60d vs pana gh2

I'm about to do a test today between a 7D and and friends GH2. So I will let you know.

The Panny is very impressive image wise.

Canon has a big advantage in terms of lense IMO.

GH2 takes ever lens but does not have any good, fast zooms. NONE. The Tokina 11-16 f2.8, Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS, Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS are 3 of the best zooms you can buy and there is nothing like it on the Panny. Not even close. These are extremely USEFUL lenses. While GH2 can take every lens, I would choose the ability to use these 3 lenses over the 1000 exotic primes you can use on a GH2. Between Nikon, Canon, Zeiss and Leica, there are plenty of primes for the Canons. What makes them so useful is that they are constant aperture, which is really, really nice for video and they are f2.8.

But the Berger mount could change all this.

GH2 has no good wide angle lenses, The Panny 7-14 does not take filters, so unless you use a matte box, you're screwed for outdoors.

This is a good article on the aesthetics, color, sharpness and DOF of GH2 vs. Canons Basically, it concluded that Canon has a deeper color depth so you get better colors on the Canon (which I agree with). You get shallow DOF on the Canons.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/520-Which-is-most-cinematic-5D-60D-GH2-AF100

BUT the Canons have bad moire and not very useable 720p, which is a HUGE advantage on the Panny. Panny has the crop mode which is really cool.

But yeah... I might be switching to Panny. The biggest thing holding me back is the fast, IS, constant aperture zooms on the Canons. Plus, I like the aesthetics of the Canons better.
 
You can actually use any nikon AF lens and have aperture control with a Nikkon G-> micro4/3 adapter- so tokina 11-16mm- nikkor 17-55 f2.8, nikkor 70-200 f2.8 ect... all work (just not the stabilizer unfortunately). Or if you need fast zooms, there are the oly 14-35 f2.0 and the oly 35-100 f2.0. Bummer about the IS though, maybe someone can figure out how to just send power to the lens to turn on the stabilizers on the nikkors.
 
gene_can_sing said:
IGH2 takes ever lens but does not have any good, fast zooms. NONE. The Tokina 11-16 f2.8, Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS, Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS are 3 of the best zooms you can buy and there is nothing like it on the Panny. Not even close. These are extremely USEFUL lenses. While GH2 can take every lens, I would choose the ability to use these 3 lenses over the 1000 exotic primes you can use on a GH2. Between Nikon, Canon, Zeiss and Leica, there are plenty of primes for the Canons. What makes them so useful is that they are constant aperture, which is really, really nice for video and they are f2.8.

But the Berger mount could change all this.

GH2 has no good wide angle lenses, The Panny 7-14 does not take filters, so unless you use a matte box, you're screwed for outdoors.

This is a good article on the aesthetics, color, sharpness and DOF of GH2 vs. Canons Basically, it concluded that Canon has a deeper color depth so you get better colors on the Canon (which I agree with). You get shallow DOF on the Canons.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/520-Which-is-most-cinematic-5D-60D-GH2-AF100

BUT the Canons have bad moire and not very useable 720p, which is a HUGE advantage on the Panny. Panny has the crop mode which is really cool.

But yeah... I might be switching to Panny. The biggest thing holding me back is the fast, IS, constant aperture zooms on the Canons. Plus, I like the aesthetics of the Canons better.
Click to expand...

Honestly, you sound like you're trying to talk yourself into a decision you just don't want to make or accept. If you like the way the Canons look, why should it matter what anyone else thinks? (Except clients, maybe.) Buy and use what makes you happy, and what gives you the kind of images that please you.

But let's put this "no good zooms" thing to rest, okay?

The Olympus 14-35 is as good a zoom lens, both mechanically and optically, as you can buy today. It's so far superior to the Canon 17-55 it isn't even funny. And it's f2, making it a full stop faster than any of the Canon lenses you mentioned. No IS, but I never found the 17-55 IS to be of much benefit anyway. It's not nearly as well-implemented as the IS system in the Canon 100mm Macro or 70-200 f2.8L II lenses.

I haven't used it myself, but shooters I know who have used the Panasonic Leica 14-50 f2.8-3.5 with MEGA-OIS have great things to say about it for stills work. I'm hoping to get a chance to test it out for myself soon, but that could be another option.

