though, that it does not really compare to a quality output from an Epic or the SLog of the F3, nor do I expect it to. I prefer to keep things in perspective.

I would prefer not going into a time consuming and defensive debate, being asked to provide lots of references and explaining my workflow, the patches I am using (Seaquake just so you know), etc.
I am just sharing my observations. Take it for whatever it's worth.
As we've recently found out (thanks Kholi) you can kill one of those elephants by using NDs and shooting @ ISO 320 and above.

Sage
12-30-2011, 07:29 AM
Just avoid 160, whatever ya do:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?270722-Iso-160

Danielvilliers
12-30-2011, 07:29 AM
Whoa, someone is talking about lens investment like the $ 500 slrmagic 12mm f 1.4 or $ 600 for a Tokina 11-16 2.8 zoom being too much investment when they intend to invest something like $ 15 000+ dollar in a scarlet. I think if you intend such an investment to buy and resell a lens for a loss of $ 100/200 won't be that tragic. The Tokina in Nikon mount would fit any apsc size/s35 mm camera if lens investment is important. It is also dope for movie shooting, Duclos has a cine mode for it and that tells you about the quality of the glass.

I hope that the troll who has derailed this thread is happy. Again and again...

1. Hey the gh2 sensor is too small

answer the crop is about 1.86 (multi aspect ratio sensor larger than m43 size in 16.9) compared to canon 1.6 (smaller because it is the 3.2 crop of the full sensor and the 16.9 video crops more from the top and bottom).

2. Hey no fast wide lens.

answer You have the $ 500 12mm 1.4 slrmagic, $ 700 12mm 2.0 Olympus and the Tokina 11-16 zoom for about $ 600. The equivalent Canon 24mm on Canon is about $ 1500.

3. The DR is lower because it is smaller chip, look here http://www.personal-view.com./talks/discussion/1795/dynamic-range-test-between-gh2-and-7d/p1 for a test against the 7D rated at 11 stop at Zacuto test (only .2 stop lower than the 5d).

4. Hey how abou the low light

Look here and the example there and make your own conclusion http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?267504-Is-the-gh2-the-new-low-light-high-ISO-DSLR-king

Is the gh2 perfect, no... as Yoclay said there are some problems. For me the noise is fine, at first it annoyed me a little bit, but with time I don't find it disturbing and as such as the film I watch. In higher ISO it takes another dimension because it is really film like. The banding is another thing, I would like to test a little more, I am not sure it bands more than the other 8bit dslr and camera, or because it is so detailed that the lack of graduation shows more than in the others where it is smeared.

I think we should write a faq so as we do not have to write these thing time and time again, so that we can direct people to it every-time it surface. I think we have enough troll who always try to derail discussion, we just have to direct them to it and continue to contribute constructively.

TheDingo
12-30-2011, 07:32 AM
1) Do you see people requesting Canon to build a 4/3 sized camera?

No. For the last 3 years people have been begging Canon to produce a video DSLR that has much less Moire / Aliasing. So far Canon has not listened. Hopefully they will in the future. The C-300 is a start.

I sold all my Canon gear 1 year ago because I could not live with the poor video image quality. Now I shoot with the GH-2 and mostly buy Nikon AI-S glass, with a few m4/3 specialty lenses to fill the gaps.


2) Do you see people requesting Panasonic to build a APS sized camera?

Not from GH-2 owners. Only from Canon APS-C owners, who imagine this giant crop factor between the sensor sizes, when in reality the sensor size difference is a non-issue.

35mm Full Frame still photo sensors in cameras like the Canon 5D MK2 and Nikon D3 are designed for still photo work, and have too shallow DOF for video work. Unless you are after the myopic look of that one episode of House MD, that was very effective in creating a claustrophic feeling of being trapped under rubble, you are not going to be shooting with fast glass wide open with the Canon 5D MK2, where wide open shooting works well with the m4/3 sensor cameras, as they have a built in 2-stop advantage. This advantage becomes a much bigger deal when you have to light on location, where 4,000 watts can light a large set when shot with a m4/3 camera sensor, but it takes 16,000 watts of light to achieve the same DOF at the same ISO when using a 35mm Full Frame Still Photo camera sensor.

*** NOTE : I emphasize "Still Photo" camera, because many people confuse the huge size difference between the 35mm Still Photo format and the 35mm Motion Picture format. They are definitely not the same.


So; where is the demand at? And which of the 2 scenarios is most likely to happen at some point in the future?

Neither.

Olympus / Panasonic will stick with the m4/3 sensor size and the advantages it brings to the table. Better m4/3 video cameras will keep coming, and eventually the m4/3 lens line will get properly fleshed out. ( boy they are dragging their feet on this one )

Canon / Nikon / Sony will stick with the APS-C sensor size, and eventually issues like aliasing and moire will get sorted out.

...I'll add my own question to the debate: Where are the fast APS-C wide angle prime lenses ?

Where are Canon/Nikon/Sony's APS-C equivalents to the: Olympus 12mm f/2.0 or the Voightlander 25mm f/0.95 ??? ...I want to shoot a 15mm wide shot at f/2.0 using my Canon T3i/60D/7D, so what lens do I use ???

Barry_Green
12-30-2011, 11:22 AM
I've heard the comparison of the CP.2 50 to the ZF.2 50, but never to the old ZF 50. So maybe the CP.2's are based on the old ZF's or a combination of the old and new depending on the focal length.
ZF glass and ZF.2 glass and CP glass and CP.2 glass are all exactly the same.

The difference between ZF and ZF.2 is the presence of electronic controls for the Nikon mount. The ZF lenses are a true "dumb", mechanical mount. The ZF.2 adds electronic connectors that let the camera set the iris, and communicate EXIF data to the body. But the glass is identical.

Between ZF and CP, the CP lenses are strictly PL mount, have the true cinema housings, and a 14-blade iris, but are otherwise the same glass as the ZF's, and there are no electrical contacts of course.

Between CP and CP.2, the only substantial difference is that the mounts are interchangeable on CP.2's. Other than that, the glass is identical. You will note that the 85 and 50mm are now rated to T2.1 on the CP.2's instead of T1.5 on the CP's. That's (IMO) just stupid, and one reason I prefer my CP's over the CP.2's. They took away the extra stop of sensitivity out of the 85 and 50 so that they could "standardize the T-stop" on the basic lens set, so now the 28, 35, 50 and 85 are all T2.1. Well, fine and dandy, but all they did was lop off the ability to open the lens up more. They didn't change the glass, they just took away a stop. I can stop down my 50 and 85 to 2.0 and guess what, they're identical to the CP.2 at that point. Difference is, when necessary, I can open them up to 1.4, which a CP.2 owner could never do. And, truth be told, I don't frequently do that because at wide open the Zeiss glass does introduce some purple/green fringing and the contrast goes a little soft; the lenses definitely benefit from being stopped down a little. I guess I just resent the idea that they took away capability and gave a bogus reason for it.


18 would be better, but I've heard terrible things about the CP.2 18 and ZF/ZF.2 18, plus it's pretty slow.
As an owner of both a ZF 18mm and a CP 18mm, I can't imagine what you're hearing about it that's "terrible" -- they are excellent lenses, brutally sharp. A little slow, yes. Especially compared to the Red Pro Prime 18mm which opens up a full two stops more. But other than speed the 18mm is great.

Kholi
12-30-2011, 11:35 AM
As an owner of both a ZF 18mm and a CP 18mm, I can't imagine what you're hearing about it that's "terrible" -- they are excellent lenses, brutally sharp. A little slow, yes. Especially compared to the Red Pro Prime 18mm which opens up a full two stops more. But other than speed the 18mm is great.

*two full stops at the expensive of being four times heavier than the camera + PL mount together. It is NOT comfortable to try and shoot with those ridiculously heavy beasts off of a tripod or nice shoulder mount.

I think Zeiss Superspeeds could be a good alt in PL flavors, but, they're going to be dreadfully soft wide open. Still, though, they're tiny... what's the widest in an MKII set again? It's not 16/T.13 is it? 18 if I remember right...

Erich Ocean
12-30-2011, 12:25 PM
my xxxxxxx god. the driftwood gh2 beats them all , easily.

If you ignore the jello, the GH2 does pretty nicely especially given the cost.

I can't ignore the jello though. :(

P.s. I own both a GH1 and GH2, so I'm not just going off of Internet tests here...

Mike@AF
12-30-2011, 01:50 PM
You CAN use m4/3 glass on Scarlet X in 3K mode or lower...

There aren't any mounts to put a m4/3 lens on a Scarlet.

Mike@AF
12-30-2011, 01:52 PM
There is no mount for this, and you would not get electronic lens controls. Red is supporting full electronic lens controls for Canon L and Nikon.
I really prefer fully manual lenses and will use mostly PL or C-mount glass on a GH2. It is this easy adaptability that makes the GH2 a practical low cost option for me.
I will probably get the 14-140 Kit lens, but won't invest in 4/3 glass for the most part. Probably look for a PL solution for wide and fast.

Just because the mount allows for electronic control of a lens doesn't mean you have to use a non-manual lens. The Nikon mount will be electronic, but you can use any Nikon fully manual lens with it. I'll be able to use my Zeiss ZF lenses with it.

Mike@AF
12-30-2011, 02:00 PM
*two full stops at the expensive of being four times heavier than the camera + PL mount together. It is NOT comfortable to try and shoot with those ridiculously heavy beasts off of a tripod or nice shoulder mount.

I think Zeiss Superspeeds could be a good alt in PL flavors, but, they're going to be dreadfully soft wide open. Still, though, they're tiny...

And a lot more expensive.


what's the widest in an MKII set again? It's not 16/T.13 is it? 18 if I remember right...

Pretty sure it's 18 T1.3

Mike@AF
12-30-2011, 02:03 PM
ZF glass and ZF.2 glass and CP glass and CP.2 glass are all exactly the same.

The difference between ZF and ZF.2 is the presence of electronic controls for the Nikon mount. The ZF lenses are a true "dumb", mechanical mount. The ZF.2 adds electronic connectors that let the camera set the iris, and communicate EXIF data to the body. But the glass is identical.

Between ZF and CP, the CP lenses are strictly PL mount, have the true cinema housings, and a 14-blade iris, but are otherwise the same glass as the ZF's, and there are no electrical contacts of course.

Between CP and CP.2, the only substantial difference is that the mounts are interchangeable on CP.2's. Other than that, the glass is identical. You will note that the 85 and 50mm are now rated to T2.1 on the CP.2's instead of T1.5 on the CP's. That's (IMO) just stupid, and one reason I prefer my CP's over the CP.2's. They took away the extra stop of sensitivity out of the 85 and 50 so that they could "standardize the T-stop" on the basic lens set, so now the 28, 35, 50 and 85 are all T2.1. Well, fine and dandy, but all they did was lop off the ability to open the lens up more. They didn't change the glass, they just took away a stop. I can stop down my 50 and 85 to 2.0 and guess what, they're identical to the CP.2 at that point. Difference is, when necessary, I can open them up to 1.4, which a CP.2 owner could never do. And, truth be told, I don't frequently do that because at wide open the Zeiss glass does introduce some purple/green fringing and the contrast goes a little soft; the lenses definitely benefit from being stopped down a little. I guess I just resent the idea that they took away capability and gave a bogus reason for it.


As an owner of both a ZF 18mm and a CP 18mm, I can't imagine what you're hearing about it that's "terrible" -- they are excellent lenses, brutally sharp. A little slow, yes. Especially compared to the Red Pro Prime 18mm which opens up a full two stops more. But other than speed the 18mm is great.

Well, if the CP's are the same glass and same image I'll have to start looking for a used set. I agree, I'd rather have the T1.5 speed just in case I need to open up. Want to sell yours? :)

The comments about the 18mm I've heard is that it's softer than it should be and the color doesn't match well with the rest of the set.

mcgeedigital
12-30-2011, 03:26 PM
True enough, but it's a bit more complicated. Most indie folks don't buy just the GH2 - like all DSLRs, it's too limited for video. So you must spend a bit more $ to bring it up to speed. That's where you start chipping away at the AF100 advantages.

Actually, by spending all of that money to make a dslr a real video camera, you JUSTIFY the extra expense people pay for the af-100


Take the ND filters - spend a few bucks and get the Heliopan... not quite as convenient as built-in, but it does level the field.

Not when I have to screw it on and off every lens when you change them. Internal wins every time


The XLR inputs and headphone jack - not really relevant if you do separate sound not to camera... which you should anyway if you want quality audio,

Why would I want an external audio recorder when the AF-100 records fantastic quality audio internally?



So I would say, it's getting harder and harder to justify an AF100 if you are on a super tight budget and literally every dollar counts. I think the GH2 is a tremendous competitor.

