Canon 5D vs. Panasonic GH1 ??

egproductions said:
Then correct me. I only say it because I've read it before and have found it to be true.

You are right if what you are saying is that it doesn't even mean that it will fit on an EF or EF-S mount. The XL2 stock lens is an L Series (XL Mount).
Click to expand...

Canon labels their "pro" quality lenses as being L series. It has no specific technical meaning. They typically use fluorite or ultra-low dispersion glass elements, are well-sealed against the elements, and usually have fast maximum apertures (24-105 f/4 notwithstanding).

Canon can label whatever lens it wants as "L" series, but usually it just means they've gone to a lot of trouble to make a physically extraordinary lens. The fixed lenses on the XHA1 & the XF300 have the L designation, and they have no "mount" at all, they're fixed. But they're also quite excellent lenses with rare features (20x zoom, fast aperture) and high-quality performance (low CA and distortion, excellent contrast, etc).

Please note also that I didn't mention sharpness, because you are completely right about that in your first post. They are created to be extraordinary lenses, not necessarily the sharpest. This is very evident in their ultra-fast primes. It may be easy to design a f/1.8 prime lens that performs very well wide open, but very difficult to create the same focal length with a max aperture of f/1.2 - but they'll pull out the stops and make that extraordinary lens because some photogs need that extra light, and they'll pay for it. In some cases, the slower lens may perform better wide open than the L series at the same aperture, but to get the extra speed, sharpness may suffer. TL;DR "L" series doesn't necessarily mean sharpest, just extraordinary in some way of performance.

Of course, many are fantastically sharp, too.
 
Last edited:
cowpunk52 said:
Canon labels their "pro" quality lenses as being L series. It has no specific technical meaning. They typically use fluorite or ultra-low dispersion glass elements, are well-sealed against the elements, and usually have fast maximum apertures (24-105 f/4 notwithstanding).

Canon can label whatever lens it wants as "L" series, but usually it just means they've gone to a lot of trouble to make a physically extraordinary lens. The fixed lenses on the XHA1 & the XF300 have the L designation, and they have no "mount" at all, they're fixed. But they're also quite excellent lenses with rare features (20x zoom, fast aperture) and high-quality performance (low CA and distortion, excellent contrast, etc).
Click to expand...

I believe it also requires that it contain at least some aspherical elements.
 
Ben_B said:
I believe it also requires that it contain at least some aspherical elements.
Click to expand...

I don't know that it's a requirement because there aren't any published "specs" as to what makes an L series lens, but yeah, I think just about all of them have aspherical elements to mitigate chromatic aberration.

edit: this is from wikipedia - "Top-of-the-line Canon EF lenses are designated as L-series, or "Luxury" lenses. L-series lenses have the best optical performance of Canon lenses and a solid construction. Canon ships all L lenses with a hood and pouch; photographers must purchase the hood and pouch separately for non-L lenses. Distinctive visual characteristics include a red ring around the lens and an off-white color on some lenses (to reduce heat absorption). Most L lenses introduced since the late 1990s have environmental and weather protection. All L lenses include at least one fluorite or ultra-low dispersion glass element, and/or certain types of aspherical elements. Other mechanical characteristics of L lenses (but not exclusive to them) are the USM (particularly in recent years) and Image Stabilization technologies."

Anyway, to relate it to the previous posts, L-series has nothing to do with what mount a lens has, or even how much coverage it's image circle provides. It's only about construction & performance.
 
Last edited:
Oh, wait... hold the gravy chain...

I just went to B&H to peruse the L series lenses. The very first one I click on, the 100mm f/2.8 L Macro, has no aspherical element. From what I can find, it only has spherical elements.

so there's one L-series lens w/o any aspherical elements.
 
I have both Canon and GH1 so I hope I can give somewhat balanced view of both cameras without being a fanboy.

First of all, I don't think "L" glass gives much when it comes to video. Even the cheapest stock 550D lens has enough resolution to out-resolve 1080p.

Big thing with GH1 is that you can mount practically any lens which covers the sensor. I have old (non-L, but quite trick nevertheless) FD S.S.C. 1.2 gear which fits just fine on GH1 with adapter. Fitting it on Canon requires adapter with glass element which brings down the speed.

My opinions regarding Canon Vs Panasonic (i have 550D and GH1) regarding video are as follows:

Canon:
+ has better interface
+ housing is more robust
+ image is somewhat quieter (less noise in low light)
+ big sensor, x1.6 (7D) or no crop (5D)
+ colours are (arguably) more film-like
+ HDMI live output on 7D

- codec sucks. 45Mbit looks worse than GH1 on 20Mbit
- max 4GB file = ~12mins shots
- Continuos AF doesn't work in video mode
- IS is unusable in video mode
- Doesn't take "legacy" glass
- Colour moire is annoying
- Actual resolution is nowhere near full 1080p
- Camera can overheat
- No articulated monitor

GH13:
+ Image is SHARP. Almost camcorder-like full 1080p. No moire, much better downscaling than Canon (albeit not perfect)
+ Codec is efficient. Goes down low when is not needed, up to 40Mbit or or so when needed
+ Doesn't overheat
+ You can shoot until you run out of tape (uhhmm...card)
+ Articulated screen is nice
+ MJPEG with 4:2:2 for special purposes (720p30 only though)
+ Will accept almost any legacy glass
+ AF works (well!) in video mode (Stock lens)
+ IS works (really well!) in video mode (Stock lens)
+ light body
+ sub 25p shutter speed (in MJPEG mode)
+ never overheats

- fussy menues
- flimsy package, doesn't feel solid
- still IQ is worse than Canon
- quite pricey
- 2x crop
- No live HDMI output
- Bitrate might affect the shooting if you overdo it (needs fast cards).