If you need super-wide but MUST have filter threads, the Olympus 9-18 is a solid lens as well. And if it's too slow for you, there's the Olympus 11-22 f2.8-3.5, another great Olympus zoom lens. The Panasonic 4/3 to M4/3 Adapter works to varying degrees with all of these lenses, but individual users mileage may vary.


And if you're going to base any part of any purchasing decision based on information from the site you linked to…well, good luck with that.
 
Your right Stephen Mick. Sorry about that. I guess the Zooms for the Panny just are not as well known as the Canons

I suppose it also comes down to personal style choice. The Panny is a great camera and the Canons do have lots more flaws and Canon is pretty lame for milking it. But even with it's flaws, Canon does have a great aesthetic IMO.

For many people, the GH2 is the better choice because of the more solid image. But some, do like the softer, dreamier Canon look. For me personally, I really wanted to love the GH2 because I do like the sharper and technically less flawed image and I hate the dreaded Canon moire, but at the end of the day, I think I just like the colors and DOF of the Canons more (I'm probably one of the few).

BUT many people like the colors and sharpness of the GH2

It's really just what you want to convey. The Gh2 and the Canons have different looks and asethetics, so choose what you prefer. I think because of different sensor sizes and the way the sensors process the information, it's not really possible to truly copy the look of one camera or the other in post.

They are different animals and some are stronger in certain areas and the other in other areas.
 
Last edited:
Gene, I'm in the same boat. I wanted the sharper less moire-y image of the GH2 to be the end all be all to my DSLR dreams but frankly, the overall image quality (color, dynamic range, true potential for a nice neutral image that isn't crushed) has me realizing I hate the overall look of the panasonic. I kept trying to talk myself into the GH2 until I finally just started looking at videos and ignoring the technical info. I was instantly drawn to the look of the canons (specifically the 5Dmkii if I could afford....sadly I can't). So I'm going 60D. I just had to ignore the hype and follow my gut. I'd rather have a softer image and moire if it means I get the much more cinematic, less contrasty look of the canon. I have not seen one single thing on the GH2 that truly looks cinematic. Their is just not enough flexibility from what I can tell.
 
gene_can_sing said:
This is a good article on the aesthetics, color, sharpness and DOF of GH2 vs. Canons Basically, it concluded that Canon has a deeper color depth so you get better colors on the Canon (which I agree with). You get shallow DOF on the Canons.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/520-Which-is-most-cinematic-5D-60D-GH2-AF100

BUT the Canons have bad moire and not very useable 720p, which is a HUGE advantage on the Panny. Panny has the crop mode which is really cool.

But yeah... I might be switching to Panny. The biggest thing holding me back is the fast, IS, constant aperture zooms on the Canons. Plus, I like the aesthetics of the Canons better.
Click to expand...

eoshd is a bad site to get information :P

anyway
60d has great lens selection & great stills. thats it
gh2 wins as a video/stills hybrid dlsr
 
Gene and Jenga: I'm in the same place. :) I love the better video from the GH2, but the size of it is the main reason for my balking. Since I'll use whatever DSLR for both video and photography, I want something that gives a little heft in the hand--and is large enough for my larger hands... :D I'm kinda waiting to see what Canon has to offer with the Digic V processor (and earning funds too, as my computer has to be replaced before I can switch to HD...). If nothing big changes, I'll just go for a 60D.
 
I owned a 60D for a few months, but found that I could not live with the soft video image or the moire problems, so I replaced it with a GH-2 in December. From my perspective the GH-2 is a better video camera than the 60D. The GH-2 produces a sharper image with almost no moire or aliasing.

I also like to shoot very "flat" looking video and then adjust saturation and tonal range in post, so the GH-2 in "Cinema" mode with everything turned down except saturation, produces beautiful looking video that I could never get with the 60D.

Right now fast lenses for the GH-2 are a pain, but I bought a Voightlander Nikon ---> M4/3 adapter which is a big help. ( $130 for a Nikon D 50mm f/1.8, which effectly works like a 100mm f/1.8, which is a great shallow DOF interview lens, and it is one of the sharpest lenses made by Nikon, see Ken Rockwell's review of the 50mm D. )
 
Popularity and community support are the only reasons to really stick with Canon, IMO.
That is, when a unit is popular, there are tons more accessories available, mods, hacks, creative DIY projects, etc.

