Canon 5DMkII vs. GH2

K

kicap

Well-known member
I am about to make an investment in getting either 5DMkII or GH2. I have observed a lot of both videos and also read a lot of threads with regard to both cameras.

My only concern here is whether I am making the right decision on which camera to get with respect to what I am planning to do:

1. Shoot video and photos are not of my concern at all.
2. Focus more on short film hence long recording time is preferred but I guess no one really shoot more than 20 mins without a cut right?
3. Already own bunch of the Nikon lenses hence not really sure how does this crop factor going to affect my shot.

I have used GH-1 before and seems to like it. Used 5DMkII once but didn't really get a chance to explore it much. Never really lucky enough to operate GH-2 though.

I also have Atomos Ninja 2.0 which I found to be really compatible with GH2, so will this really add a lot of values?

And yes, money is not really a concern between the two as I have enough budget to get either both.

If anyone that has worked on both or own both of these cameras, do let me know what you think would be much useful overall if the main objective is just for shooting videos.

Nope, I am not going to spend money on the FS-100 or AF-101 right now. C300? Nooooooo way!!!

Thanks
 
Last edited:
You are not going to want to hear this... but for film work, by the time you kit out a 5DmkII with everything you will need including a viable audio solution, you will have spent enough to purchase an AF101 outright, which has the tools you need for film work at that level built in.

Good luck with your decision!

Dave
 
DONT get the AF101. Get the GH2 instead. It does the same thing. The image also tends to be a little sharper.

The GH2 outputs and image, which is much sharper than the Canon Video DSLR's. I myself think that the Canon DSLR's have a Movie Look to them.. The GH2 has it to, but not as nice as the Canons..
 
A GH2 will cost about half what a 5D Mkii will, it doesn't have the Moire problems that the 5D Mkii has, you can use your Nikons on either but your right the 2x crop factor will make your FOV smaller on the GH2 so you may need to invest in another wide angle, however the GH2 also has the ETC function which the 5D Mkii does not, with the Atomos Ninja 2.0 you own you should know you can bypass the recording codec and record directly to that for as long as you have storage space(Although the clips will be cut into 4 gig files), either camera will require you to kit it out to suit your shooting style (Rails, follow focus, tripod, external audio recorder etc...), this debate has been played out over an over on these and other boards so using the search button will lead to a ton of threads of this same type but... I'll stop using so many run on sentences... In the end you've used both camera's and it really comes down to the one you like best. I hope this helps.-Adam
 
Phil_UK said:
DONT get the AF101. Get the GH2 instead. It does the same thing. The image also tends to be a little sharper.

The GH2 outputs and image, which is much sharper than the Canon Video DSLR's. I myself think that the Canon DSLR's have a Movie Look to them.. The GH2 has it to, but not as nice as the Canons..
Click to expand...
I have owned all three, and the camera I reach for first is the AF, not the GH.
 
Last edited:
Phil_UK said:
For the price of an AF100 you can get a FS100 which is better...
Click to expand...

Both cameras put out pretty equivalent imagery, but for usability the AF-100 is much better than the FS100.

As for the OP's original question, it boils down to 2 things: first, how often are you on jobs that the camera is dictated to you? If the client expects a Canon, then prepare for an (sometimes) uphill battle as you try to convince them that your GH2 is comparable (it is). The only thing you lose by not getting the 5D is the full-frame "look" (which also has its downsides, namely that focusing when wide open is a PITA). The GH2 has a better IQ, better HDMI out (though your Atmos is worthless because it's not a clean image out of the HDMI), ability to use older, cheaper lenses (mainly the Canon FDs as they don't work too well with EOS mounts) and 720 60p for slow-mo. Add to that even better options if you're brave enough to hack.

In summary: the 5D Mark II has a different look and name recognition, while the GH2 is a better overall camera. You be the judge of what is important to you between that.
 
Last edited:
Lets stay on topic here.."Nope, I am not going to spend money on the FS-100 or AF-101 right now. C300? Nooooooo way!!!"
The question is in regards to the GH2 and 5D... (probably anything else inbetween)
To the poster,
It has been proven that the GH2 has a much sharper image and resolves higher then the Canons. The 5D produces some amazing "shallow depth" with the full frame sensor and the Canons do produce a nice "cinema" quality look.
The GH2 is a jack of all trades camera. You can use almost any lens out there.
With the progress of the new patches, you looking at a high bitrate, lowlight, variable frame rate, MONSTER of a camera.
For the price, this camera is the BEST. Basically more bang for your buck.
As an indy producer, the GH2 will adapt better to your needs. But as most people point out, it comes down to shooting style and individual needs of the videographer.
The ONLY we to find you preference, is to spend a day with both cameras and see what you can do.
Mind you, the 5D will make better use of that shallow depth, where the GH2 will look much flatter with the kit lens. Try out your Nikons or the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 and Olympus 12mm f/2.0.
The GH2 wil shoot longer takes and make use of your Atomos Ninja 2.0 Although, I cant imagine you would ever shoot continuously for more then 15mins much less 20mins when doing a short film.I've shot several myself, and cant remember doing any shoots longer then 10mins. Heck I never used a shot longer then 5mins long when it was in post.