You just negated this part of your argument by adding all of the things you have to add to the GH-2 to give it the feature the AF-100 has out of the box.

VMT
12-30-2011, 03:34 PM
Wow. That article really shows the extent of the crop factor on the GH2. I'll have to get some seriously wide and seriously fast lenses if I ever get one. The guy who wrote that article really loves his camera though; almost to the point of seeking validation.

Seems to me that Canon DSLR users are the ones seeking validation. They can't accept that another supposedly inferior DSLR has better IQ. :) [edit: GH2 isn't a DSLR]


However, looking at videos online you get a sense that shallow DOF is harder to attain, and the colors and the overall 'look' doesn't have the same 'mojo' as the canons.

If your interest is purely shallow dof, then you need a full sensor with the fastest lens, why bother with any cropped sensor cam?

"look" and "mojo" are subjective. Some swear by Panny mojo, others by Canon. I have owned cameras by all three major manufacturers, and it's not because of brand mojo or whatever, it's the particular utility of the camera.


Now maybe the DOF thing is simply that people have moved past it, or maybe that they simply don't have the choice of lenses for the M4/3.

DOF was never a "thing" for pros. It's always been just another creative choice among many. It's a look that was sought after only because it was not widely accessible until DSLR HD came along.

The myth that m43 has no good lenses need to die. Only non-m43 users seem spout this over and over again. The reality is m43 can use most any lens that ever saw a ray of light.


The fact is that I thought long and hard about getting GH2, but eventually settled on a Canon. The main reason being that I have a collection of lenses that would work better with the more standard sized Canon sensor, but would be unacceptable cropped with the M4/3.

makes sense that if you have canon EF lenses to go with a Canon if you want to maintain most of the electronic functions of your lenses. but the difference in crop factor between APS-C and m43 is hardly "unacceptable."


That said there seems to be more and more lenses available for the M4/3 format, but I imagine that a number of people would be reticent to invest in glass for a niche sensor size that is not supported by the majority of manufacturers.

I wouldn't call m43 a niche format. Panny and Oly are major players, as well as some of the third party m43 lens makers. the other brands got their own formats, There's definitely a place for m43 in a market already crowded with different formats and sensor sizes. I for one would not buy another full size DSLR ever.

Kholi
12-30-2011, 03:35 PM
Have to agree with Matt... I prefer internal ND to external all day long, and I am not a fan of matteboxes, either. I'd rather tape some black foil on the lens and go about my business.

Second the internal audio recording. Second Sound system is old hat, WAY old hat. Old moldy old hat.

Maybe people should just call it what it is, though as it was said earlier: for some people, a great base image is much more important and they're willing to work around that. I'm one of them. If the Af100 looked like hacked GH2 footage it would be the DSLR killer that everyone wants. I'd be using that (curse word) ALLLLL de time.

Osslund
12-30-2011, 03:52 PM
The AF100 is on the bottom of the food chain of these camcorders and still the only one with internal LCD/EVF/XLR/ND/1080p60.

Resolution is interesting. GH2 should have the highest resolution because it uses good down scaling and it has an OLPF optimized for stills in higher resolution rather than 1080 output. The AF101 on the other hand is the only camera that's immune to moire and that is because it has the strongest OLPF out of these. When I use the AF100 everything I need is on the cameras body and I never have to worry about moire or aliasing. Just happy shooting.

As for the hack on the GH2 I'm satisfied with the Samurai running at full PRORES quality out of the AF100.

Barry_Green
12-30-2011, 04:06 PM
When I use the AF100 everything I need is on the cameras body and I never have to worry about moire or aliasing. Just happy shooting.
Exactemundo.

TheDingo
12-30-2011, 04:26 PM
The banding is another thing, I would like to test a little more, I am not sure it bands more than the other 8bit dslr and camera, or because it is so detailed that the lack of graduation shows more than in the others where it is smeared.

...Even the mighty Canon C-300 shows banding under certain conditions: C-300 video "Out of Tunes" (http://vimeo.com/33827416)

I think we are stuck with minor banding issues from time to time, until everything switches to 10-bit recording.

Mike@AF
12-30-2011, 04:42 PM
Actually, by spending all of that money to make a dslr a real video camera, you JUSTIFY the extra expense people pay for the af-100

Not if the GH2 records better images. This is debatable and subjective, but with the hack the GH2 records intraframe and higher nitrate.


Not when I have to screw it on and off every lens when you change them. Internal wins every time

A lot of professional cameras don't have built-in ND's. Red doesn't have it, Alexa doesn't have it, etc. Sometimes you use a matte box which needs to swing out when you change lenses. Sometimes they even use clip-on/clamp-on matte boxes with professional cameras on professional movie shoots. If you need grads then the internals won't get used for that and you still need a matte box. There's also polas, softening filters, etc.


Why would I want an external audio recorder when the AF-100 records fantastic quality audio internally?

Because an external recorder will record better quality audio than any camera's internal recorder, even when both are at 16-bit 48KHz. There's no camera that will record better audio than my 788T. You are also limited to only 2 mic inputs on cameras. External recorders offer better quality, more capability, and more flexibility. Even the H4n records better quality audio than cameras.


You just negated this part of your argument by adding all of the things you have to add to the GH-2 to give it the feature the AF-100 has out of the box.

Not really if you end up with better quality, more features, more capability, etc. Again, it is debatable and subjective, but the GH2 holds up pretty well against the AF100 and even other more expensive cameras in my opinion.

Cory Braun
12-30-2011, 04:42 PM
Have to agree with Matt... I prefer internal ND to external all day long, and I am not a fan of matteboxes, either. I'd rather tape some black foil on the lens and go about my business.

Second the internal audio recording. Second Sound system is old hat, WAY old hat. Old moldy old hat.

Maybe people should just call it what it is, though as it was said earlier: for some people, a great base image is much more important and they're willing to work around that. I'm one of them. If the Af100 looked like hacked GH2 footage it would be the DSLR killer that everyone wants. I'd be using that (curse word) ALLLLL de time.

What's your opinion on the FS100? From PB's test it seems to be decently sharp, and has XLRs (but no NDs).

Mike@AF
12-30-2011, 04:49 PM
The AF100 is on the bottom of the food chain of these camcorders and still the only one with internal LCD/EVF/XLR/ND/1080p60.

Resolution is interesting. GH2 should have the highest resolution because it uses good down scaling and it has an OLPF optimized for stills in higher resolution rather than 1080 output. The AF101 on the other hand is the only camera that's immune to moire and that is because it has the strongest OLPF out of these. When I use the AF100 everything I need is on the cameras body and I never have to worry about moire or aliasing. Just happy shooting.

As for the hack on the GH2 I'm satisfied with the Samurai running at full PRORES quality out of the AF100.


Exactemundo.

And that is why I still have my AF100... for now. I really need to do some tests between the AF100 and hacked GH2, along with the results of Bloom's shootout and the upcoming Zacuto "Revenge" shootout that was announced (if it happens soon). But so far, being that I was generally pleased with what I shot with just the GH1 (hacked and unhacked), and what I've shot with the GH2 (unhacked), I'm very close to selling my AF100 and sticking with my GH2 until I get a Scarlet.

Mike@AF
12-30-2011, 04:55 PM
Have to agree with Matt... I prefer internal ND to external all day long, and I am not a fan of matteboxes, either. I'd rather tape some black foil on the lens and go about my business.

Matte boxes definitely get in the way in some situations, but there are times when they are a must. ND grads, soft grads, filters like that that you needa matte box so you can adjust the placement of the grad. They are also good for protecting the lens when you're running around with the camers (assuming the matte box isn't clamped onto the lens). There's many functions of the matte box that makes them a necessity. To me, internal ND filters are more of a convenience. I'm almost always going to shoot with a matte box whether there's internal ND's in the camera or not.


Second the internal audio recording. Second Sound system is old hat, WAY old hat. Old moldy old hat.

There's a reason it's still around. External recording = better sound quality. And it's not a small difference in quality either.


Maybe people should just call it what it is, though as it was said earlier: for some people, a great base image is much more important and they're willing to work around that. I'm one of them. If the Af100 looked like hacked GH2 footage it would be the DSLR killer that everyone wants. I'd be using that (curse word) ALLLLL de time.

Agree 100%.

Mike@AF
12-30-2011, 04:58 PM
What's your opinion on the FS100? From PB's test it seems to be decently sharp, and has XLRs (but no NDs).

I think the advantages of the FS100 are sensor size, lowlight performance, and it appears to be sharper than the AF100 at times. Other than that it's not a better codec in my opinion and no SDI out (though the GH2 doesn't either). I also don't like the design of the camera body. Seems a bit weird to me.

Kholi
12-30-2011, 05:06 PM
What's your opinion on the FS100? From PB's test it seems to be decently sharp, and has XLRs (but no NDs).

It is pretty resolute, I actually like the design of the body but there is something weird going on with highlights, banding (it seems more prevalent in FS100 footage than GH2 footage), and aliasing. I could stand to spend more time with it, the lowlight looks pretty sweet, but I'm not really rushing out to do so.

It's a worthwhile option, if it fits your set of trade-offs.

Mike@AF
12-30-2011, 05:14 PM
It's a worthwhile option, if it fits your set of trade-offs.

I like that. They all have trade-offs, don't they?

Cory Braun
12-30-2011, 06:12 PM
I think the advantages of the FS100 are sensor size, lowlight performance, and it appears to be sharper than the AF100 at times. Other than that it's not a better codec in my opinion, no SDI out (though the GH2 doesn't either), and the SxS cards are very expensive. I also don't like the design of the camera body. Seems a bit weird to me.

I'm pretty sure it uses SD cards.


It is pretty resolute, I actually like the design of the body but there is something weird going on with highlights, banding (it seems more prevalent in FS100 footage than GH2 footage), and aliasing. I could stand to spend more time with it, the lowlight looks pretty sweet, but I'm not really rushing out to do so.

It's a worthwhile option, if it fits your set of trade-offs.

Yea, I've been looking at it, but the highlights are what were bothering me.

OldCorpse
12-30-2011, 06:34 PM
To me, there are a couple of things which make the FS100 attractive: better low-light performance compared to AF100 (though some would argue it's minimal), and smaller size (ditto). But there are always tradeoffs, of course.

As to the GH2 vs AF100, I hate to disagree with Matt, but I stand by my statements. But perhaps I should qualify them a bit, in that I have a very particular use scenario in mind for the GH2 - basically for no/nano-budget narrative work; if you want more of a docu or run'n'gun AF100 will be a bit better (even though it wasn't designed for it anyhow!). Now, with that caveat, responding to the built-in vs screwed on ND, yes, the AF100 is more convenient (as I said), but for narrative work, it's no biggie - I have a few moments to screw on and off, this is not docu or eng work, plus, if you really want to know, some would even say a top of the line grad ND like a Helio gives you even more gradation than the built in ND jumps on the AF100. And as for a monitor like a SmallHD? Well, you know, it's maybe more necessary on a GH2 compared to the AF100, but hey, it's dandy on an AF100 too - if I had the AF100 I would not refuse a good monitor thank you very much, so the advantage is a bit small here.

As to audio, that's just flat out wrong. I especially hate to disagree with Kholi, whom I respect immensely, but it's just ridiculous to equate the on-camera recording with external solutions... not even close, whether by quality or by flexibility of options in complex multi-mic audio situations - if you use an audio team of a mixer and boom man, it's just insane to try to shoehorn everything through the cam... eyeroll! Maybe, you have an argument that it's easier to sync, rather than deal with it in post (and I agree, it's a pain), but again, we're talking about narrative work where you have a bit of time compared to eng, and you can afford to spend time for quality returns. I can't even believe anyone would compromise on audio quality - that's a rookie mistake for indies... you guys should spend a bit more time in the audio section here.

Yeah, that brings up the cost of the GH2 somewhat, but it's still substantially below the AF100.

Bottom line - I'm not slagging off the AF100, or claiming that the GH2 is just as good a video solution than a dedicated cam like the AF100. Obviously, it's not. What I am claiming, is that it gets awfully close all things considered, and much, much closer than we had any right to expect given the price disparity and the fact that AF100 is meant as a pro solution vs the consumer level GH2. Heck, the GH2 is such a deal for what you get, I feel guilty paying Panasonic so little money - I feel like I'm stealing or something.

Mike@AF
12-30-2011, 07:12 PM
I'm pretty sure it uses SD cards.

Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking. I goess I was thinking of the F3. I'll correct my post so I don't confuse anyone. Thanks!

Mike@AF
12-30-2011, 07:38 PM
And as for a monitor like a SmallHD? Well, you know, it's maybe more necessary on a GH2 compared to the AF100, but hey, it's dandy on an AF100 too - if I had the AF100 I would not refuse a good monitor thank you very much, so the advantage is a bit small here.

