Are you guys still waiting on GH1 keeping your eye on the 7D?
- Thread starter e-steve
- Start date
Nitsuj
Well-known member
Seems like the primary concern should be "Can I tell a story with this?"
When the primary goal is no longer for entertaining the audience then it is just an ego piece.
To me I'm more impressed with a finished film on a low end camera than I am at the countless unfinished films on a high end camera. And a lot more times I am more impressed with a film on a low end camera with no budget than a lot of high budget junk food movies that come out of Hollywood using gold plated cameras covered in jewels.
I like these forums when it comes to technical details on how to get the most out of your low end camera. It's like a community sticking it to the blockbusters saying "Hey look how cool this is! We made it with a cell phone camera and a flashlight." But after all this new technology coming out it's starting to look like "Oh look, you only have the Model A and not the Model B1000, how cute... noob."
But I guess it is entertaining to read while I render my video from my poor little GH1.
When the primary goal is no longer for entertaining the audience then it is just an ego piece.
To me I'm more impressed with a finished film on a low end camera than I am at the countless unfinished films on a high end camera. And a lot more times I am more impressed with a film on a low end camera with no budget than a lot of high budget junk food movies that come out of Hollywood using gold plated cameras covered in jewels.
I like these forums when it comes to technical details on how to get the most out of your low end camera. It's like a community sticking it to the blockbusters saying "Hey look how cool this is! We made it with a cell phone camera and a flashlight." But after all this new technology coming out it's starting to look like "Oh look, you only have the Model A and not the Model B1000, how cute... noob."
But I guess it is entertaining to read while I render my video from my poor little GH1.
Ian-T
Veteran
Why are people worried about focus? It does have Auto Focus...maybe not continuous...but AF nonetheless. If you are worried about continuous for sports etc. then maybe a camcorder is the better option. But to tell you the truth I don't care how fast a camera focuses.....it looks terrible for movies. So those of us concerned about using this cam for movies should'nt worry too much. Just do what a pro DP would do. If you don't consider yourself a pro then get a consumer camcorder that has all of those functions. jm2c
haha, same here, I'm rendering and I'm bored, love the thread!
But I disagree, what if you have a great story told on a crappy cam when able to tell it on a, still cheap, DSLR that gives a better image? The story is the same, so would it make it worse or better?
I totally understand everybody who's ambitious to get the best out of everything, including equipment.
but I guess you mean those who reduce it to just the equipment anyway.
Last edited:
Park Edwards
Veteran
all these images are comparable when you put them on a tripod. most of the those who are claiming "if I only had this" are never going to make good stories to begin with. however, if the people using these camera's are for commercial business, then sure, why not get the best out what you can afford. or do the best with what you have.
Park Edwards
Veteran
i guess those darn arri 35mm camera's and their depth of field films are screwed.
Everyone here is just arguing/debating over specs. That's all we have to look at right now. No one actually has this camera to say if it's good or bad, or better or worse than the GH1, D90, or 5DMKII. Wouldn't the ideal thing to do be to wait until people get hold of the camera and post footage from it and we actually see reviews?
You could have the best camera on the planet specs-wise, and it could be the actual worst camera ever made. The specs on the GH1 tell us nothing about the possible streak issues or mud issues. So who knows what, if any, issues there might be with the 7D? No one knows right now. I say hold on to your GH1's. If you really want to get an idea of which is better, buy both and sell or return the one you don't want and keep the one you think is better for you. And better for you is all it is.
Personally, going by specs alone, I think I'll probably stick with my GH1. Not having a flip-out LCD is pretty much the deal breaker for me. I haven't had ANY mud or streak issues with my GH1 (outside of testing where I purposely pushed the camera to learn what I could and couldn't do with it).
Bottom line, it comes down to which camera is the best for you and your needs/wants. No camera is truly better than the other. It's really the user/shooter that makes a camera good or bad, as proven by Canon's own marketing video for the 7D. I'm sure the 7D is a great camera, but it's probably not right for me. Maybe that thought will change when there's actual footage and reviews from owners of the 7D. Until that happens I won't speculate beyond saying I love my GH1 and have no reason to get rid of it.
You could have the best camera on the planet specs-wise, and it could be the actual worst camera ever made. The specs on the GH1 tell us nothing about the possible streak issues or mud issues. So who knows what, if any, issues there might be with the 7D? No one knows right now. I say hold on to your GH1's. If you really want to get an idea of which is better, buy both and sell or return the one you don't want and keep the one you think is better for you. And better for you is all it is.
