GH2 Can the GH2 look as cinematic as the 5D Mark II (not a troll subject mind you)

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Manu Delpech

Member
Hello everyone,

I'm new on this forum, and I'm about to buy a new DSLR to get back on the train, I had a T2i and sold it, it was good and all but it didnt really did justice to what I had in my mind, which is kind of the usual problem I think some of us have, find the best IQ possible that can replicate faithfully what one has in mind.

I had an HV30 but it kept disappointing me, the T2i did better, and was more faithful to my ideas, but not enough. Needless to say that like many of the DSLR cravers, I would get me a Red Epic or an Alexa if I could afford it, or even shoot in 35 mm if it was remotely possible, so I don't really have a choice and have to get me a DSLR.

6 months ago when I stopped making short movies and sold my T2i, I had in mind the GH2 as my future DSLR (It's not per se a DSLR, but you get the idea), and then I lost interest in filmmaking.

Now I'm back on track and getting interested in all that once again, so I checked out the GH2 footage on Vimeo and must say that I'm pretty much underwhelmed, what disappoints me is that there seem to be a lack of narrative based short movies, which is what I'm interested in seeing, to see what the GH2 can do in a short movie with a cinematic feel in mind.

I've seen a couple of good ones like Gigantic, or Dream World (documentary, so it still doesnt look like what I'm looking for), or the Pat Robitaille "Going as planned" clip (looked cinematic for me), but nothing outstanding, it does look fantastic, really sharp, detailed and all buttttttttttt it's not quite there for me.


Now the 5D mark II, has kinda been my dream, it's being used for now many movies, series, and it looks fantastic, it's really not as detailed or as sharp as the GH2 but it has a unique look, there are times where it looks bad (could be the choice of colors) with a videoish look but on the several best videos I've seen, it looks really cinematic like g. or City Of Lakes, Maestro, The Third Letter, it just has a look that the GH2 doesn't have.


I keep forcing myself to like the look of the GH2 but I just feel underwhelmed, now I'm trying to listen to reason: the GH2 is like a 1000 bucks less (btw the 5DII is still as expensive as it was a year ago), its smaller, more flexible, resolution is way better, it seems like a better all around camera, and cinematic can supposedly be achieved depending on the lighting, etc but there are just too many GH2 videos that look videoish to me.



Really difficult dilemma, what do you guys think?!
 
I know that, but this doesnt solve my point, the GH2 doesnt look as cinematic as the 5D. Just someone prove me that it's possible to have it look as cinematic as the 5DII and not just a hyper sharp looking video.
 
I know your type exactly. And can tell by what you wrote you are pretty much clueless when it comes to cinematography. You see the problem isn't the camera, it's your inability and lack of experience. I have seen plenty of hv30 footage that looked great, just as much t2i footage that looked great. So if you cant make a cinematic piece of footage with either of those, then what makes you think a gh2, RED, Epic, or even an Alexa will. It's about lighting, scene blocking, camera movement, set design, directing, writting, acting, sound, etc... Then maybe camera type can come in to play.


The Gh2 is a great camera, but so are the others you named. There's no excuse for bad looking footage anymore. Pretty much any hd camera is good enough. the rest is up to you and your ability to shoot. good luck
 
Buy the 5D, problem solved. If you don't like the look of a particular camera then don't use it. Use the one you do like.
 
I think maran's post might be worded a bit harshly, but I totally agree that any of these cameras can look equally cinematic as any of the others. In the right hands, with the right lighting and right shot composition, an iPhone can look very cinematic. In the wrong hands, or with the wrong lighting or whatnot, an Alexa could look nasty.

If you really think you want a 5D, get a 5D. They're on sale right now for less than ever, I think people are getting them for under $2k.

Final point being -- if it's got 24p, and it's being used by someone who knows what they're doing, then any of these cameras is capable of a cinematic look when put on a cinematic set and used in a cinematic style.
 
See Maran, you are clueless here, I liked the T2i, the GH2 looks great, but it doesnt have the same look as the 5D Mark II which has a unique look, nothing to do with cinematography, I think its the shallower DOF that does it, but this has nothing to do with cinematography, there are cameras that wont look cinematic whatever you do with them, it will still look like video, sorry there.
 
Manu Delpech said:
See Maran, you are clueless here, I liked the T2i, the GH2 looks great, but it doesnt have the same look as the 5D Mark II which has a unique look, nothing to do with cinematography, I think its the shallower DOF that does it, but this has nothing to do with cinematography, there are cameras that wont look cinematic whatever you do with them, it will still look like video, sorry there.
Click to expand...

Need I say more? lol
 
LOL!
Yes just buy the 5D. It's a great camera..... Or wait, Canon has something up their sleeve if you're willing to wait.

I've tried them all and the GH2 (hack) sure looks good to me.
 
Definitely maybe.

A big part of it is lenses, lights, and knowing how to use them. The dinky GH leaves a lot more cash left over for these things.
 
Acting (within the context of a good narrative), lighting and framing, and finally glass. Shallow DOF is an aesthetic, not a requirement.

With those under your belt, any of the previously mentioned cameras will deliver.
 
Manu Delpech said:
See Maran, you are clueless here, I liked the T2i, the GH2 looks great, but it doesnt have the same look as the 5D Mark II which has a unique look, nothing to do with cinematography, I think its the shallower DOF that does it [highlighted by the quoter], but this has nothing to do with cinematography, there are cameras that wont look cinematic whatever you do with them, it will still look like video, sorry there.
Click to expand...

