550D/GH13 comparision shot

but the small chip which requires so much light for it to even be usable is something that I could not go back too.
Click to expand...
Good point.

I'd like to see at least the fabled GH13 / T2i or 7D low-light comparison though. I thought GrunF was going to provide this days ago. What happened?
 
Last edited:
Hi Barry,

thanks for the great test, very good idea to post the pics without the camera names first, all this fanboyism is driving me nuts in the discussions. i bought the canon 550d here in germany because it was way cheaper than the gh1, but i really would have bought the gh1 even with the bad codec if i had the cash.

but i really do like the 550d, use it even more for photos (mostly of my 15 months old daughter, so don't earn my living with it), and like the videos too (but i too was a little disappointed with sharpness in wide shots). i work as a vfx/3d/compositing guy in a small tv-design company here in cologne, i have worked with telecined 16mm, 35mm, RED one and SD+HD Video footage, so i do know how the "good stuff" looks.

what i like about the canon is that you can get e.g. the 50mm 1.8 lens with decent autofocus (for photowork) for under a 100 bucks, and i really like the images.

so my real question is, i bookmarked your post comparing the gh1 with the 7d with resolution charts, and in 1080 there was kind of a tie resolution wise, only the canon had that typical color moire. i would be interested how much better the gh13 would do because of the higher bitrate now. i always thought that interframe codecs don't improve much when they capture motionless footage, but of course if the bitrate is so low that there isn't enough headroom for the i-frames, i could be wrong. any plans to shoot some charts again with the gh13? i know i should go shooting stuff and not get all techy but i go shoot stuff in any case but love the nerdy tech stuff.

so no matter if you want to go through chart shooting or not, like your unemotional and rather scientific approch to equipment, cause the emotion should go into the content.

cheers from cologne,
niklas
 
Barry_Green said:
If interest persists I can make available some of the .mts and mov files.
Click to expand...

Thanks Barry and I do understand your reasoning. The only question for me is what did the shots look like before the Photoshop corrections. For me the auto corrections change the image quite a bit, so I usually start more gently and work my way up. I noticed in your shots the contrast in the water when cropped all the way in is a lot different from one camera to another and wondered if the camera did it or Photoshot auto contrast. I suspect the Auto contrast may be shifting it too much, but can't really say without seeing the uncorrected shot.
When the dust settles I would be great to have some uncorrected files to play around with.
 
I would say based on barry's test
if the lighting condition was acceptable, camcorders would outperform dslrs in resolution (or dynamic range.. i dont know but im pretty sure it will)
with that said, people should know when to use a camera depending on their situation or scene requirements.
 
I haven't got to post here yet, but just went through this thread page by page. I tried not to hold any thoughts about which letter was which camera etc. I merely chose according to which image pleased me within just a few seconds. Gut instinct. Surprisingly enough I chose the 7d and gh13 about equally.

I can't really quantify my results, but what I am taking away from this is that both cameras produce nice images and I need not let the newest piece of technology run my life lol.

Good shooting all.
 
I don't think you're crazy Sure Shott. One of the first things you notice in those shots is the difference in DOF between the Canon/GH-13 vs the HMC40. You can do a lot more aesthetically to their images to give that "film-like" look IMO. How will the HMC40 fair againts the GH-13 when you put a DOF adapter on the front of it? Would it match the GH-13? Just a thought?
 
at first I was disaapointed cause I really thought A provided the best potential image and to my eye it just looks sharper but I thought it was the GH1(3). I just got the T2i this week and am thrilled that the one I picked was the camera I chose to buy! that Barry for this great test!!! says most everything we need to know...
 
Okay, I've posted three of the raw comparison PSD's, without the Adobe Photoshop equalizations.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/z4nyeqnqzjz/Comparison1.psd

http://www.mediafire.com/file/gzrkgxeuhj4/Comparison3.psd

http://www.mediafire.com/file/znnymnnzkgy/Comparison5.psd

These are direct uncompressed grabs from the timeline, copied into a 3-layer (or 2-layer) PSD document, with the cameras named on the layer labels.

Remember that the two DSLRs were set to identical iris, shutter, and ISO. If you see exposure differences, chalk it up to the oft-reported phenomenon that the 7D's and GH1's ISO values aren't directly equivalent.
 
Ian-T said:
I don't think you're crazy Sure Shott. One of the first things you notice in those shots is the difference in DOF between the Canon/GH-13 vs the HMC40. You can do a lot more aesthetically to their images to give that "film-like" look IMO. How will the HMC40 fair againts the GH-13 when you put a DOF adapter on the front of it? Would it match the GH-13? Just a thought?
Click to expand...

I don't know if you really meant this for me. I have no experience with either the gh13 or the hmc40. I own a T2i and was just noting that I found both the gh13 and 7d's image pleasing in diffrent tests.

I actually didn't end up selecting the HMC in any test, but I think its mostly cuz the picture was so far off from the other 2 i didn't trust it as a good comparison.
 