Overall, GH13 is a winner for video work. For some video AND stills, I would pick Canon.
 
Last edited:
Grunf said:
I have both Canon and GH1 so I hope I can give somewhat balanced view of both cameras without being a fanboy.

First of all, I don't think "L" glass gives much when it comes to video. Even the cheapest stock 550D lens has enough resolution to out-resolve 1080p.

(...)
Click to expand...
Nice and interesting post. Same brands, even though, GH1 + 5D Mark II with "L" lenses, same unbiased agenda ;-)

I agree with 51%, not exactly with everything... such as:

a) Lenses quality counts;

b) Canon 45Mbit codec is an add-on and doesn't look worse than GH1 on 20Mbit; IS is usable going with certain lenses; camera can overheat if you'll be using it as video camera rather a digital 35mm camera; there are a lot of workarounds for no articulated monitor, so please not for this reason...

http://cgi.ebay.com/V-Angle-Multi-P...igital_Camera_Accessories&hash=item20aaf9b2c3

http://www.flipbac.com/

Last but not least, there's a difference between the Canon and Panasonic look. Same for lenses. As for instance, Canon and Nikon glass have a distinct color rendering.
 
Last edited:
Just helped a friend shoot.a wedding using my 5d with a 50mm 1.4 NIKON and the sharpness and colors almost made me go buy another one. Way more than enough sharpness for me.
 
Emanuel said:
Yet, is that Nyquist theorem familiar?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem

'cause we shouldn't be obsessed with 'to out-resolve 1080p' or twenty years ago you'd have to place S-VHS/Hi8 acquisition a step ahead to VHS shot in 35mm or 16mm film ;-)
Click to expand...

I don't think I quite understand what you are trying to say. That 35mm transferred to VHS looks better than native S-VHS? Well yes, it's "oversampled". But when it comes to sampling, IMHO GH1 does better job than it's Canon counterparts.

Also what I tried to say is that most (if not all) lenses are good enough to resolve at least 2000 lines even on "lowly" 550D. Frankly, the bad ones even dampen the Canon video moire somewhat.
 
'numbers'...

'numbers'...

Grunf said:
I don't think I quite understand what you are trying to say. That 35mm transferred to VHS looks better than native S-VHS? Well yes, it's "oversampled". But when it comes to sampling, IMHO GH1 does better job than it's Canon counterparts.
Click to expand...
My comment was not exactly towards the cameras but the idea about the correlation between 'numbers' (resolution, definition, whatever) and IQ.

It is too often to read posted here «this is 'fake' 1080p», «this is fair enough to resolve 1080p» and so on.

Like a lens that 'resolves 1080p' may equal anything of better glass quality. It is not so.

It reminds me the blabla about GH1 vs. 5D Mark II. There are so many situations where the first is better. And other ones where the Canon outperforms by over 12% (or will it be 21%?... LOL :-) everyone of others, GH1 included.
 
Grunf said:
I have both Canon and GH1 so I hope I can give somewhat balanced view of both cameras without being a fanboy.

First of all, I don't think "L" glass gives much when it comes to video. Even the cheapest stock 550D lens has enough resolution to out-resolve 1080p.

Big thing with GH1 is that you can mount practically any lens which covers the sensor. I have old (non-L, but quite trick nevertheless) FD S.S.C. 1.2 gear which fits just fine on GH1 with adapter. Fitting it on Canon requires adapter with glass element which brings down the speed.

My opinions regarding Canon Vs Panasonic (i have 550D and GH1) regarding video are as follows:

Canon:
+ has better interface
+ housing is more robust
+ image is somewhat quieter (less noise in low light)
+ big sensor, x1.6 (7D) or no crop (5D)
+ colours are (arguably) more film-like
+ HDMI live output on 7D

- codec sucks. 45Mbit looks worse than GH1 on 20Mbit
- max 4GB file = ~12mins shots
- Continuos AF doesn't work in video mode
- IS is unusable in video mode
- Doesn't take "legacy" glass
- Colour moire is annoying
- Actual resolution is nowhere near full 1080p
- Camera can overheat
- No articulated monitor

GH13:
+ Image is SHARP. Almost camcorder-like full 1080p. No moire, much better downscaling than Canon (albeit not perfect)
+ Codec is efficient. Goes down low when is not needed, up to 40Mbit or or so when needed
+ Doesn't overheat
+ You can shoot until you run out of tape (uhhmm...card)
+ Articulated screen is nice
+ MJPEG with 4:2:2 for special purposes (720p30 only though)
+ Will accept almost any legacy glass
+ AF works (well!) in video mode (Stock lens)
+ IS works (really well!) in video mode (Stock lens)
+ light body
+ sub 25p shutter speed (in MJPEG mode)
+ never overheats

- fussy menues
- flimsy package, doesn't feel solid
- still IQ is worse than Canon
- quite pricey
- 2x crop
- No live HDMI output
- Bitrate might affect the shooting if you overdo it (needs fast cards).

Overall, GH13 is a winner for video work. For some video AND stills, I would pick Canon.
Click to expand...

Actually I like the GH1's interface a lot more than the Canon's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top