Personally, I use both a TVLogic 5.6" LCD and a SmallHD DP4-EVF on my AF100. The 5.6" is attached via an Ultralight arm for the 1st AC to be able to focus. The DP4-EVF is for me or if someone else is operating and can be used as an LCD viewfinder or an EVF with the eyecup. This is all because the placement of the AF100 EVF is not good and the AF100 LCD is not in the best place for a balanced shoulder mount set up. I find that I don't use either of the AF100 displays other than for accessing the menus. So if I had only the GH2, I would actually be just fine with needing to use external monitoring.


Bottom line - I'm not slagging off the AF100, or claiming that the GH2 is just as good a video solution than a dedicated cam like the AF100. Obviously, it's not. What I am claiming, is that it gets awfully close all things considered, and much, much closer than we had any right to expect given the price disparity and the fact that AF100 is meant as a pro solution vs the consumer level GH2. Heck, the GH2 is such a deal for what you get, I feel guilty paying Panasonic so little money - I feel like I'm stealing or something.

Here's the problem that I'm having with the whole situation. The GH2 is $800 typically now, but you can find it for $650. And the less expensive camera has zoom to focus assist, intraframe with the hack, and higher bitrate with the hack. I understand that's not Panasonic's doing, but the communities', but it's still a part of the camera now nevertheless. It makes the AF100 look like a crippled big brother. I can't imagine the circuit boards and processors in the AF100 can't handle intraframe or higher bitrates, or whatever processing would be involved in a zoom to focus assist feature, when the GH2 can handle it. I just don't buy it. None of this seems unreasonable or unrealistic when the GH2 is able to do it. And if it's a ROM chip in the camera that the programming for those is on, and can't be written to with a standard firmware update, I'd gladly pay a reasonable fee to send my camera in for a revision that allows all of that.

PaPa
12-30-2011, 08:26 PM
Personally, I use both a TVLogic 5.6" LCD and a SmallHD DP4-EVF on my AF100. The 5.6" is attached via an Ultralight arm for the 1st AC to be able to focus. The DP4-EVF is for me or if someone else is operating and can be used as an LCD viewfinder or an EVF with the eyecup. This is all because the placement of the AF100 EVF is not good and the AF100 LCD is not in the best place for a balanced shoulder mount set up. I find that I don't use either of the AF100 displays other than for accessing the menus. So if I had only the GH2, I would actually be just fine with needing to use external monitoring.



Here's the problem that I'm having with the whole situation. The GH2 is $800 typically now, but you can find it for $650. And the less expensive camera has zoom to focus assist, intraframe with the hack, and higher bitrate with the hack. I understand that's not Panasonic's doing, but the communities', but it's still a part of the camera now nevertheless. It makes the AF100 look like a crippled big brother. I can't imagine the circuit boards and processors in the AF100 can't handle intraframe or higher bitrates, or whatever processing would be involved in a zoom to focus assist feature, when the GH2 can handle it. I just don't buy it. None of this seems unreasonable or unrealistic when the GH2 is able to do it. And if it's a ROM chip in the camera that the programming for those is on, and can't be written to with a standard firmware update, I'd gladly pay a reasonable fee to send my camera in for a revision that allows all of that.

You make a good point.

Osslund
12-31-2011, 02:21 AM
The times when you need more audio channels or quality recorded surely you have a sound engineer doing audio that's out of what the camera does. For everything else two channels and the internal quality is just fine.

dcloud
12-31-2011, 03:03 AM
Weather af100 can do it or not, you always have A choice in buying fs100 instead

Mike@AF
12-31-2011, 03:57 AM
This video may have just answered my question to myself of whether or not I think the GH2 can outperform the AF100 in image quality. I haven't seen any AF100 footage look as good as some of the stuff in this.

http://vimeo.com/33909311

Ryan-Guy
12-31-2011, 04:20 AM
This video may have just answered my question to myself of whether or not I think the GH2 can outperform the AF100 in image quality. I haven't seen any AF100 footage look as good as some of the stuff in this.

http://vimeo.com/33909311

*Picking jaw off floor*

I don't think my Af100 (which I just sold) could ever get some of those grades. I'm CC a my feature doc with AF100 footage and its pretty hard sometimes. Thats pretty insane for 8bit.

Rick Burnett
12-31-2011, 06:12 AM
The lack of built in ND on the FS100 is something AF100 users will have a hard time with, myself included. Once you've had them, you want them. Also, the WFM in the AF100 is superior to the histogram in the FS100. I also dislike that no body mic is in the FS100 so that if I want to run light, I get no sound. With the AF100, there is a body mic and is GREAT for lining up audio from an external recorder.

The image off the FS100 is sharper and cleaner to me than my AF100 was, and was very much like I saw in the test. I do think the AF100 has more color resolution overall. But that said, I shot with the AF100 on a few projects and I never really felt that the resolution was a huge hinderance. The footage still looked great to me. You can get aliasing on the AF100, but it's REALLY hard. Guitar strings lit from above in a dark room is the only thing I've made it happen on. In actual usage, I've never seen aliasing in my AF100 or FS100 footage.

Rolling shutter performance is the same on both cameras.

The battery life, size and weight of the FS100 are really really good. I think this is where it excels. The controls can be sluggish in changing, like shutter speed, which is annoying. The focus assist zoom is great, and will be better when the 4x 8x is released. I also like that there is no built in EVF (well, except if you use the eyecup thing which I NEVER do) :)

The AF100 will give you incremental FPS which is REALLY nice for fight scenes and people falling. Shooting at 22fps can make a huge difference in the footage. Having sound at 1080p60 on the FS100 is really nice. We shoot fight scenes many times at 1080p60 1/120 and having the sound allows us to use the footage in many different ways. Also, reviewing at speed (60p) in camera is nice when you don't need to see it slomo.

There are things I love about both cameras. Ultimately I went with the FS100 because it was smaller, lighter, had better battery life, and focus zoom. If the AF100 had exceeded the FS100 in those areas, I would have probably kept it. I often miss features of the AF100 when I am shooting the FS100.

To me the highlight/clipping performance is the same on the FS100 and AF100 and is made worse by the saturation that comes default in both cameras, which I think is extreme, and the curves being used. I pointed my FS100 at some colored lights to blow out the scene and went to town adjusting the knee settings. Now I am much happier with them, but, they are NOT perfect. As most will say, it's best to avoid blow-outs if possible in your highlights and just blow it out in post. The AF100 I did the same thing as the saturation out of the box is more than what I saw in front of the camera.

When the AFS-100 comes out, then it will be perfect! :P

greeches
12-31-2011, 06:52 AM
Why do you suppose he pulled the video offline? Canon had issues w/ it?

roei z
12-31-2011, 07:29 AM
We'll never know, eh?

Rick Burnett
12-31-2011, 08:44 AM
Which video is gone? Did I miss part 2. I still see part 1 available.

greeches
12-31-2011, 09:00 AM
Looks like he reposted it. Must have been some last minute tweaks!

Chris Adler
12-31-2011, 09:50 AM
Really? Where? I don't see it on his blog.

DrDave
12-31-2011, 11:27 AM
There's a reason it's still around. External recording = better sound quality. And it's not a small difference in quality either.
Agreed.
Camcorder and camera manufacturers could easily offer us pro grade, 24 bit multitracking built in to their products, but they do not. And here is how they could do it:
1. Upgrade the cheesy, $2 AD converter to a $6 24 bit converter from AKM or whatever. Or, better,
2. Give us four channels minimum, 24/48 Or, even better,
3. Give us 24 bit surround inputs which could be used as a mixer with a backup track if needed. Even more? Yuppers. And the hiss in your built in mics? Guess what. There is no circuit made these days that is that noisy. Believe it it not, this is a deliberate added noise to make you buy something else. Cheesy by design.
4. Hire Zoom to make your capsules that are built in to the camera if you are so horrible at making them. Or better yet, Neumann. Hello? I can have a high end stereo in my car and I have crap audio in my procam? Are you kidding me?

And the reason we are stuck with this garbage implementation of on board audio is because we don't demand it better, and also not one of the cam companies has "jumped ship" to offer it, causing a domino effect, and they make millions on giving us the $2 parts instead of the $6 dollar parts. They make millions on their crap aftermarket "microphone" which should have been stuck in the camera in the first place.
Their attitude is, "Call it pro, and see if anyone notices" And our attitude is, OK, I give up, I'll buy a flash recorder for minimum $150.
Unacceptable! Just put it in the camcorder, and if you have to supply a breakout cable, fine. Make your money on the cable.

Mike@AF
12-31-2011, 12:39 PM
Why do you suppose he pulled the video offline? Canon had issues w/ it?


We'll never know, eh?


Which video is gone? Did I miss part 2. I still see part 1 available.


Looks like he reposted it. Must have been some last minute tweaks!


Really? Where? I don't see it on his blog.

Philip Bloom replaced part 1 with a new version, fixing the NEX5N footage because of post workflow issues that were hurting the image drastically.

DrDave
12-31-2011, 01:26 PM
Philip Bloom replaced part 1 with a new version, fixing the NEX5N footage because of post workflow issues that were hurting the image drastically.
Thanks--I will check it out. The 5N looked pretty drippy.

simonpwood
01-01-2012, 05:27 AM
Philip Bloom replaced part 1 with a new version, fixing the NEX5N footage because of post workflow issues that were hurting the image drastically.

I heard the boss of Canon had a hissy fit after seeing the review and sent him some insulting emails, and then told him he had to sell all of his Canon cameras back to the company.

No wait; that could never really happen, could it?

DrDave
01-01-2012, 01:04 PM
The times when you need more audio channels or quality recorded surely you have a sound engineer doing audio that's out of what the camera does. For everything else two channels and the internal quality is just fine.
Nothing wrong with two channels. But, I just happen to think that 4 channels in ten times better than two. But of course you can use a mixer to get four into two. But then you need a mixer. I'm not saying the ancient, outdated 16 bit stereo in many "pro" cams is bad: it's totally fine. I'm just saying it is worse than a Zoom. And why should we settle for "worse than a Zoom"?
Because right now, what we get as "pro" is worse than a Zoom H2. And the advertising for these cams should say, "worse than a Zoom" right on a little shiny sticker that they put on the cam, because that is the truth, not "pro audio".
Plus, time is money. Four channels saves time--the setup does not need to perfect, you can adjust it later without an army of onlookers. Hooking up a mixer loses time. Four channels gives you a backup. And so on.
And why hire an audio engineer if you can hook up four tracks and mix it down later, maybe even in the camera? I think there is a very large number of people with flash recorders who would love to ditch that box for one that gives the same audio--or better, read "pro"-- built in to the cam. Plus the price should be included in the camera.

mr bill
01-01-2012, 04:02 PM
'I heard the boss of Canon had a hissy fit after seeing the review and sent him some insulting emails, and then told him he had to sell all of his Canon cameras back to the company.

No wait; that could never really happen, could it?'




And your point is?

Razz16mm
01-01-2012, 04:51 PM
Nothing wrong with two channels. But, I just happen to think that 4 channels in ten times better than two. But of course you can use a mixer to get four into two. But then you need a mixer. I'm not saying the ancient, outdated 16 bit stereo in many "pro" cams is bad: it's totally fine. I'm just saying it is worse than a Zoom. And why should we settle for "worse than a Zoom"?
Because right now, what we get as "pro" is worse than a Zoom H2. And the advertising for these cams should say, "worse than a Zoom" right on a little shiny sticker that they put on the cam, because that is the truth, not "pro audio".
Plus, time is money. Four channels saves time--the setup does not need to perfect, you can adjust it later without an army of onlookers. Hooking up a mixer loses time. Four channels gives you a backup. And so on.
And why hire an audio engineer if you can hook up four tracks and mix it down later, maybe even in the camera? I think there is a very large number of people with flash recorders who would love to ditch that box for one that gives the same audio--or better, read "pro"-- built in to the cam. Plus the price should be included in the camera.

Unless you are shooting relatively static setups, it seems like too much to encumber the camera with 4 channels of audio connections, whether hard wired or wireless. Sometimes double system is more practical.

Lyris
01-01-2012, 05:01 PM
Finally got a GH2 yesterday and hacked it (thank you to those responsible) for use with work. This is the video camera I've wanted for years.

I'll probably be selling my 550D (T2i) and buying my own GH2, I like it that much. The video quality on the 550D / 7D is blurry, aliased and ugly (love the stills though).

simonpwood
01-02-2012, 01:16 AM
'I heard the boss of Canon had a hissy fit after seeing the review and sent him some insulting emails, and then told him he had to sell all of his Canon cameras back to the company.

No wait; that could never really happen, could it?'




And your point is?

Just a joke, man. Philip Blooms video suddenly gets taken down and everyone started wondering why it disappeared. These days the truth can be stranger than fiction; just saying'.

