GH2 Canon 5D EOS (original) vs GH2... in photos...

HotConductor

HotConductor

Well-known member
I know this is a forum dedicated to VIDEO making, but in your opinion, how does the ORIGINAL Canon 5D EOS compare to the still shot capabilities of the GH2?
 
I figured that was the case. Is there a single positive to 5D? I have two HMC150s and a new GH2, which I LOVE, and my wife is a photographer. She has used the 5D for ages and I had considered getting a 5DMKII, but I'm a huge Panasonic fan so I got a GH2 for myself... Now I'm thinking I might just let her have it for photo shoots when I'm not using it with mine!
 
HotConductor said:
I figured that was the case. Is there a single positive to 5D?
Click to expand...
What was the answer? Was the 5D vastly superior at stills to GH2? Or was it the other way around? My own guess would be that, so far as stills go, neither is "vastly" superior to the other. Despite being full frame, the 5D is 6 year old technology, so I doubt whether high-ISO performance is much better than GH2, if at all.

There are some positives to the 5D, though. First, potentially a huge one for still photographers, is the narrow depth-of-field you can get with full frame vs. the GH2's smaller sensor. This isn't as big of a deal for video, where many may even prefer the more limited DoF of GH2. It may depend on what you do, e.g., for portraits the 5D's ability to get narrower DoF is big advantage. Landscapes probably not so much. Another plus: the 5D is a considerably more rugged camera than the GH2, although that also means it's quite a bit heavier. A third plus is that with full frame the 5D likely has more and better lens choices for wide angle photos. GH2 has roughly a 2x field-of-view multiplier, which means that a 14mm lens on the GH2 will give you a 28mm field-of-view, while a 14mm lens on the 5D will give you a true 14mm field-of-view. (This difference may sway toward the GH2 if you do stuff like wildlife or bird photos, where you want as much zoom as you can get.)
 
Last edited:
Much of these discussions leave out a very fundimental issue. What is the glass sitting on the front of the camera? While the Canon fuill frame cameras have long been the staples of photographers, putting some really nice prime lenses on a GH2 will yield fantastic results that in some cases outperform the Canon 5D mk II.
 
IMHO:

Mamiya + Phase One digitalback, produces acceptable photos.

Hasslebalds, produce good photos.

So I never compare canons / nikons to pannies in still mode. I find them all vastly inferor to medium formats, so the differences between them are negligible.
 
I like the 5D for stills but we are talking about a more expensive camera and a much bigger camera too which is something to consider in the process. I personally think that the lens options for the GH2 are amazing and so cost effective. I have been really building a very diverse group of lenses. C-mount, Pentax, Nikon G, Nikon F, Canon FD and recently an EF... All with adapters and some even have the aparature control built in....

As for the merits in video, I do love the 5D but I HATE the limited record time and the overheating. What a PITA to have to let it cool down. 30 minutes of shooting and you are done with the 5D for atleast 20 minutes and then it'll happen again and again...
 
5D way superior for stills, GH2 much much more adept and usable for video. Take your pick...

Noah
 
with the right adapter and lenses, the gh2 can produce an end product comparable with canons
 
Posted by stonebat
5D > 5Dmk2 >> GH2 in photo

Posted by iunknown
+1

Why do you guys feel the 5DMkI stills are better then the MkII? Is it the pixel density thing?
 
Contemplating on getting a 5D for stills and selling my T2i. I will no way buy a 5DMkII. Even if the MkIII comes out next year.
GH2 is perfect for video. Think i should go with the original 5D? The only thing that bothers me is no live view for stills.
 
I own both cameras (GH2 and 5D MKII). The photo quality of the 5D MKII is so much better, that I cant understand comments, that it depends of lenses. Sure, picture quality always depends also of the lenses, but I talk about same lenses, different cameras (I have adapters).
If you need to use your pictures for professionell purposes like print issues, magazins and advertising, you are absolutly wrong with the GH2.
Benn
 
I'm thinking of the MKI cause i'm going on a trip pretty soon. Looking through Flickr, the images look better then the T2i.
With the same lens, i am able to pretty much match the GH2 with the T2i for stills with normal lighting conditions.
Yeah, full-frame would not compare.
 
I've been in the photography market for ages and if I have to pick top two dslr cameras (in terms of IQ), one would be 5D. Hadn't not been the video feature, I would've dropped 5d mk2 for 5d. GH2 doesn't stand a chance.
The color rendition/tonal response is gorgeous with the right picture style (New Standard, developed by Japanese photography magazine), auto white balance is far better than 5d mk2, per-pixel sharpness is amazing (Due to its using weak low pass filter along with great pixel pitch.)
Although time has passed, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, and even Canon's own offerings can't beat 5d in those areas.

BTW, if you wonder what other camera I'd choose for top 2, it's one of the cameras from Kodak that's even about a decade old. Subtle gradation and superior color those Kodak dslrs produce can't be found in any other dslrs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top