60d versus a hacked GH1

[Jackson Miller]

Now, I posted a similar thread in the GH1 section. Mods, I think this should be left here because the questions are similar but the answers from GH1 and canon users will be very different and I wanted to hear both sides.

Basically, I sold my 5d a while ago to get a cheaper DSLR and invest more in other areas of my equipment. Since then, I have been going back and forth between the 60d and the hacked GH1 about 4 times, each time convinced that the camera was the right one for me. Now I have read these kinds of threads before (not these same cameras) and my conclusion is that typically the canon users will feel that their cameras are vastly superior and the GH1 users will feel their cameras are vastly superior. So, maybe try to be unbiased and tell me what you think. I would especially like to hear from owners or users of both types of cameras (7d, t2i, or 60d and hacked GH1).

Now if the gh1 wasn't hacked I would go 60d for sure. But the hack is a big deal! Technically, the footage is the BEST you can get from a large sensor camera that isn't the red or alexa etc. as far as resolution, sharpness, and lack of any artifacts. But for some reason now I find myself gravitating back to the 60d. I think the reason why is that I just don't like the colors from the GH1. They seems very dull compared to what comes out of the canon's. I haven't really seen any color corrected gh1 footage that I loved. Do you guys know what I mean. Now the AF100 should be much better in this sense because it will have the famous dvx/hvx "mojo," but the gh1 footage I see looks nothing like that. Can it be corrected/pushed farther than the canons or the same or not as far?

If the GH1 is able to be color corrected to be "richer" wouldn't it be the best choice for everyone but professional photographers? Because then the only areas it is lacking in are lowlight and DOF. For low light you can just use lights... and for DOF... well I think it should be shallow enough for me and most people tend to go shallow focus crazy anyways compared to in real films.

Anyways, I am eager to hear your thoughts as I need to decide soon on what to get. What pros and cons do you see? Thanks.

 

[Kin Lau]

I have both the GH1 (hacked) and 7D. I love the articulated screen and EVF on the GH1, and footage from the GH13 is "sharper", sometimes too sharp. The 14-140 is very useful, so I tend to use the GH1 as a more general video tool. It's so much easier to just start shooting video with the GH1.

I have way more lenses for the 7D, with ultra-wides like the 11-16/2.8 Tokina (nothing available for the GH1 matches this) and a bunch of f2.8 zooms and fast primes. For available light (or lack thereof), it's the 7D. I can also switch btwn video and stills _much_ faster on the 7D than GH1. I've missed opportunites a few times waiting for the GH1 to clear the buffer. With the faster lenses and larger sensor of the 7D, I find it so much easier to isolate the subject.

 

[Jackson Miller]

Thank you. So which do you prefer for narrative film making? What if it's not too dark? Would you still use the 7d? Or the gh1?

 

[Kin Lau]

I'm mostly into nature/wildlife, so I usually have the GH1 + 14-140 on one shoulder, and the 7D + telephoto in hand. That seems to be the best use of each, playing to the strengths of each.

 

[Jackson Miller]

Hmm thank you very much. Could other people please give some insights? Especially those who do narrative work or even events/weddings/interviews? But especially narratives.