FarinHeight_Productions
01-02-2012, 01:57 AM
Just a joke, man. Philip Blooms video suddenly gets taken down and everyone started wondering why it disappeared. These days the truth can be stranger than fiction; just saying'.

And an uber funny joke it was! I got it, but I guess some people don't get it maybe because they weren't aware of the tragic RED situation our wonderful PB had to deal with. We'll end it at that cause I don't want people derailing and talking about that event all over again. Funny stuff Simonpwood. Luckily, Canon is too smart to pull that stunt the other company did.

Chris Adler
01-02-2012, 05:53 AM
So why isn't there a part 2?

fastfinger
01-02-2012, 06:09 AM
Just a joke, man. Philip Blooms video suddenly gets taken down and everyone started wondering why it disappeared. These days the truth can be stranger than fiction; just saying'.

I too was amused. I saw the vid on youtube, when I went back to re-watch it, it was gone. He never put the fixed version back up.

Danielvilliers
01-02-2012, 06:11 AM
I think like many the guy the last few days, he has been enjoying some time with his family and friends. More or less everything has been shot but the editing that is left from what I understand.

c3hammer
01-02-2012, 09:06 AM
Good one simonpwood :)

The new part 1 is back up. If you look at his blog on facebook he's overseas somewhere with a very poor internet connection and can't get Part 2 uploaded until he's back.

Here's the direct link to part 1 http://vimeo.com/34279033

Stevet
01-02-2012, 09:52 AM
Philip has done a real service here. He's right that these tests are not for a definitive decision on which camera to buy. There are other variables and each of these cameras will behave differently and maybe favor one condition over another.

It does appear when it comes to pure detail considering moiré, aliasing, and compression artifacts, the GH2 appears to perform well in this test.
I was surprised with how bad several of these cameras performed on this comparison.

I'm sure the GH2 will not fair as well when comparing dynamic range. ;}
Although the hack will certainly show benefits on the ability to render detail in lower light conditions.

DrDave
01-03-2012, 11:20 AM
Just looked at the revised footy to check out the Nex 5N with the corrected encoding--better, but still mushy. Disappointed.

TheDingo
01-03-2012, 01:41 PM
Just looked at the revised footy to check out the Nex 5N with the corrected encoding--better, but still mushy. Disappointed.

How does the NEX 7 video compare ? Is it any better for video work ?

m43user
01-04-2012, 06:39 AM
The A65 and A77 (with the same sensor) are limited to ISO1600 for video even in manual mode. I wonder if the NEX 7 is the same.

Boon
01-06-2012, 05:45 AM
Part 2 is up...

http://philipbloom.net/2012/01/06/christmas-shootout/

Apefos Adapter
01-06-2012, 06:26 AM
GH2 is not bad in low light. With a noise reduction in post it can almost match FS100 and C300. Great for its price point.

roei z
01-06-2012, 07:53 AM
GH2 really fails in low light, but that understandable.
the C300 wasn't a big hit either.
but i DID like those magnificent BANDING streams on the 7D and 5D ;)

F3 and F100 are clear winners of the low light test.

J Bellari
01-06-2012, 09:19 AM
LOW LIGHT TEST- no details on lens yet or F stop.
We are guessing in the dark what he did right / wrong.

Did he shoot at F2.8?

Matthew P
01-06-2012, 09:21 AM
GH2 is not bad in low light. With a noise reduction in post it can almost match FS100 and C300. Great for its price point.

No way on earth.

c3hammer
01-06-2012, 09:25 AM
...but i DID like those magnificent BANDING streams on the 7D and 5D ;)I don't know what you mean by banding streams?

45789457904579145792457934579445795

cheers,
pete

bitcrusher
01-06-2012, 09:29 AM
No way on earth.

100% agreed, I love the GH2 there is no way.

Boon
01-06-2012, 09:30 AM
GH2 is not bad in low light. With a noise reduction in post it can almost match FS100 and C300. Great for its price point.

On the contrary, I think the result is night and day.

davidschmaus
01-06-2012, 09:33 AM
Man the fs100 Looks really good in the low light test. To me its fs100, f3, c300, 5dii, gh2, 7d

J Bellari
01-06-2012, 09:40 AM
Anybody know what lens and F stop he shot the low light test?

Chris Adler
01-06-2012, 09:55 AM
On the blog he said it was a Nikon 80-200mm F2.8

HHL
01-06-2012, 10:04 AM
GH2 really fails in low light, but that understandable.
the C300 wasn't a big hit either.
but i DID like those magnificent BANDING streams on the 7D and 5D ;)

F3 and F100 are clear winners of the low light test.

Indeed. FS100 KILLED in low-light. C300 was third for sure, and I did figure that head to head the FS100 would beat the C300 in low light. GH2 looks like an amazing cam. Same as the FS100 in low light? I think the images speak for themselves.

Ian-T
01-06-2012, 10:14 AM
GH2 really fails in low light, but that understandable.
the C300 wasn't a big hit either.
but i DID like those magnificent BANDING streams on the 7D and 5D ;)

F3 and F100 are clear winners of the low light test.

I agree except...I don't think the GH-2 "fails." Like I mentioned on Vimeo I think all of these cameras do better than film in low light. So it's not really a fail. It's just the DSLRs came up short in this particular test. the FS100 has the biggest ang for its buck...in this test. I kind of like that there is no one camera that comes off as the "be all end all of digital cameras." The C300 is not a bad camera....but even here....wasn't the greatest (though it costs the most....I think).

Chris Adler
01-06-2012, 10:21 AM
And remember, that test was beyond a stupid situation to ever shoot in. Even if they lit the subject with an iPhone screen it would have been worlds different. They could have opened the door to the crapper even wider and let in some light.

I have a problem with tests like that when they don't mimic reality. How do you draw a conclusion from seeing footage in a situation you should never be in to start with?

Apefos Adapter
01-06-2012, 10:33 AM
Just to repeat what i said in vimeo comment:

The money for a FS100 or C300 I could buy a very nice CAR!!! Those cameras are not for me. I would love to shoot with them, but my way to go is to "extract milk from the rocks" as I always did. Nothing personal in my posts, just showing the low budget way of life.

DrDave
01-06-2012, 10:47 AM
I just finished a shoot with a GH2 and a set of G10s in not really low light but low-medium light, and the main thing I noticed was just the sticky noise from the GH2 on flat surfaces. GH2 slightly sharper, colors totally pop, but noise everywhere at ISO 400. I mean, ISO 400. G10 had less aliasing as well. Mixed feelings about the results. It is really only a problem with with large flat areas, like a grand piano, walls, sheer fabric. But how can you complain about the cam when you get that sharpness and great color for that price?

J Bellari
01-06-2012, 11:16 AM
On the blog he said it was a Nikon 80-200mm F2.8

IF he shot the low light test with a F2.8, I conclude he was
INTENTIONALLY TRYING to show smaller sensor cameras
looking WORSE than they could with APPROPRIATE lens choice.

ESPECIALLY when he could have used a Canon 85 1.2 at F1.2 or F1.4
which HE OWNS for the low light comparison.

I would immediately fire any DP if they said-
"hey, I can barely see anything, let's get a F2.8 lens for a closeup shot!",
ESPECIALLY when they OWN a 85 F1.2 in their kit....

I love Philip, but this isn't "right" to me for a low light test- I hope he clarifies
the details and the reasoning IF he really did shoot at F2.8...

mcbob
01-06-2012, 11:22 AM
My two cameras (AF100 and GH2) both performed amongst the middle to worst in the part 2 test situations. They performed amongst the middle to best in the part 1 test. That's fine, I'm familiar with their limitations and it's nice to know the degrees to which they can be pushed. However, I'm far more likely to shoot 1080p slow motion and landscapes than I am to shoot people in the dark.

I'm not buying anything new any time soon because what I have works very well in every real-world situation for which I've been hired.

davidschmaus
01-06-2012, 11:31 AM
IF he shot the low light test with a F2.8, I conclude he was
INTENTIONALLY TRYING to show smaller sensor cameras
looking WORSE than they could with APPROPRIATE lens choice.

ESPECIALLY when he could have used a Canon 85 1.2 at F1.2 or F1.4
which HE OWNS for the low light comparison.

I would immediately fire any DP if they said-
"hey, I can barely see anything, let's get a F2.8 lens for a closeup shot!",
ESPECIALLY when they OWN a 85 F1.2 in their kit....

I love Philip, but this isn't "right" to me for a low light test- I hope he clarifies
the details and the reasoning IF he really did shoot at F2.8...

It doesn't matter if he shoots at 2.8, 1.4, 5.6 . The point was to compare all the cameras in the same crappy low light conditions. I do think that he should of least used a realistic low light situation which clearly this was not.

Late
01-06-2012, 12:11 PM
Then again, if you want to get the same shot with each camera, you'd have to shoot them at different apertures. A fullframe camera has a shallower DOF at the same angle of view, so you have to stop it down to a smaller aperture. This means that you also have to bump up the ISO. You wouldn't be shooting these cameras at the same ISO for the same shot.

yoclay
01-06-2012, 12:18 PM
I just finished a shoot with a GH2 and a set of G10s in not really low light but low-medium light, and the main thing I noticed was just the sticky noise from the GH2 on flat surfaces. GH2 slightly sharper, colors totally pop, but noise everywhere at ISO 400. I mean, ISO 400. G10 had less aliasing as well. Mixed feelings about the results. It is really only a problem with with large flat areas, like a grand piano, walls, sheer fabric. But how can you complain about the cam when you get that sharpness and great color for that price?


What is clearly emerging for me is that while the GH2 has a great overall look, it is just too noisy for my taste. Add some occasional banding and I really feel we are coming up against the size of the chip.

TheDingo
01-06-2012, 12:37 PM
What is clearly emerging for me is that while the GH2 has a great overall look, it is just too noisy for my taste.

Yes, for low-light work I would choose an FS-100 or F3 if I had the budget to rent them.


Add some occasional banding and I really feel we are coming up against the size of the chip.

Nothing to do with the size of the chip, and everything to do with the sensor and the electronics that back it up.

If the soon to be released GH-3 is no better than the GH-2, then I'll stay with the GH-2 for now.

Cory Braun
01-06-2012, 12:47 PM
Just to repeat what i said in vimeo comment:

The money for a FS100 or C300 I could buy a very nice CAR!!! Those cameras are not for me. I would love to shoot with them, but my way to go is to "extract milk from the rocks" as I always did. Nothing personal in my posts, just showing the low budget way of life.

Which very nice car can you get for $5,000?

Kit Hannah
01-06-2012, 01:04 PM
Which very nice car can you get for $5,000?

Now THAT is funny :)

Apefos Adapter
01-06-2012, 01:20 PM
Here in Brazil I can get a good condition used car for 5000 usd, but as Philip Bloom said on vimeo: a bike is enough for GH2 owners... or as I do: bus and foot.

Lpowell
01-06-2012, 01:25 PM
I was disappointed in Bloom's failure to include the Nikon D7000 in the low-light tests. While I wouldn't expect it or any DSLR to seriously compete with the FS100, F3, or C300, the D7000's specs would lead you to expect it to show its best performance on this test. In my experience with the Nikon D5100, I can rely on it to deliver comparable noise and dynamic range at ISO 3200 as the GH2 at ISO 1600.

roei z
01-06-2012, 02:15 PM
btw, why did he do a quick post work on c300 in the end of the video? (there was another one.. f3 maybe?)
a bit strange..

shrigg
01-06-2012, 02:17 PM
IF he shot the low light test with a F2.8, I conclude he was INTENTIONALLY TRYING to show smaller sensor ...I hope he clarifies the details and the reasoning IF he really did shoot at F2.8...I imagine Philip used the 80-200 so he could frame up the various sensors the same within that small room. Doubt he intentionally tried to rile us GH2 guys! The m4/3 defenders may expect the 0.95 Nokton to be used on every camera. Aside from the reframing issue, I'm sure he didn't have the adapters to use the Nokton on everything. As a GH2 shooter, I'm fine with the test and I really appreciate the effort put into it.

Stevet
01-06-2012, 02:23 PM
Everyone knows the GH2 in a low light test would not best out the highend cameras that are 8X to 15X the cost! lol

Also, as mentioned here, I believe the lens was a Nikon 80-200mm F2.8 which was used on all the cameras.
Like mentioned here, of course a f/1.4 less would of made the GH2 a lot better in low light, but all of these cameras
used the same lens.

And of course, one would use the fastest lens they own under extreme low light conditions.

I'm not sure why everyone is dismayed on the low light test.
You already know what your camera is capable under all conditions.
Also, the GH2 came out on top of the first test.
If you go back to this test and look at some of the other cameras here, I was surprised in how bad some of these looked.