This is technically incorrect though. Compared to a crop sensor digital camera (such as 7D or GH2 or those small sensor camcorders like my TM700K), a full sensor camera such as 5D2 does not automatically yield a shallower depth of field.


Here is a bit detail if you wish to read on
(note: for simplicity, I'll assume hyper focal length is not to be involved here):

If you keep the lens focal length, the aperture/Iris of your choosing, the subject to camera distance, and the lighting setup the same, when you switch from 7D (or GH2 if it uses a lens that 5D2 can also use) to 5D2, you will in fact automatically get a deeper shallow of depth. Without changing the lens aperture and the lighting setup, in order to get a shallower depth of field with 5D2, you have to either 1) get closer to the subject (i.e., decrease the subject distance),or 2) switch to a longer lens (i.e., increase the focal length). After you have switched to 5D2, you can keep getting closer to the subject or keep increasing the focal length, until you have reached the point where you achieve the same framing as you had with 7D. From the point of view of physics, once you have achieved the same framing this way, you will get a shallower depth of field with 5D2.

There are 2 points here about 5D2:

1) By default (sorta), switching from 7D to 5D2, the depth of field will actually increase.

2) It is "decreasing the subject distance" or "increasing the focal length" or a combination of both that actually offsets the effect of 5D2's larger sensor by reducing the depth of field to make the final result (if framed identically as with 7D) have an overall shallower depth of field.


Conclusions:

1) I agree with you that right out of camera, 5D2's footage may very well have a unique look. But I agree with others that this uniqueness can be easily altered or even removed in the post production. In fact, every camera may have something in its image that is unique to it right out of camera.

2) I totally disagree that "its the shallower DOF that does it [the so-called 'unique look']." All popular DSLR cameras, if used properly, can achieve very shallow depth of field (paper thin, for example). Shallow DOF is not unique to any camera model at all.

3) Personally, I believe lens settings (f1.2, as compared to f2.8, for example) and lighting setup (including light changing filters) make a substantially more impact on the final footage than which DSLR camera to shoot with. If it's just some sort of a shallow depth of field, the "unique look" of 5D2 (as compared to 7D/GH2, assuming overall lens/lighting setup is identical or equivalent) can be simulated or removed in the post. But the overall effect from f1.2 (as compared to f2.8) or from 1/4000 (as compared to 1/60) or from a filter (especially if this filter is not used properly) cannot be removed in the post at all.


The only real advantages of shooting with 5D2 (as compared to all Canon crop sensor cameras, excluding 1D4) is that it has less noise at high ISO. I think the same can be said as compared to GH2. To a much lesser extent, another advantage is that any lens on 5D2 is as wide as it's designed to be. That means that with a super wide angle lens (such as Canon 8-15mm Fisheye) you can't never achieve the look of 5D2 using a crop sensor camera when shooting wide. But this has nothing to do with depth of field.

If you think only 5D2 gives you that "unique" shallow DOF, think again. If you do believe that, which is physics-wise incorrect, well, then just go for it. (BTW It seems to me that many people believe it's the full sensor on 5D2 that reduces the depth of field when shooting with 5D2 as compared to 7D, which is wrong).

However, if you don't believe that, then you can always (of course!!) find a proper way (at least so in theory, as you may or may not have the right equipment/tools needed) to achieve your desired shallow depth of field with all the popular DSLR cameras, including GH2.

Hope this helps.
 
cinematic canNOT / should NOT be an adjective to describe cameras.
In common usage cinematic usually describes a film and the experience of watching said film. Cinematic usually denotes a good film or good experience watching film

Furthermore:
cinematic = subjective
shallow dof ≠ cinematic
shallow dof (over use of) = cliché
video (both analogue and digital) = cinematic/un-cinematic film
film (plastic coated w emulsion) = cinematic/un-cinematic film
 
Manu Delpech said:
To hell with it, I'll just take the GH2 and deal with it, I might regret not having a real 1080p rez.
Click to expand...

you obviously have no clue what your takin about, the GH2 looks more cinematic then the 5D, due to the fact that the sensor closely mimics 35mm film size, unlike canon dslr's. and the Canons also dont have "real 1080p" resolution* but the GH2 is much closer than any of the canons on that matter
 
24P "IS" important....but it really is how you shoot, not what you shoot with.
EXAMPLE:
Star Trek - The Next Generation. It was shot on 35mm FILM. Yet the first 2 or 3 seasons look like crap video. Why? Because of how they chose to light it, camera angles used, color processing style....heck CINEMATOGRAPHY is what we're talking about here, isn't it?
 
Perry Wilson said:
you obviously have no clue what your takin about, the GH2 looks more cinematic then the 5D, due to the fact that the sensor closely mimics 35mm film size, unlike canon dslr's. and the Canons also dont have "real 1080p" resolution* but the GH2 is much closer than any of the canons on that matter
Click to expand...

Hem I was talking about the fact that I was getting the GH2 because if I got the 5D, I "might regret not having a true 1080p rez", now calm down.
 
i think part of what the OP is going through is attributable to my "canon illusion" theory and this is even more true in the 5D due to its full frame sensor.

after doing a ton of side by side shooting with all the leading dslrs. i found that off the shelf, with a kit lens, and basic factory settings. that the canons delivered a more "movie like" image. as far as comparing canons to the gh2 on that basis. i think a LOT of it has to do with the glass. IMO, all the lumix glass is just plain ugly. i found that adding an m4/3 to nikon adapter and a variety of old nikon glass to a gh2 resulted in footage that aesthetically approached or surpassed the canons (both videos and stills)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top