Perfect example is the way the iPod totally trumps every other music player, even ones with better UI and more functionality. I never owned an iPod, I couldn't justify it compared to the better options out there. But I must admit, I'm always jealous at how many aftermarket cases, car docks, mods, etc. that are all ipod-specific.

Hollywood doesn't use DSLR often, but when they do its usually a Canon. Not because its the best, but simply because they are so well documented (flaws and all), so they know exactly what they are getting into with it to plan accordingly.

Personally, I have a t2i, and I love being able to monitor audio with headphones while shooting clean audio in camera by tweaking settings with the Magic Lantern hack. I love the plethora of aftermarket accessories, and the wealth of information and community support online for it. The GH2 might be a better camera in an ideal world, but there is something to be said for going with the more popular choice sometimes.

That's just me, though. If that doesn't matter to you, by all means go with Panny.
 
As I've said before, if you ask people in the 7d forum if a GH2 is better than a T2i T3i, 60d and 7d.... they are most likely not going to side with a Canon. Go to the GH2 forum and ask why they like it.


By the way, I am considering buying a GH2 also. Not to replace my 7d though. Just to have a different option.

Also might be looking into another video camera though. I have been shooting a documentary and interviews. Run and gun with a dual audio system without an assistant to help is a pain. Miss some things about a video camera.
 
Last edited:
Dingo: Do you have an example of flat video you have shot on the GH2 up online? One person's taste may not match with another persons and I want to see an example if you have shot something that you actually feel has all of the benefits of the canon with the benefits of the GH2. I for one have not really seen any videos that truly have the color, range and low contrast of the canons (on the GH2) in my many many hours of searching online.

Draven4: I don't understand your initial point at all. I would think the opposite. The canon forum people would like the canon, the GH2 forum people the panasonic. I don't get it. ???
 
Jenga said:
Dingo: Do you have an example of flat video you have shot on the GH2 up online?
Click to expand...

I have been shooting corporate and medical training videos for the past 5 years ( I was a studio / corporate photographer for 10 years before this ), but currently I don't have anything online. Much of what I shoot is covered by an NDA which prevents me from posting it to the web.

I originally bought the 60D for corporate interviews, with the potential of also using it for indy films. With the 60D I would fairly often have moire issues with the clothing that people would wear, so any kind of fine pattern or heiring-bone weave jacket would visibly "rainbow" from moire. I always brought my HMC-150 camera as my back-up, so when moire was an issue I was go back to using the HMC-150.

In early December I bought the Panasonic GH-2 with the idea that I would shoot with both the GH-2 and 60D for a month or so, and then sell one of the cameras.

Despite having a bit of a "toy-like" appearance, the GH-2 proved itself on the first shoot. The image was significantly sharper, and all of the moire issues were gone. I was very tempted to keep the 60D to use as a personal still photography camera, but then having two incompatible lens formats would be a hassle, so I sold off all my Canon gear.

I think the Canon DSLRs are fantastic for still photography, and if I still made my living shooting stills ( like I used to ) I would definitely have kept the 60D around.

If Canon can finally fix it's video problems with the release of the 5D MK3, I am willing to switch back to Canon, but for video work right now the GH-2 produces a superior result. No moire, no aliasing.

Jenga said:
I for one have not really seen any videos that truly have the color, range and low contrast of the canons (on the GH2) in my many many hours of searching online.
Click to expand...

If you are talking about footage that comes right out of the camera, then yes I would say that the Canon DSLRs produce a nice look. But if you know what you are doing with a good NLE and color-package, you can achieve almost any look by shooting a "flat" looking image that retains the maximum amount of image detail the camera can produce ( it's very boring looking video at this stage ) and then create the final look in post.

When the color, contrast, gamma, and tone are not "baked-in" by the camera, you have complete freedom to create whatever you like.
 
TheDingo said:
I have been shooting corporate and medical training videos for the past 5 years ( I was a studio / corporate photographer for 10 years before this ), but currently I don't have anything online. Much of what I shoot is covered by an NDA which prevents me from posting it to the web.

I originally bought the 60D for corporate interviews, with the potential of also using it for indy films. With the 60D I would fairly often have moire issues with the clothing that people would wear, so any kind of fine pattern or heiring-bone weave jacket would visibly "rainbow" from moire. I always brought my HMC-150 camera as my back-up, so when moire was an issue I was go back to using the HMC-150.