Philip believed the GH2 camera did well in the first test:

"So interesting results from Part 1. Bang for buck the clear winner was the Gh2 with the Driftwood hack but this is purely on resolution. The F3/ C300 are damn close to each other and the FS100 not far behind. Part 2 moves onto skin tones and low light where the camcorders come into their own. I also take a look at how well each of the internal codecs hold up to colour correction and grading."

Rick Burnett
01-06-2012, 03:19 PM
Just to repeat what i said in vimeo comment:

The money for a FS100 or C300 I could buy a very nice CAR!!! Those cameras are not for me. I would love to shoot with them, but my way to go is to "extract milk from the rocks" as I always did. Nothing personal in my posts, just showing the low budget way of life.

The FS100 is $5k, the C300 somewhere under $20k, not even in the same category. I've not seen really nice cars for $5k, but that's hardly the point, if you don't understand the pricing of expensive cameras, they are not for you, or your needs, so move along. The FS100 is a GREAT deal for the cost. The GH2 does not perform as well in low light AND the GH2 has worse rolling shutter. Also, the FS100 can do 1080p60. While the GH2 can do a lot of things, and I think it's a great camera, there are things it cannot do, period. It has it's place just like all other cameras.

With regard to the lens, as someone else mentioned, he used a zoom lens. I can see this for getting the framing the same on the different sensor sizes. At that, F2.8 is pretty fast. Take a look at all the zoom lens. I promise you are not going to find anything in F1.4 or F1.8.

I shoot events at night some time. If I need a wide lens, and at these events I cannot control the lighting, I use the Tokina 11-16mm. AND, it's at F2.8. There is no other option for a lens to give me that focal length and anything faster that I've seen. So in my case, for some of the uses I've used my FS100, this type of test would have been perfect because F2.8 is a common fast zoom.

Everyone's needs are different. I've shot in many scenarios where having great low light performance on the FS100 has really been nice. The whole point of testing lenses with cameras is that you can see what limitations you have. With the FS100 you can use slower lenses and still get very clean images. That's a good thing to know. It just opens up the range of opportunities in how you can use the camera. That's clearly why he is doing multiple tests because (1) people have different needs and different values on those needs and (2) no one camera is typically ever the winner of everything so it is best to just focus on one or two things at once for better comparison.

Once again, I think Phillip has done an outstanding simplistic test.

Kholi
01-06-2012, 03:33 PM
Finally put to rest the idea that you can go above 1600ISO on this thing with no light...

And I am still not sold on the FS100 not having some sort of denoise going on that scales with dB.

I will say the camera I disliked the most actually looked like an appealing option in this, the F3 with the S-Log straight to the camera. Seriously don't like that thing, but the 6400 ISO image made quite a case indeed.

Sage
01-06-2012, 03:37 PM
Finally put to rest the idea that you can go above 1600ISO on this thing with no light...


This

maarek
01-06-2012, 03:56 PM
IF he shot the low light test with a F2.8, I conclude he was
INTENTIONALLY TRYING to show smaller sensor cameras
looking WORSE than they could with APPROPRIATE lens choice.

This is just crazy GH2 fanboy talk. I didn't even realize cameraguys had that much fanboy mentalities but apparently they do... If both lenses are at f2.8 it is an excellent test. And as said before, fastest zoom lenses tend to be f2.8 across the range. And the GH2 is not that great in lowlight, even the Sony VG20 beats it. You really think the GH2 reaches FS100 levels?

Postmaster
01-06-2012, 03:57 PM
Looks like the "queen of the night - bang for the buck" award goes to the FS100 with my G-LOG profile enabled. :cheesy:

Actually I was surprised - I expected the F3 with S-LOG to outshine the FS100, since the G-LOG is not a real LOG, more a simulation of a LOG curve.
Also the skintone test came out pretty nice.

Nice to see how the clicks on my blog skyrocket, every time Philip uses my profiles.
I would probably make a ton of money, if I would have advertising on my blog :happy:

I think Philip´s test are totally legit.
Showing those differences NOT with the fastest lens on the planet, and under extreme conditions,
gives you a idea what would be the worst situation you can run into. And yeah, using a zoom lens to
compensate for sensor sizes was exactly what I would have done.

Frank

maarek
01-06-2012, 03:59 PM
Finally put to rest the idea that you can go above 1600ISO on this thing with no light...
And I am still not sold on the FS100 not having some sort of denoise going on that scales with dB.


AVCHD itself is a denoiser. And doesn't every camera have denoising going on when the db's go high? Sony EX1 starts blurring the image, old Sony FX1 does it. Don't they all? But the FS100 actually looks great. Only real problem are the highlights on that one. The loggish profile probably helps somewhat.

I kinda find it odd that people are complaining about prices that much. The FS100 is less than the XF300.

maarek
01-06-2012, 04:01 PM
Looks like the "queen of the night - bang for the buck" award goes to the FS100 with my G-LOG profile enabled. :cheesy:

Actually I was surprised - I expected the F3 with S-LOG to outshine the FS100, since the G-LOG is not a real LOG, more a simulation of a LOG curve.

The F3 caps at +18dB (or was it 24?) but the FS100 goes to 30. It's the same sensor but with newer processing and a different group made it inside Sony. S-log is also supposed to be graded and the blacks brought down. That would get rid of some of the noise down there. Also 35mbps mpeg2 doesn't work that well with noise compared to the smoother AVCHD encoding.

c3hammer
01-06-2012, 09:23 PM
It's definitely not the zoom lens for the low light test. Looks like a silver ring on the front like the Zeiss he used in the resolution test. Must be a smaller one, probably the 50mm. He also doesn't change focal lengths between the different crops on the cams in the low light test. Just so you all can quit making excuses, the GH2 with a great lens in low light still looks like pucky :)

This test pretty well proves out that the FS100, especially with it's native 1080-60p and this incredible low light ability, is looking quite competitive.

Cheers,
Pete

J Bellari
01-06-2012, 10:17 PM
I imagine Philip used the 80-200 so he could frame up the various sensors the same within that small room. Doubt he intentionally tried to rile us GH2 guys! The m4/3 defenders may expect the 0.95 Nokton to be used on every camera. Aside from the reframing issue, I'm sure he didn't have the adapters to use the Nokton on everything. As a GH2 shooter, I'm fine with the test and I really appreciate the effort put into it.

Philip is a smart guy.
He chose the F2.8 ZOOM lens instead of a FAST PRIME
in the low-light test for a reason. He also DIDN't select
a 70-200 F4.0 also for a reason...

The low light test simply shows the
low-light limitation of ANY F2.8 Zoom lens, not the bodies selected.

If you have a F1.2 50mm and 85mm primes, WHY NOT use them
across the board FIRST at F1.2 or F1.4 and F1.8, then show the same lens at 2.8?
and 4.0 if he had an extra second...

That said, the larger sensors generally performed better at F2.8 as expected...

There are tons of F1.4 PRIMES for a reason,
and I find using a F2.8 Zoom for a low-light test
stating the rather obvious limitation of slower lenses, not the bodies.

As he concludes, do your own tests to see what works for you...

DBP
01-06-2012, 10:43 PM
I thought he kept the same lens on to isolate the sensor as the variable. To say that, all things being equal, the GH2 is a (relatively) poor low light performer.

I thought that much was obvious though. I'm fine with it's low light performance, and I only have a 20mm 1.7. Even that can shoot in places I would've never dreamed of taking my HMC150. I'd be even happier with a 1.4, or the 25mm 0.95. Looks like the AF100 is a better low light performer than the GH2 as well.

Some of the other cameras were mind blowing though, like the C300 and FS100.

VMT
01-07-2012, 04:35 AM
Now THAT is funny :)

Everything is relative. there's a world beyond the border, and it's big.

VMT
01-07-2012, 04:55 AM
IF he shot the low light test with a F2.8, I conclude he was
INTENTIONALLY TRYING to show smaller sensor cameras
looking WORSE than they could with APPROPRIATE lens choice.

ESPECIALLY when he could have used a Canon 85 1.2 at F1.2 or F1.4
which HE OWNS for the low light comparison.

I would immediately fire any DP if they said-
"hey, I can barely see anything, let's get a F2.8 lens for a closeup shot!",
ESPECIALLY when they OWN a 85 F1.2 in their kit....

I love Philip, but this isn't "right" to me for a low light test- I hope he clarifies
the details and the reasoning IF he really did shoot at F2.8...

It wouldn't have made a difference which lens he used. the result of the comparison would be the same. the aim was to compare low light capability of each cam, not lenses and not to get the best images.

Late
01-07-2012, 06:02 AM
the aim was to compare low light capability of each cam,

He tested high ISO capability, not low light capability. Low light capability depends on both the sensor and lens, not the sensor alone.

goodgoings
01-07-2012, 06:50 AM
They all have low light capability, but good ISO capability translates to good low light capability. The test was fine.

c3hammer
01-07-2012, 08:02 AM
...He chose the F2.8 ZOOM lens instead of a FAST PRIME
in the low-light test for a reason...He didn't chose a zoom for the low light test. Did you even watch the video? Here's a frame from 19:27 of the low light setup and another from the skin tone test with the big zoom. Clearly not the same lens.


45839 45840

Stevet
01-07-2012, 08:19 AM
ISO capabilites.. You can gain up all you want, but if the signal-to-noise is not great, the noise floor will be more apparent.

Larger size sensors will gather more light; therefore offer better noise levels.

This was a good comparison test and before going into this it was a given that the smaller sensors would not fair as well.

J Bellari
01-07-2012, 09:40 AM
He didn't chose a zoom for the low light test. Did you even watch the video? Here's a frame from 19:27 of the low light setup and another from the skin tone test with the big zoom. Clearly not the same lens.


45839 45840

I see your point, but I didn't see anything written or spoken about the lens used,
F stop and the test methodology was not clear for the low light test.

I am not doubting the end result, just trying to understand what he actually did to get the end result.

So, we really don't know what we're looking at still?

Kholi
01-07-2012, 09:54 AM
You're looking at the cameras in the most Incompetent situation. I actually agree with the way he did this, and I can say I expected as much. If you want an extreme lowlight camera the Gh2 or Canon cams are not those. They're all pretty gross in that regard.

What you know now though is that this is the bottom floor for performance. A mere 1K of wattage in this specific setup would've cleaned all of that up drastically.

I don't even like the FS100's out of cam image at high ISOs.

F3 w/s-log will be something I keep my eyes on as an option now for strictly no light shooting. Also reminds mr that I haven't tried something similar to this with Epic. I'd imagine an RCP-X denies when converting to 1080/2K from 5K would look pretty straight.

TheDingo
01-07-2012, 12:07 PM
I didn't see anything written or spoken about the lens used

It looks like he is using a Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 ZF lens. ( the lens in the picture looks identical to my Zeiss 50mm ZF )

VMT
01-07-2012, 02:18 PM
He tested high ISO capability, not low light capability. Low light capability depends on both the sensor and lens, not the sensor alone.

NOt sure what you're trying to say. He didn't test ISO alone; he tested low light capability, which is a combination of factors engineered into the cams, including sensor size, codec, compression algorithms, iso, etc. ISO alone doesn't determine low light capability. Conversely, ISO capability is not measured solely by low light capability. Certainly high ISO settings affect quality of low light images, but I use ISO settings for far more than just to get an image in low light.

Kit Hannah
01-07-2012, 03:45 PM
What I would say to anyone that doesn't agree with his test, do your own test how you want to then. I think Philip and others do a fantastic job of showing us all what we normally wouldn't see and quite frankly I am tired of people ripping it because it didn't necessarily show you the results you wanted with your camera. I have news for you - your camera is not perfect. Neither is mine. None of them are. Philip is VERY knowledgeable when it comes to camerasand how to perform tests, not that he doesn't make mistakes, but that's his thing. So if you think you can do a better job, go for it and you see what the response is. I for one appreciate that Philip went through the trouble to do this (and continues to do this despite nay-sayers), shooting, editing, etc. His time is valuable and he did something that benefits US, the user.

maarek
01-07-2012, 03:54 PM
They're all pretty gross in that regard.

It's funny how far we've come in a couple of years. When I first used the Canon 7d with an f1.4 lens I was completely astonished. No videocamera before had given me such latitude in low light situations. A couple of years later and it's gross, heh.

Mike@AF
01-07-2012, 07:10 PM
Personally, I think low light tests are mostly pointless. No one shooting anything serious is going to shoot in those kinds of conditions. At least he put a disclaimer in the video that you wouldn't shoot like this. But then, if no one would shoot like this, why do the test? I would rather see a properly lit scene with dark areas in the frame and see how details in the dark areas look. I think the SCCE Great Camera Shootout was better for this type of test. I've shot with the GH1 and GH2 in low light and get better performance than this. You'd go with a fast lens wide open and not need to increase the ISO as much. Understandably, the other cameras performed better in this particular test, but I know the GH2 can do better when used properly so I'm not disappointed.