Thanks for the test barry. Amazing codec improvement, you can tell the difference but i dont think its huge enough for those with canons to run out and sell them and jump ship. I felt like the colors being flatter were making me dislike the canon more than the others more than the sharpness level anyway. I usually shoot with sharpness turned down personally to get a smoother look, but its all about preference.

Is rolling shutter still a larger issue with GH13?

My main issue though is that there is still no firmware to disable the dam AGC on the 7D! argh!!
 
Rolling shutter is pretty much identical between the two of them.

I don't think anyone should rush to sell one product to get the other, unless they've identified that one of them does something they NEED, that the other one doesn't do. There's been enough gorgeous work shot on the 7D/T2i that those who have them shouldn't worry much about it, UNLESS -- and this is the big unless -- you need deep-focus wide shots. I have come to the conclusion that the Canons just cannot do it. If you shoot primarily with shallower focus, the Canons do great, but if you want an HD wide shot, the Canons are incapable of delivering it. Or the 720p "live" look -- the difference between the two is jarring enough that, if your main reason for wanting to buy a camera is for the 720p "live" look, the GH13 is so superior in that that it's worth selling one and taking the loss to get the other.

So once again it comes down to:
1) What do YOU need? Who cares what anyone else thinks or needs, what do YOU need?
2) Have you already spent money to buy one? If so, then get out and shoot, rather than obsessing over pixels
3) If you haven't bought yet, and see differences here enough to sway you one way or the other, then -- go ahead in confidence, regardless of what the peer pressure or buzz is.
4) If one does something that you NEED, that the other one doesn't -- then the rest of the discussion becomes moot, doesn't it? If you absolutely must have live monitoring while recording, and cannot live without it, then who cares whether the GH13 is sharper? It can't do live monitoring, and the Canon can, therefore you go with the Canon, case closed.

So once again -- they're all good products, but are certainly suited for some jobs more than others, and in some ways each is clearly superior to the others. Therefore, it's a decision that has to be made based on what your individual needs are.

I must say, though, that I am now officially jazzed out of my skull for the AF100. If the codec improvements that Vitaliy has made has resulted in such a massive improvement in the GH1, and the AF100's codec is decidedly substantially superior to the GH13's, and having a proper OLPF to eliminate all aliasing/moire... I think the AF100 might be incredible.
 
Barry_Green said:
. . . Or the 720p "live" look -- the difference between the two is jarring enough that, if your main reason for wanting to buy a camera is for the 720p "live" look, the GH13 is so superior in that that it's worth selling one and taking the loss to get the other.
Click to expand...

properly barry, 720p of the GH13 and the GF13 are an absolute top class. Here they are the Canon clearly consider
 
Agreed. Part of the reason I bought the T2i was that I heard it was great in extreme cases of low light. Philip Bloom still says that Canon is the camera to beat in this area, even after the hack.

Judging by what I've personally seen with the T2i he was right on the money. Its incredible. All these cameras are amazing though. It's really hard to go wrong either way.

MAH
 
Agreed. Part of the reason I bought the T2i was that I heard it was great in extreme cases of low light. Philip Bloom still says that Canon is the camera to beat in this area, even after the hack.

Judging by what I've personally seen with the T2i he was right on the money
Click to expand...
I can't be the only one dying to see some low-light comparisons between these two cameras. There are several people who've posted on this thread who have both the T2i/7D and the GH13, so it definitely can be done. I would seriously pay money to see these. The lack of any decent high-ISO, low-light test between these two is the source of my indecision with respect to which camera to buy.
 
I say if you aren't going to be able to actually light as one should for a narrative, or if you're in a documentary situation where you're always faced with desk lamps as source light or street lamps (sodium vapor doesn't like any of these cameras, don't be fooled) then go with a 5D.
 
Im sure Kholi is exactly right.

I can't compare cameras but I've shot some scenes with very little light and they have turned out extremely well with the T2i.

This is shooting with much lesss than one normally would. Not unlike that shot of DiCaprio holding a match as the light source illuminating his face. I believe that was on a RED.

I haven't gone that far though. :)

MAH
 
tylerrad said:
I can't be the only one dying to see some low-light comparisons between these two cameras. There are several people who've posted on this thread who have both the T2i/7D and the GH13, so it definitely can be done. I would seriously pay money to see these. The lack of any decent high-ISO, low-light test between these two is the source of my indecision with respect to which camera to buy.
Click to expand...

It has been done countless times already. The Canons are better in low light, does that make them better cameras ..... No ...... Does the GH1 now that it can provide wide sharp shots better..... No.


The truth is all of these cameras are great and if you truly are shooting something you would have already owned one of these cameras.

I owned a Gh1 and Canon and they are both great with +/- to each one, what I can't be without though is no camera. So whether you choose a Gh1 or and Canon you will have a great camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top