Personally, going by specs alone, I think I'll probably stick with my GH1. Not having a flip-out LCD is pretty much the deal breaker for me. I haven't had ANY mud or streak issues with my GH1 (outside of testing where I purposely pushed the camera to learn what I could and couldn't do with it).
Bottom line, it comes down to which camera is the best for you and your needs/wants. No camera is truly better than the other. It's really the user/shooter that makes a camera good or bad, as proven by Canon's own marketing video for the 7D. I'm sure the 7D is a great camera, but it's probably not right for me. Maybe that thought will change when there's actual footage and reviews from owners of the 7D. Until that happens I won't speculate beyond saying I love my GH1 and have no reason to get rid of it.
Boz
Well-known member
Isn't picture quality top dog though? A killer dolly move is far less impressive if viewed through a bunch of skew, noise, or compression. Also, as far as I know, there is no known 'fix it in post' solution for compression errors (I'd love to hear solutions, if there are any).
Not necessarily. Now this applies to mainly movies, but....
To an extent the typical movie-going audience doesn't even know or care what they're looking at. They don't know what camera was used, what codec, or any of that. They just don't care. Why? Because all they want is a good story and an entertaining movie. The point is, it doesn't really matter. Just make it look the best you can with what you have to work with, but make sure your story is good and make sure the actors can act.
I love this thread and have no reason to get rid of it.
As Mike said, it's a matter of right tool for right job. If the picture quality is first class, but you're trying to record a 20 minute shot at an event with a device that only records for 12 minutes, then shot length capability comes first (just by way of an example). Of course for moviemaking use, shot length is less important. Different tool, different job.
oooh, I disagree. I read many comments about "public enemy" where people who have no idea about filmmaking were bothered by the digital footage saying the film looked like home video in some parts. They realized it and they were botherd by it and I agree with them.
And "Public Enemy" is a great story, not to talk about Johnny depp being a great actor.
EDIT: maybe if they had shot it entirely digital, audience wouldn't have bothered because they couldn't notice a difference??
Last edited:
Boz
Well-known member
Amen. Yet, I get pummeled here for even suggesting that the 7D might be a better fit for me.
Maybe I should change it from "typical" to "majority of the". Personally, I haven't heard anyone that's seen the movie and doesn't work on movies say anything negative about the look of the movie. I'm not saying no one has, I'm just saying the people I know and have talked to.
Rory_B
Well-known member
Michael Mann said he was going for a hyper realistic look. He could have easily made the film look more filmlike, but chose not to. I saw the movie and wasn't enthralled with the look, but that's because I was bored by the story. I was hoping to get more of a character study film, but instead it was more superficial. If the story had grabbed me the look would not have mattered.
Just pointing a camera and hoping that the specs will make it look great is absurd.
Zodiac and Benjamin Button both shot digitally look very much like film. Fincher and Mann both love the digital format but have 2 completely different ways of utilizing it.
Just pointing a camera and hoping that the specs will make it look great is absurd.
Zodiac and Benjamin Button both shot digitally look very much like film. Fincher and Mann both love the digital format but have 2 completely different ways of utilizing it.
There's no sense giving a story based in the 1930's a hyper realistic video look of the presence.
He may say he did it on purpose, but I believe there were other reasons.
Funny, we always try to look like hollywood and now hollywood tries to look like us
Last edited:
Fluke
Active member
I guess my buyers' remorse was not from a filmmaker's point of view. I know an EVF is better for video but, I come from a photography background and I enjoy taking photos of live music and concerts. The EVF is a bit of a pain in the ol' ass when it comes to taking photos of fast moving, half lit subjects in a dark, dank room. In fact, it's a bit of a pain for photography in general. It feels and looks wrong.
I would have gone for the 5DmkII but I couldn't justify the extra cost. I was stretching the budget as it was.
Now, heres a VDSLR with a mirror box (even though most of you would consider that a minus point) AND what appears to be (from the spec sheet) very good video implementation. That and I've used Canon's a lot in the past and everyone likes the familiar. This, to me, seems to be the best of both worlds; but then, my wants are different to most of the people here.
The only real reason I'd want to swap for a 7D is because it is going to be a better stills camera.