Kholi
01-07-2012, 07:45 PM
No, you would not use them in situations like this normally, but take the results of the F3 S-Log to Card (isn't it 8-bit 4:2:2 or is it 4:2:0?) and what we saw here: I know I can get something similar out of Epic/RED after the downconvert from 4K/4K to 1080/2K, and a denoise. But, being able to get that in camera is pretty sweet. SO this worse (awful) case scenario helped me to see that there's a potential for some very run n'gun material with the F3|S-log|Straight to Card setup, one that I had not seen before to be honest.

Doing these same kinds of things with the GH2 over the past month told me what I can and cannot do with the camera. It's a good thing, at least to me.

dop16mm
01-07-2012, 09:28 PM
What is great about these tests is that under controlled circumstances these cameras can be used together for their respective strengths, and the end viewer will never be the wiser. I'm too lazy to find a link right now, but I found this great mash-up on vimeo that a camera store made that threw together clips from practically every camera in the store, and the only ones that really stood out were a compact point and shooter, and the go-pro fisheye. Everything else was pretty much interchangeable in 2 second edits, after output compression.

I'm as far from a pixel peeper as you can get. I still believe that dvd is high enough resolution for home viewing. A 4k future is ridiculous. Unhacked GH2 looks good enough to me in most normal situations, but I don't like the amount of jell-o in the image, same for the the nex 5n. What is the point of a tiny camera if you can't just pick it up and shoot. If the next generation can get this under control then I'm all in. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if I had the cash I'd get both of the 100's, sony and Panasonic, and use each to its strengths, and a set of manual lenses that can be shared alike. Barry Green proved that if you're careful about it in a proper lit scene, you could shoot 2 cameras and not know the difference. Take the Panny outside with the built in ND, keep the sony for nighttime city scapes and candle lit interiors, even at f4 with a chance of holding focus. Keep in perspective that these cameras give us the 35mm look for pennies. A dslr body is like one 10 minute roll of film and lab fees. $5k might get you and hour of raw footage. $20k for damn sure wouldn't get you a feature, you'd be lucky if you could manage 16mm. And that doesn't include renting a camera to run it through.

I can totally see the canon shooting a lot of low budget cable movies, the built in broadcast codec is the main selling point. If only they would mass produce the chip so it could be priced where we want it to be. The codec and processor are available now in the $3k xf-100, and that has a lens. They're trying to sell the same RED kool-aid that the image sensor alone is worth $10k+.

What needs to happen is enough good content is produced in AVCHD and a proper broadcast ready post pipeline, ProRes or whatever, and get it accepted as a broadcast standard, just like dv killed betacam. The high bit-rate hack is cool and all, but having a standard that can be shared with $100 consumer editors as well as pro level workstation is the key to the revolution. SD cards should soon be cheap enough to be saved as masters on important projects, or at least have enough of them to not need to recycle as often, risking precious footage.

Mike@AF
01-07-2012, 10:15 PM
I agree that it's good to know what the low light capabilities of a camera are. However, I would not choose a camera because of it's lowlight capabilities in a scenario like this because it's an unrealistic scenario 99% of the time. More important tests and comparisons with other cameras in areas of resolution & detail, codec quality, color correction capability, and color accuracy. I would choose my camera first, then test the limitations of it so I know what I can and cannot do with with and then be able to work around it. If the camera isn't capable of shooting well in a situation such as that in Phillip Bloom's test, then I would light it better and/or use a faster lens. So if I decided on a GH2 (which I have and even sold my AF100), I would realize that I spent a fraction of what the other cameras cost and the noise in such situations would be no surprise. I would use my faster lenses, such as my Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 and even portable battery-operated lights and still shoot at ISO 400 or 800 to keep noise down. This gets me the superior intraframe codec and resolution/detail of my hacked GH2 and less noise because it's actually lit properly.

I think it's a shame that a camera would be chosen because of it's low light performance. It just opens things up for bad lighting and cinematography. Did the FS100 expose in low light with little noise? Yes. Did it look good? No. Just because you can shoot in low light doesn't mean you'll end up with a good image. Lighting is always better.

simonpwood
01-07-2012, 11:19 PM
I think it's a shame that a camera would be chosen because of it's low light performance. It just opens things up for bad lighting and cinematography. Did the FS100 expose in low light with little noise? Yes. Did it look good? No. Just because you can shoot in low light doesn't mean you'll end up with a good image. Lighting is always better.

You are assuming that everyone is buying these cameras for making movies.

A good deal of DSLR's are being used to shoot documentaries and even ENG work. In those situations you capture the action as it unfolds, often with no control over the environment. In such circumstances the cameras low light performance will be a deciding factor, along with everything else.

David G. Smith
01-07-2012, 11:44 PM
I think that Mr. Bloom was very upfront on the value of this test, and his testing methods. I think that a little perspective is in order when considering his results. OF COURSE, no professional filmmaker is going to shoot under the circumstances that were set up for the low light test. I think that the true value of the low light test is its showing us a situation where no professional filmmaker is going to shoot in. What we need to realize is that these situations where no professional filmmaker is going to shoot in have now become ridiculously extreme, because of these cameras. However, I think that all of us, no matter what camera we have chosen to shoot with, should take a step back, take a deep breath and be thankful for the powerful tools that we have available for us to use now. All of the cameras he tested would make much better images in situations where there is more light than just, "A sliver of light from the toilet", which was the case in that test. THAT IS GREAT. We have never had such a power set of tools available for making great moving images, at such low costs, EVER! Not a single camera Mr. Bloom tested is a bad camera. All of them have strengths and weakness' that creative professionals can evaluate and make their choice of camera to use based on their own individual needs. It is great times.

Apefos Adapter
01-08-2012, 02:18 AM
Lets see things as they are:

OK, the C300 and FS100 are the low light kings. If you can buy or rent, use them.

But, if you cannot buy or rent a camera like these, do not worry, use the camera you can afford and respect its limitations.

If your camera is not so great in low light, just add light and/or do a denoise in post.

GH2 is not the same of c300 and fs100 in low light, but it is not so bad, with a carefull denoise it can give a good result. Or just add light.

Deal with the limitations and be happy.

Kit Hannah
01-08-2012, 02:30 AM
Deal with the limitations and be happy.

What? No! We have to convince everyone that our camera is the best and that the test was flawed, and if Philip did a proper test, you would see! Why would you ever want to use lighting for video? :)

For the record, this is me being sarcastic.

Some people just don't understand. NOBODY'S CAMERA IS PERFECT. The first step is admitting it.

I'm glad you understand, Apefos.

Danielvilliers
01-08-2012, 03:31 AM
My conclusion of the test are


Best bang for a buck the gh2. Exceptional value, with very high resolution, good dynamic range (better than what you see on the test) and ok/average low light. what would be really the next big thing for the hack gh2 would be a flatter profile or permanent idynamic range. The gh2 has more than the apparent DR with the hack (in the shadows) and those two above could bring some more.


Best middle upgrade is the fs100 with an external recorder like the Ninja. Already very good resolution, seems to have very good dynamic range with the glock picture profile and exceptional low light. I think with a cheap recorder this could be a very good upgrade to the hacked gh2 in someone has the money. It is said to have much less rolling shutter than the dslr. It has a hair less resolution, but with better DR and much better low light. In fact apart from built quality I don't find the c300 bringing anything that warrants the 3x price.


The best for me in this test if you have the money, is the sony F3. Very good resolution and exceptional low light and dynamic range. We have been seeing it in the test with its internal codec. But with an $ 1400 Samurai 10 bit slog at 220mbits, it should be even better and I still can't understand the positioning of the C300.

magnifico
01-08-2012, 04:30 AM
@Mike@AF +1
Hi,
Philip Bloom chose a Extreme (his word) light test. In fact it became a NOISE test. Ok it is fun ...It just killed small-photosites cams :-)
As I said in Vimeo forum:
" I know c300, fs100 are better cam than gh2 in low light condition. What I want to know for sure is : where is the limit in low light in which gh2 and fs100 (or 7D) are on par concerning details (with little moving of the subject) ? Let’s say gh2 >7D in average luminance concerning resolution. If we decrease little by little exposure we shoot, we gone reach a threshold where cams are on par concerning details. For that, we must consider post process denoising belonging to the whole process, because it is what we do in low light situation.

So where is the limit? 1600 iso for gh2 compared with c300 or 7D? As far as I am concerned it is the main thing I ask for myself.
No answer here ( in the Philip Shoot out test n2)because of no denoising and the lowest light limit . "

That is why I just ask the same question here ...

simonpwood
01-08-2012, 04:40 AM
The best for me in this test if you have the money, is the sony F3. Very good resolution and exceptional low light and dynamic range. We have been seeing it in the test with its internal codec. But with an $ 1400 Samurai 10 bit slog at 220mbits, it should be even better and I still can't understand the positioning of the C300.

I imagine the positioning of the C300 comes down to the onboard broadcast standard codec, which is missing from every other camera in the test.

simonpwood
01-08-2012, 04:44 AM
Also, Alan Roberts completed his test of the C300. His conclusion:

This camera performs well. Resolution is very well maintained and is refreshingly alias-free, far more sothan other CMOS single-sensor cameras. Detail controls work well, and the factory settings are generallygood. Noise levels are similar to those of 2⁄3” cameras with 3 sensors, as is sensitivity. Dynamic range isunusually high, at least 12 stops. Operating the camera at significantly higher gain produces more noise, butnot dramatically so. The specified noise level of -54dB is achievable only at -6dB gain and with noisereduction switched on. Noise distribution is non-uniform, which gives the pictures a more film-likeappearance.

maarek
01-08-2012, 05:21 AM
What? No! We have to convince everyone that our camera is the best and that the test was flawed, and if Philip did a proper test, you would see! Why would you ever want to use lighting for video? :)

People have a tendency to value things more highly because we own them. It's called the endowment effect and it intensifies the longer we have used said equipment.

maarek
01-08-2012, 05:23 AM
Also, Alan Roberts completed his test of the C300. His conclusion:
Noise levels are similar to those of 2⁄3” cameras with 3 sensors, as is sensitivity.

Alan Roberts tends to say this about every s35mm sensor camera he has tested. To me it makes no sense. These cameras (F3, FS100, C300) are significantly more sensitive than 2/3" sensor ones.

Rick Burnett
01-08-2012, 05:50 AM
Knowing the noise floor of your camera has many more implications than just shooting controlled lighting. When pushing up into the ISO values, it also controls how far you can push your footage. Having worked with a 7D since its release, I can tell you, noise gets to be a real problem at times in situations where I have a lot of dynamic changes in lighting during a scene. Those can be hard to shoot.

I've worked with an HVX200, 7D, AF100 and now an FS100. If everyone thought that low light didn't matter, they'd be still shooting on a HVX200 with a S35 adapter. The truth is, it does matter. And I'm not talking artistically, I'm talking about having to add lots of light to a scene just to get within a sensors sweet spot. It takes a lot of time, power considerations, and cost for equipment (whether rented or not) when using a less sensitive camera. There is nothing wrong with this, they've been doing this for years with the likes of film and such, but on the other hand, there is nothing wrong or unprofessional about not wanting to do this either.

With the FS100, I can light scenes with small lights tucked away behind props in ways I'd never imagined before. I've used flashlights to get some really great accent lighting. I've also been able to shoot at night AND at night at 1/120 and still keep the noise much lower in scenes where actors are in and out of situations I could have NEVER done with the HVX200 without a huge expense.

THIS is why low-light is important to me. Given I know the 7D, AF100 and FS100 like the back of my hand, and seeing them in tests like this, it allows me to get an idea of the performance of the other cameras at least a little bit. When I first saw FS100 low light footage, I didn't believe it. Then I bought the camera, now I know how well it performs.

However, this is ONE aspect of the camera. People are really getting hung up on ONE aspect. Low-light is not the end all be all either of the camera. For instance, while I think the GH2 does really well on many tests, it still does horrible on the rolling shutter test. This affects me, especially when I use my 85mm lens. This is why I do not use a GH2. For others, they may not care, or shoot wider, or always lock down their shots. Even with the AF100/FS100 which have practically the same exact rolling shutter, it becomes a problem at times. (And they are not that far from the rolling shutter performance of the original Red One, not the MX version).

Also, what these tests don't show you is things like the ND filter in the AF100 (and F3 or C300). Once you use ND in your camera like this, you will miss it TREMENDOUSLY. EVERY time I use my FS100 I miss the ND. Every time I used the AF100 or FS100, I missed the communication between my lens and the body on the 7D.