On a side note: The industry leans more towards the main stream, and Canon is really the king of the hill with regards to name brand.
So... chances are, your next job may require you to work with Canons.

DaiLon W.
www.realmotion.info
 
I'm honestly on the brink of owning a GH2 and I already have the AF100 and the 5D. I find them all to be comparable in their own way and have their own strengths. I would say no doubt though that the AF100 is the best complete package, but that's a given. It's a VIDEO CAMERA. The others can be outfitted to have similar functionality, but that's not what they're designed for. It all depends on your needs.

I've been at this for months wondering what I should do, and I might honestly end up using all 3 on my next feature. The GH2 is better for wides then my AF100, the AF100 good for a lot of run/gun and my need for audio, the 5D for special shots that would benefit from its "look," etc.

They all have their own strengths. You'll get close to the AF100's price just outfitting a DSLR to be a more well adjusted video type camera. Not that you can't shoot without all that, but I wouldn't recommend it.
 
they each have their strengths and weaknesses.

gh2 PRO:
- nice looking sharp image!
- record time only limited to the size of your card
- very little moire / alaising
- a variety of recording frame rates and formats
- PRICE!

gh2 CON:
- very few good looking fast lens options if you want IS and autofocus
- very small and plastic feeling
- 1.6x crop sensor means that basically all your lenses are double what they say. i.e a 50mm is equivalent to about an 85mm.

5d PRO:
- very easy to achieve film look
- popular in the indie world. i have seen several jobs specify you HAD TO use a 5d. NEVER seen a job DEMAND a gh2
- full frame sensor
- way. way. WAY better still camera than a gh2

5d CON:
- very easy to introduce moire / alaising issue
- very few frame rate and NO format options
- limited clip duration
- cant send HD signal out HDMI to a monitor when recording

ive used both extensively. and like and dislike each for different reasons. if i could only own one, there would always be a situation where i wished i had the other.
 
Last edited:
Wow, Thanks David, HDkilledFilm, Phil, wgzn, and the rest that has given me all the info.

Just so let you know, I already have a lot of other accessories such as the rig, follow focus, external monitor, the Ninja to add in, and audio stuff as I was using Sony + SGBlade previously. So, rigging up the DSLR is pretty much completed. Just want to really now how beneficial is the Full Frame effect when compared to all GH2 capability as the most versatile camera in the market right now.

Anyway, thanks a lot and I think I will end up with the GH2 as it seems to be more flexible overall despite the lack of "Film Look" that Canon can provide. I will try to give a demo run with some of the guys that might already own a GH2 and really see this difference FOV and make sure I am not going to regret it. Yes, I saw a thread on the "Wide Open" issue that some of the GH2 owner is experiencing, but I guess I really have to test it myself. Can really believe that 14mm lens is not wide enough huh on GH2?

I was really wishing that Canon was announcing something for low range price material the other day....what a turn off.
 
Phil_UK said:
For the price of an AF100 you can get a FS100 which is better...
Click to expand...

How can you say the gh2 is better than the af100, and how can you say the fs100 is better than the af100. What if he needs hd-sdi. Only af100 has it. What if he needs Nd filters. Unless you have scientific proof, Camera opinion is subjective. Their all capable of making pretty pictures, Whats important is what functions you need to do so.
 
Also I think the GH2 has a very nice look, so does the 5D mkii... Neither look very much like film to me, but that's also subjective. Pick the one you think suits you and what you like, they are both only a means to help you create your vision.
 
The "film look" on the 5D has a lot more to do with how people equate the DOF with film and the softness of the 5D. You can always soften your GH2 to a more 5Dlike picture, and the DOF on micro 4/3 isn't as bad as people make it out to be. The FOV isn't that bad either. Your light and what you're pointing it at is always going to make a bigger difference then what you shoot with.

The GH2 isn't a bad choice. Honestly if you ever have an extra bit of money lying around...owning both might not be a bad move eventually if you're happy with DSLR shooting.
 
Wow, that abelcine chart really comes in handy for me. I have a chart before but not with a sample photo that good. I have also notice the aliasing caused by the cameras too. Well done and thanks for posting it!!
 
Just want to say, I was in kind of the position your in now. But when I saw the full potential of the GH2 with the hack installed allowing different patches... what a game changer. The 5D is a great camera, but if your going to primarily focus on short films... it's almost laughable now. The Gh2 is so head and shoulders above ANY DSLR at the moment and excusing practicality for a moment, will give you the most film like image out of the Af100(1), FS100 or other cameras at that price range. Obviously the caveat there would be that the Gh2 is NOT an actual video camera with all the practicality and usefulness that actual cameras at the 3k-6k price will offer you. If you run and gun, do events, and use it like a video camera, go with the Af100. If you are going to set up shots w/ lighting for short films and the like... there is absolutely no competition.. I'm sorry. The Gh2 is your only choice, period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top