In early December I bought the Panasonic GH-2 with the idea that I would shoot with both the GH-2 and 60D for a month or so, and then sell one of the cameras.

Despite having a bit of a "toy-like" appearance, the GH-2 proved itself on the first shoot. The image was significantly sharper, and all of the moire issues were gone. I was very tempted to keep the 60D to use as a personal still photography camera, but then having two incompatible lens formats would be a hassle, so I sold off all my Canon gear.

I think the Canon DSLRs are fantastic for still photography, and if I still made my living shooting stills ( like I used to ) I would definitely have kept the 60D around.

If Canon can finally fix it's video problems with the release of the 5D MK3, I am willing to switch back to Canon, but for video work right now the GH-2 produces a superior result. No moire, no aliasing.



If you are talking about footage that comes right out of the camera, then yes I would say that the Canon DSLRs produce a nice look. But if you know what you are doing with a good NLE and color-package, you can achieve almost any look by shooting a "flat" looking image that retains the maximum amount of image detail the camera can produce ( it's very boring looking video at this stage ) and then create the final look in post.

When the color, contrast, gamma, and tone are not "baked-in" by the camera, you have complete freedom to create whatever you like.
Click to expand...


NDA........ Easy thing to say so you wont have to post footage. With that said EVERY camera suffers from MOIRE, EVERY camera.....

Enjoy your 60d or Gh2 and have fun. GH2 is to small of a camera and it's crop sensor makes wide lenses more difficult. That is the sole reason why Canon still is superior in my eyes and to many other people as well.
 
life4eva said:
NDA........ Easy thing to say so you wont have to post footage. With that said EVERY camera suffers from MOIRE, EVERY camera.....

Enjoy your 60d or Gh2 and have fun. GH2 is to small of a camera and it's crop sensor makes wide lenses more difficult. That is the sole reason why Canon still is superior in my eyes and to many other people as well.
Click to expand...

LOL- I can't tell you how many times I used the NDA thing when I was still trying to build my portfolio years back! Good to see I'm not the only one. ;)

Don't forget popularity in the way of user support and accessories. That's the reason I still stick with them. These are all good points.
 
life4eva said:
GH2 is too small of a camera and it's crop sensor makes wide lenses more difficult. That is the sole reason why Canon still is superior in my eyes and to many other people as well.
Click to expand...

I completely agree about the lack of fast wide-angles with the Micro 4/3 format, something which I hope will change later this year. ( the Panasonic 7-14mm zoom is both sharp and close to distortion free, but it's an f/4.0 making low-light work difficult )
 
guys, come on, don't be rude to Dingo, he/she has the right to hold back footage if it's really under contract. Our objections should be targeted at the actual conversation, not the person.

Now this all said, I have to say that someone who is in the business of corporate video sounds exactly like the type of person who has a very different image aesthetic when they transfer to short filmmaking. Personally I'm not after anything punchy or high contrast. The visual style I am interested in is that neutral low contrast negative look. Obviously the best way to get that is with film, but in the low cost arena the canon DSLRs seem to be very useful tools in achieving this look. I have seen many videos shot by talented people on the Canons that have (in varying degrees) nailed this look. I have only seen literally about 2 or 3 on the GH2 that get about 50-60 percent of the way there through using tricks such as ultracon-type filters or old/uncoated lenses (and shooting on overcast days to avoid sunlight). I don't want to have to be tied to only getting the look with a certain lens or filter. Even then, it doesn't truly look the same as there is still those ugly Panasonic highlights/over exposed areas and that ugly color balance. I made the decision about a month ago that I'm really after the look more than the sharpness. Since then the decision seems rather simple.

For reference here are some examples of this look (which I call "CHOF"):

Best example (shot on film): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qow5_R0ab7w

Great example of a similar style but very different in tone (shot on a 5D mkII): http://vimeo.com/18124979 (notice how the blown highlights look very natural and smooth)
Another example: http://vimeo.com/18310851 (60D camera test)
http://vimeo.com/18966072 (60D)

I have only found 2 examples from the GH2 and they were using low con lenses on cloudy days. Which adds up to a very controlled situation.

This is how I feel.
 
Has anyone found any posts that soundly challenge what i talk about above? I'd legitimately like to see them if so. I'm very curious about this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top