Take each test for what they show you. Noise performance typically scales between the ISO values (although the AF100 is strange in that if you've used it, the noise stays strangely consistent over a wide range). With this test, from cameras you know, at least you can get a relative idea of how they performed between each other.

roei z
01-08-2012, 06:01 AM
^^^^ this

magnifico
01-08-2012, 10:28 AM
... With this test, from cameras you know, at least you can get a relative idea of how they performed between each other.
Hi,
if you dont know any of these cams you cannot do a precise comparison for low light. Why? Because it is an extreme low light test, a NO light test in witch no camera gives a decent image. If only one camera gave a decent image, ok we can say something. Of course you can do some extrapolation here, well well. But as far as gh2 is concerned it is difficult to do so. Why? Because it won the resolution test in part 1.
That means if you want to shoot outside with light, you get the best cam here among the others. And with the hack and GOP1 you obtain a good fluidity for motion. That means you can borrow gh2 and just get the best footage for your broadcast film.
gh2 is not a war beast concerning sensor, that means we can guess that process, software and processor inside it are very good. The PB test doesn't give the limits for all the cameras in low light. Hay I dont blame Philip here, I just try to say what I am thinking ok? How many stops is gh2 behind (after denoising) c300, 7D or fs100 ? Because for sure there is a threshold where gh2 and fs100 are on par concerning low/average light.
If you have answer please give it to me (hm us) as I am very interested...

stoneinapond
01-08-2012, 11:54 AM
...But as far as gh2 is concerned it is difficult to do so. Why? Because it won the resolution test in part 1.
That means if you want to shoot outside with light, you get the best cam here among the others...

I really don't think that is an accurate statement. While the GH2 does deliver great footage out-of-camera, that is not the whole story. If you are looking to do professional color correction, then some of the other admittedly dull looking images from the other cameras will be your friend before the GH2.

I love the GH2. I cannot afford, and at present don't want a different camera. I love the form factor and I love the out-of-camera resolution. But I'm also learning to color grade, and I already know for a fact that there is a point beyond which you cannot push the footage. And that for some is a very professional consideration.

Rick Burnett
01-08-2012, 12:11 PM
Hi,
if you dont know any of these cams you cannot do a precise comparison for low light. Why? Because it is an extreme low light test, a NO light test in witch no camera gives a decent image. If only one camera gave a decent image, ok we can say something. Of course you can do some extrapolation here, well well. But as far as gh2 is concerned it is difficult to do so. Why? Because it won the resolution test in part 1.
That means if you want to shoot outside with light, you get the best cam here among the others. And with the hack and GOP1 you obtain a good fluidity for motion. That means you can borrow gh2 and just get the best footage for your broadcast film.
gh2 is not a war beast concerning sensor, that means we can guess that process, software and processor inside it are very good. The PB test doesn't give the limits for all the cameras in low light. Hay I dont blame Philip here, I just try to say what I am thinking ok? How many stops is gh2 behind (after denoising) c300, 7D or fs100 ? Because for sure there is a threshold where gh2 and fs100 are on par concerning low/average light.
If you have answer please give it to me (hm us) as I am very interested...

If you don't know any of these cams then really, it's going to be hard for you to really extrapolate anything useful out of these tests. They aren't intended to be the definite hands down answer all questions comparison that you seem to want. There is no way to test a camera to this level that could EVER satisfy people.

Look at it this way, if they set the cameras up to where they all shot at ISO400 and there was no noise to be seen, then what is the point of the test? You aren't showing anything. THE point of the test is to show the cameras shooting the same scenario in which you CAN see a discernible difference. It's pushed darker so the differences are easier to see.

And no, I don't believe the GH2 won the resolution test in part 1. It scored well, but I think the resolution on the C300 looked better to my eyes Second, again, you are focusing on ONE merit of the camera. If you need to move the camera around a lot shooting, then no, the GH2 might not perform well there. It just depends on how it works with all it's GOOD and BAD performance in the situation you need.

And here's the thing, you can't give a limit to where a camera is usable in low light because that limit is HIGHLY subjective. Go to the movies in the theater, watch films with night shots, you will notice a WIDE range of noise. Not only is the amount of noise one problem, the pattern of the noise, the color of the noise, the artifacts of the noise cleaning, it goes on and on.

Take it further into color grading and what happens to that noise becomes another problem as the noise is different.

You want a simple answer, there isn't one. Hands on with the cameras you want to know about is the only way you will really know. This test is for people who at least know one or two of the cameras being tested. It's easy to understand the results and appreciate them with that knowledge.

magnifico
01-08-2012, 02:32 PM
@stoneinapond
thx for this information. For the first test of Philip Bloom I just focused in definition of the footage. And there, c300 and gh2 were my favourite. That appeared somehow objective for me. I didnt focus on colors since there were clouds etc.
In Personal View forum they started a project about grading skin tones. I am going to learn here about it.

@Rick Burnett
:-) I followed the zacuto test 2011...and for me it was quite very obvious to select the best footages in the low light test. Considering details etc. But yes I think there are a lot of other factors may be a pro will stress and I wouldnt even notice. i am learning photo & video and I appreciate answers like yours. Thx.

Nota: the point is you said "ISO400". May be here limit will be subjective considering gh2 vs fs100. At ISO800 may be again they are on par there. At ISO1600 may be fs100 is better because showing here more detail and/or better color...That is what I wanted to see : the subjective analysis of the pro, the objective evidence of some new artifacts that disqualifies the next level.

Rick Burnett
01-08-2012, 02:48 PM
@stoneinapond
thx for this information. For the first test of Philip Bloom I just focused in definition of the footage. And there, c300 and gh2 were my favourite. I didnt focus on colors since there were clouds etc.
In Personal View forum they started a project about grading skin tones. I am going to learn here about it.

@Rick Burnett
:-) I followed the zacuto test 2011...and for me it was quite very obvious to select the best footages in the low light test. Considering details etc. But yes I think there are a lot of other factors may be a pro will stress and I wouldnt even notice. i am learning photo & video and I appreciate answers like yours. Thx.

I can tell you, when I was starting out not too long ago, I watched hundreds of reviews, tests, comparisons, from every possible location I could find, and continue to do so even today. One thing is for certain, if you *really* want to know how one of these cameras works in your world, you've GOT to get your hands on one. Rent.

I use this example often, but I bought a D90 when they came out (Nikon) thinking it would be an amazing camera to shoot video with. The reviews at the time were great, the videos were awesome, and I was of course still learning a LOT about cameras. I get the camera only to find out, there is no way to set manual exposure. The rolling shutter is worse than any other camera I have ever used, and the line skipping causes artifacts every so many rows (I think 8 or 9). NO ONE at the time talked about these things, and of course, I didn't know to even ask about them. It was really a pain to shoot with.

Of course, I still have the D90 as it is a fantastic stills cameras :)

I say that here because people get hung up on one or two things thinking they will make the difference to all the other possible shortcomings. I was focusing on shallow DoF, which was great, but didn't even consider a million other things that were important.

With these tests, it is important to take that into consideration as well. There are SO MANY other factors on ALL these cameras that which is right for you is a tough decision for many people. These aren't meant to say camera A is better than camera B in any other context then just what is being tested, and even then, most reviewers will admit that their conclusions can be subjective in some cases when performance is very close.

I've used my 7D even today for shots where the FS100 does not fit, and I cannot modify the shooting location. I don't want to necessarily use it, but for me, the framing and location with the 7D justified the negatives of the image. It's all a matter of importance.

magnifico
01-08-2012, 03:04 PM
:-) The test of PB is fun; i am longing now for the next shootout of zacuto (the revenge...) with gh2 and other cams...

Mike@AF
01-08-2012, 05:19 PM
You are assuming that everyone is buying these cameras for making movies.

A good deal of DSLR's are being used to shoot documentaries and even ENG work. In those situations you capture the action as it unfolds, often with no control over the environment. In such circumstances the cameras low light performance will be a deciding factor, along with everything else.

So now it's "let's shoot with no light so it looks crappy because this camera can shoot well with very little light"? It's like people are forgetting about what used to be done when cameras needed a lot of light or no one has heard of battery-powered on-camera lights. That would be much better than no lighting. Even docs should look decent.

Edit: Also, even if you couldn't use a light at all, you wouldn't use a f2.8 lens. With the GH2 you'd use a Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 lens and wouldn't have the exposure issue. You'd be able to stay at ISO 400 or 800 at worst and then get decent exposure and much less noise. Low light tests like this are just unrealistic and not of value in my opinion.

The skin tone test was good though.

Rick Burnett
01-08-2012, 05:56 PM
So now it's "let's shoot with no light so it looks crappy because this camera can shoot well with very little light"? It's like people are forgetting about what used to be done when cameras needed a lot of light or no one has heard of battery-powered on-camera lights. That would be much better than no lighting. Even docs should look decent.

Why does it have to be an extreme viewpoint one way or the other? Low light doesn't have to be no light. Why not embrace technology that has advanced to make your job easier? Just because people used to use a huge amount of light doesn't mean that's how it has to be done OR that using less light means it will look crappy.

There is no advantage to using a ton of lights because you use a camera that is not very sensitive compared to using less lights on a much more sensitive camera (all other things equal). it adds cost in a ton of different ways with lights, power, hands to operate them, transportation. Further, depending on how much light you need, it also limits your freedoms on set in what kind of dynamic shots that you can make.

With a camera that is more sensitive, you can use lower power lights where you need them and get the same results. You can diffuse lights even further to spread them out. You can run them off of batteries, hidden behind props. It really allows you to look at doing things a bunch of different ways that you just didn't have those options before.

Doing something a harder way doesn't make it superior, it's just a different way.

I don't get this hostility people have about low light performance. If you can't understand the advantage of it that many of us see, then just move on to the other tests. For me, this matters. For me, this is where I want to see what the camera does. I understand lighting, I've spent a great deal of time looking at all the ways to light a scene. I put my efforts into the artistic merits of the scene lighting. A low-light sensor doesn't do anything to change the artistic needs of lighting and I can say that I've understood that from day one.

But, it's also not just about low light, it's about slow lenses as well. Or, deep focus on a large sensor. You can get better performance with a lower noise sensor at these settings. Again, it's about freedom.

There are a lot of amazing things that get discovered when people push equipment where it wasn't used before. I'm glad the person who discovered distorted guitar sounded great didn't listen to all the people that probably told them, no, you need to use it clean like everyone else before had amplified their sound. :)

Mike@AF
01-08-2012, 08:36 PM
Why does it have to be an extreme viewpoint one way or the other? Low light doesn't have to be no light. Why not embrace technology that has advanced to make your job easier? Just because people used to use a huge amount of light doesn't mean that's how it has to be done OR that using less light means it will look crappy.

It's not about just using less light. What was demonstrated was basically using no light. I think it's great that the cameras are more sensitive than they used to be and I do embrace it. However, it seems to be getting used as an excuse to not light at all.


There is no advantage to using a ton of lights because you use a camera that is not very sensitive compared to using less lights on a much more sensitive camera (all other things equal). it adds cost in a ton of different ways with lights, power, hands to operate them, transportation. Further, depending on how much light you need, it also limits your freedoms on set in what kind of dynamic shots that you can make.

I never said anything about using a ton of lights. I mentioned a simple battery-powered on-camera light. That's not a ton of light. In fact, it's very little light, but is enough to get a much better exposure and less noise than the unrealistic test done in Phillip Bloom's shootout/test/comparison, especially if a fast lens is used than f/2.8.


I don't get this hostility people have about low light performance. If you can't understand the advantage of it that many of us see, then just move on to the other tests. For me, this matters. For me, this is where I want to see what the camera does. I understand lighting, I've spent a great deal of time looking at all the ways to light a scene. I put my efforts into the artistic merits of the scene lighting. A low-light sensor doesn't do anything to change the artistic needs of lighting and I can say that I've understood that from day one.

It's not hostility about low light performance. It's about poor lighting and the absence of poor lighting and a test/comparison that's unrealistic and really has no bearing. The Zacuto/SCCE 2011 shootout is a much more realistic example of how to perform a low light test in a shootout.

David G. Smith
01-08-2012, 08:49 PM
The Zacuto/SCCE 2011 shootout is a much more realistic example of how to perform a low light test in a shootout.

Mr. Bloom said that very same thing explicitly in the video.

TheDingo
01-08-2012, 09:02 PM
a test/comparison that's unrealistic and really has no bearing

I think Philip admits this right from the get go. His test is more of a "can I break the image these cameras produce by pushing them far beyond any realistic lighting situation" test, and it shows that under absolutely worst case scenarios the Canon C300 and Sony F3 / FS-100 can produce a more acceptable image. ( definitely not a great image, but it's a salvageable image if you had no other options )

Hopefully most viewers will realize that adding a few hundred dollars of inexpensive lights would produce a far better image with all of the cameras tested, than anything we are seeing in Philip's "no lighting" test.

yoclay
01-09-2012, 01:20 AM
I think that it is not simply a question of using lights to boost a low light situation. I dispensed with that notion a long time ago. In reality lighting for me is always about sculpting a look. Truth be told, most shooting in low light is now happening so far beyond the old limits set by film that it is all gravy. That said, I know a lot of people are pushing this camera to 12,800 and that is great, but the blue channel noise is just outrageous and totally unacceptable by my standards. What concerns me the most remains the noise levels which are happening going into the shadows of many very normal, low ISO situations on the GH2, especially on flat surfaces with gradients. While I really like this little camera (reminds me of the HV20's popularity a few years ago) I have yet to see a test about that particular issue on a variety of cameras and I am certain that my perception of a quality image is also based on this kind of artifacting. Show me a test about how these cameras handle gradients at a variety of iso's and I will show you the camera which is my next purchase. Denoising/smearing in post is not a substitute for a clean output in my book.

maarek
01-09-2012, 02:25 AM
It's about poor lighting and the absence of poor lighting and a test/comparison that's unrealistic and really has no bearing. The Zacuto/SCCE 2011 shootout is a much more realistic example of how to perform a low light test in a shootout.

Philip isn't testing lighting. He is testing extreme low light. As an extreme low light test, it was pretty good. We could FINALLY see that the C300 is not more sensitive then the F3 / FS100. No other test has even shown this yet. We could see that the GH2 was not as good on lowlight as some other cameras.

It all makes sense and is correct. If you want to test ISO 800 and then look at the shadow noise - great - but that's a completely different thing.

maarek
01-09-2012, 02:30 AM
However, it seems to be getting used as an excuse to not light at all.

You don't get it. The FS100 is so sensitive that you can be at ISO 100 longer than other cameras. You can use smaller lights, a more natural look easier. Blasting a house full of light is not natural. Now you can argue "who goes for that kind off look?" but it is getting more and more usual. The film Drive had excellent shots done with the Mark II in pretty natural lighting.

The tv-show Game of Thrones had very unnatural looking lighting, especially when watched in HD. Everything looked lit! I would wager a more artistic style with less light would've done wonders for it. Offcourse some people like that style. Some don't. Those who don't now have an option to make more interesting looks.

What you are basically saying is "I light everything with dozens of 4k lights and so should all".

http://thebuibrothers.com/blog/2012/01/killing-tv-lighting-4k-and-10-bit-canon-c300-late-night-chat-with-rodney-charters-drew-gardner-and-lan-bui-part-1/

Rick Burnett
01-09-2012, 10:53 AM
To me extending the difference in the noise performance in extreme low light helps to understand the difference in the low light. It's not meant to be "here is where low light makes sense", it's "here is an apples to apples comparison on low light performance between these cameras". This way, you can compare how they differ. You want it easier to see the differences. Like I said, why would I want to see all these cameras performing really well at some low light situation where they weren't being stressed?

I understand the viewpoint of wanting to see where these cameras remain usable, but each camera has different limits. Clearly that is a lot of work and would still be wrought with subjective criticism. The next problem would be gamma curve differences, noise reduction settings, detail settings, and probably other things as well. This was a quick test to be able to rate the SNR between cameras in a way that is easy to see. For that, I am grateful. I've done camera tests. I know how much time they take. And I definitely know how ungrateful people are for the time that goes into them. Or, that people fail to see they are reading more into a test than was intended. I think Philip and crew did a great quick test that at least I can see a lot of information from. I think a lot of FS100 and F3 users will be happy to see how their cameras sit in this test.

If I can get my hands on a C300, I will do the rolling shutter measurements like I did on the FS100, AF100 and 7D. At least that test is not subjective! :)

Apefos Adapter
01-09-2012, 06:27 PM
I am editing a video tutorial how to make gh2 low light image match the c300 and fs100 low light image quality.

I will upload the tutorial to vimeo as soon as i finish editing it.

Mike@AF
01-09-2012, 06:48 PM
You don't get it. The FS100 is so sensitive that you can be at ISO 100 longer than other cameras. You can use smaller lights, a more natural look easier. Blasting a house full of light is not natural. Now you can argue "who goes for that kind off look?" but it is getting more and more usual. The film Drive had excellent shots done with the Mark II in pretty natural lighting.

The tv-show Game of Thrones had very unnatural looking lighting, especially when watched in HD. Everything looked lit! I would wager a more artistic style with less light would've done wonders for it. Offcourse some people like that style. Some don't. Those who don't now have an option to make more interesting looks.

What you are basically saying is "I light everything with dozens of 4k lights and so should all".

http://thebuibrothers.com/blog/2012/01/killing-tv-lighting-4k-and-10-bit-canon-c300-late-night-chat-with-rodney-charters-drew-gardner-and-lan-bui-part-1/

I did not say that at all. Go back and read what I said again. I said an on-camera light should be used. That's one light that would make that shot look better. My lighting setups are usually very simple with usually only 1-4 lights and fairly low power lights. I'd rather ND a window than put up 4K lights indoors to compensate. I don't think Game of Thrones looks "unnatural". It looks good for the period it's supposed to be set in.

JoeJITSU
01-09-2012, 08:27 PM
You're looking at the cameras in the most Incompetent situation. I actually agree with the way he did this, and I can say I expected as much. If you want an extreme lowlight camera the Gh2 or Canon cams are not those. They're all pretty gross in that regard.

What you know now though is that this is the bottom floor for performance. A mere 1K of wattage in this specific setup would've cleaned all of that up drastically.

I don't even like the FS100's out of cam image at high ISOs.

F3 w/s-log will be something I keep my eyes on as an option now for strictly no light shooting. Also reminds mr that I haven't tried something similar to this with Epic. I'd imagine an RCP-X denies when converting to 1080/2K from 5K would look pretty straight.

I totally agree with you also how Phil shot this. But I must say...The 5D Mark II did look noticeably better than the other DSLR's. I'm think its because of its full size sensor.

JoeJITSU
01-09-2012, 08:29 PM
I am editing a video tutorial how to make gh2 low light image match the c300 and fs100 low light image quality.

I will upload the tutorial to vimeo as soon as i finish editing it.
No way!!
I got to see this. Can't wait.
Do you have a C300 or a FS100 to compare it side by side? It would be great

Rick Burnett
01-09-2012, 08:55 PM
I totally agree with you also how Phil shot this. But I must say...The 5D Mark II did look noticeably better than the other DSLR's. I'm think its because of its full size sensor.

I didn't realize how much of a difference the larger sensor made on light gathering between the 7D/5D until this test. I also found it interesting how different ISO values looked from one camera to the next.

Lots of interesting tid-bits.

philip bloom
01-10-2012, 01:59 PM
it was as listed an EXTREME low light test. I say in the video that low light sensitivity is not an excuse not to light but there are times, mostly documentary which is my field, where you have to go with what there is.

The lighting in this was not "no light" as there was some light just sod all...have there been situations when I have needed to see something in my all years of shooting as this level? Yep and never been able to. This was eye opening to me. I think a lot of people need to take their narrative glasses off and remember their are other types of filmmaking where this could be really useful.

Would you "light" a scene as dark as this in narrative, of course not. But you saw how clearly the cameras dealt with heavily underexposed images and how their codecs coped. This was part of what I wanted to scene.

At the end of the day this was done for fun. It took a huge amount of work and was not commissioned by anyone. I just wanted to do it. Remember listen to what I said at the beginning of both parts. Base no camera purchases on these tests alone.

Have a great 2012. I am going to jump out of a plane tomorrow so these could be my last words...better make them profound.


Cantaloupe melons...there. How is that for profound? :)

Rick Burnett
01-10-2012, 02:03 PM
it was as listed an EXTREME low light test. I say in the video that low light sensitivity is not an excuse not to light but there are times, mostly documentary which is my field, where you have to go with what there is.&nbsp;<br><br>The lighting in this was not "no light" as there was some light just not a lot...have there been situations when I have needed to see something in my all years of shooting as this level? Yep and never been able to. This was eye opening to me. I think a lot of people need to take their narrative glasses off and remember their are other types of filmmaking where this could be really useful.&nbsp;<br><br>Would you "light" a scene as dark as this in narrative, of course not. But you saw how clearly the cameras dealt with heavily underexposed images and how their codecs coped. This was part of what I wanted to scene.&nbsp;<br><br>At the end of the day this was done for fun. It took a huge amount of work and was not commissioned by anyone. I just wanted to do it. Remember listen to what I said at the beginning of both parts. Base no camera purchases on these tests alone.&nbsp;<br><br>Have a great 2012. I am going to jump out of a plane tomorrow so these could be my last words...better make them profound.&nbsp;<br><br>Cantaloupe melons...there. How is that for profound? :)<br><br>

Thanks again for the test. I really thought all of them were eye opening for me in different ways for many of the cameras.

Ian-T
01-10-2012, 02:06 PM
Have a great 2012. I am going to jump out of a plane tomorrow so these could be my last words...better make them profound.


Look man....it's not that bad. It aint worth it. Sure there are haters....and what not,....but don't let that get to you. You got your whole life ahead of you. Forget those wannabees... They just wanna be U. Dammit Jim i'm a doctor!!!! If you need counseling .....we can get you that. JUST DON'T JUMP!!! :)

dustylense
01-10-2012, 02:16 PM
it was as listed an EXTREME low light test. I say in the video that low light sensitivity is not an excuse not to light but there are times, mostly documentary which is my field, where you have to go with what there is.

The lighting in this was not "no light" as there was some light just sod all...have there been situations when I have needed to see something in my all years of shooting as this level? Yep and never been able to. This was eye opening to me. I think a lot of people need to take their narrative glasses off and remember their are other types of filmmaking where this could be really useful.

Would you "light" a scene as dark as this in narrative, of course not. But you saw how clearly the cameras dealt with heavily underexposed images and how their codecs coped. This was part of what I wanted to scene.

At the end of the day this was done for fun. It took a huge amount of work and was not commissioned by anyone. I just wanted to do it. Remember listen to what I said at the beginning of both parts. Base no camera purchases on these tests alone.

Have a great 2012. I am going to jump out of a plane tomorrow so these could be my last words...better make them profound.


Cantaloupe melons...there. How is that for profound? :)
Poor Philip! Every time he tests, reviews, or anything, people jump all over him. Philip didn't have to do this test for us, but he did. Rather than bash him for any reason, why not just say "thanks Philip for taking the time to do these". Or... Why don't some of you bashers and nay-sayers get off your butt and test your own cameras, thus taking Philip's reports as a grain of salt. Philip gets bashed for speaking of the Red Epic, and now the Gh2 guys are all over him.
Keep on going strong, Philip. MANY of us love what you do for us. Others, are just too busy flashing their Gh2's with different hacks and filming blades of grass looking for compression artifacts. Get off Philip's back and get out and shoot something and make some evaluations of your own....

TheDingo
01-10-2012, 03:04 PM
too busy flashing their Gh2's with different hacks and filming blades of grass looking for compression artifacts

Who told you about my secret Compression Artifact Porn... "Oh man! ...Look at the macro-blocking on that Tennessee blue!!! Damn, I have to change my pants again..."

stoneinapond
01-10-2012, 05:50 PM
...Dammit Jim i'm a doctor!!!! If you need counseling .....we can get you that. JUST DON'T JUMP!!! :)

Made my evening. :happy:

Mestizo Devon
01-10-2012, 06:15 PM
Keep going bloom! I'm soaking it all in!

Mike@AF
01-10-2012, 06:17 PM
it was as listed an EXTREME low light test. I say in the video that low light sensitivity is not an excuse not to light but there are times, mostly documentary which is my field, where you have to go with what there is.

The lighting in this was not "no light" as there was some light just sod all...have there been situations when I have needed to see something in my all years of shooting as this level? Yep and never been able to. This was eye opening to me. I think a lot of people need to take their narrative glasses off and remember their are other types of filmmaking where this could be really useful.

Would you "light" a scene as dark as this in narrative, of course not. But you saw how clearly the cameras dealt with heavily underexposed images and how their codecs coped. This was part of what I wanted to scene.

At the end of the day this was done for fun. It took a huge amount of work and was not commissioned by anyone. I just wanted to do it. Remember listen to what I said at the beginning of both parts. Base no camera purchases on these tests alone.

Have a great 2012. I am going to jump out of a plane tomorrow so these could be my last words...better make them profound.


Cantaloupe melons...there. How is that for profound? :)

Phillip, just want to say thanks for doing the test. Although I don't personally find these extreme lowlight tests useful for my own work, I do understand how it could be useful for others. And the resolution and skin tone tests were definitely good for all I think. Thanks for your efforts and for posting the results.