bronxjragon
Well-known member
Unfortunately true. Plenty still think it's all about the camera...waiting for that "perfect camera" to allow them to make money
canon 7d vs. 60d
- Thread starter ripupthehwy
- Start date
Unfortunately true. Plenty still think it's all about the camera...waiting for that "perfect camera" to allow them to make money
bronxjragon
Well-known member
100% agree with you. Panasonic recently shipped back a repaired GH1 to me (I've been using the 60d ever since the GH1 went in for repair). I've long moved on and enjoyed the excellent lens collection for Canon, being able to rent a sh*tload of lenses for work, and overall more support for the format. But I have used the GH13 on maybe two occasions for a wide shot of a park with lots of trees. Other than that you just need to know the capabilities and limits of the camera and use that to your advantage. I will always use the tool that is most reliable AND convenient. For me that is the 60D because it also has superior still picture quality. Your preference is the GH2 which I can absolutely see why. Just can't stand these trolls who say you absolutely can't do one thing or the other because of moire or aliasing or some other excuse they'll come up with just to keep delaying actually getting up being a man and telling yourself, "I'm going to finally tackle this project." Most haven't even worked on a real production but think they know that if a camera is limited then you can't use it. For example:
Filmmakers have been making films without Image Stabilized lenses for DECADES. That didn't stop them. Now that tech has advanced, almost everyone now uses IS lenses on productions even when filming on sticks (200mm shot on a noisy/traffic filled street in NYC on a tripod will many times give you micro-jitters). However, plenty of people still use non-IS lenses. People still get every pennies worth using their old Canon L lenses without IS (the fact that its street value is still very high is a testament to the lens). People using GH1/2 with m4/3 FD adapters have adapted to using excellent Canon and Nikon FD lenses without IS. Obviously you're not going to run with a tiny GH1 handheld with a Canon 50mm f1.4 wide open. You understand its limitations, work to its strengths and produce something great.
You control the tool. You master it. Not the other way around.
bronxjragon
Well-known member
Goodness me...to you it's all about the camera. You must be still waiting for "the perfect camera" aren't you?
bronxjragon
Well-known member
Haha, I've answered my own question. You must be still waiting for a Red Scarlet as well. Don't think homemade birthday movies allows for you to budget for that camera.
Michael Carter
Veteran
Anyone remember how psyched video shooters were for the D7000? Waiting for the ultimate camera may mean not shooting much.
People are shooting amazing footage with all sorts of cameras. The rabid gh/canon/whatever people just come off as silly and unprofessional. Every system has limitations. Scarlet does look like it'll be here in late fall... with DOF equivalent to about F4 - 5.6 on a 5D, so the DOF freaks will be disappointed. Toss in that a useful shooting setup with Scarlet Fixed will come to about $10k (if you don't already own Red accessories). Still an amazing deal for the current specs (and I could use all those frame rates... 150fps? I'm in!).
Everyone's hanging on the next 5D, which is rumor-ware at this point. We know there will be a new one, the question is, "will Canon blow us away" or pull a Nikon. Canon is rumored to be developing a DSLR - look camera with a video form factor and purpose-made imaging chip. Sounds great if and when it gets here.
Meanwhile, I've done some luscious work with the T2i I bought just to give Canon video a try. Go out and shoot, people!
People are shooting amazing footage with all sorts of cameras. The rabid gh/canon/whatever people just come off as silly and unprofessional. Every system has limitations. Scarlet does look like it'll be here in late fall... with DOF equivalent to about F4 - 5.6 on a 5D, so the DOF freaks will be disappointed. Toss in that a useful shooting setup with Scarlet Fixed will come to about $10k (if you don't already own Red accessories). Still an amazing deal for the current specs (and I could use all those frame rates... 150fps? I'm in!).
Everyone's hanging on the next 5D, which is rumor-ware at this point. We know there will be a new one, the question is, "will Canon blow us away" or pull a Nikon. Canon is rumored to be developing a DSLR - look camera with a video form factor and purpose-made imaging chip. Sounds great if and when it gets here.
Meanwhile, I've done some luscious work with the T2i I bought just to give Canon video a try. Go out and shoot, people!
Felipe Henao
Well-known member
Is easy to work without IS, however Moire and aliasing can not be fixed, what you have to do is change the focus plane angle or lighting, which frequently is not ideal.
Canon can not hold for long this problem because now there are many options in large , economic size sensors, when they launched the 5D Mark II
The only other option was the Nikon D90, If Canon can not solve such a problem as dirt in the image, I'll probably keep Canon for stills, and get
a new brand for me like GH2 that has a clean image, or Sony if they already got a clean image with the A77, THE only reason why my Canons are not
in trash can is the stills quality.
We need a tool ( camera ) able to show what we want to show without changing angle or lighting from the original idea.
If you invested some money in Canon gear and don't want to see the Moire because of your investment you don't have your feet in this planet
Last edited:
Felipe Henao
Well-known member
Is clear that your problem is money, since you don't want to accept that the money you invested in Canon gear for video was a waste, and
don't want to accept that other systems offer a better video quality. Also can tell you have one of the worst health problems, Ignorance.
I'm not saying you are an Ignorant, Lets call it Rebel
deltoidjohn
Veteran
Can we keep the personal insults out of this please?
This arguament has been done a million times. Each system has it's own benefits and disadvantages. I tried a GH1 & GH2 and hated them, so moved on to the Canons. My friend had a 550D and hated it, so sold it and got a camcorder.
In terms of pure, objective image quality, Canon may be behind at the moment, but there's always new cameras on the way which will change the balance in the future - just like Sony are doing now. In the meantime, I will continue to make money with my Canon DSLR's rather than pixel peeping and debating and trying to justify my choices. The footage from all these cameras is (despite thier flaws) good enough for professional use, and I'm certainly not complaining about what they are capable of.
Felipe Henao
Well-known member
Thank you for you opinion, I also think that there are many systems to record videos, I personally like a lot my Panasonic HMC40, and like the stills of My Canon cameras
but personally will like that the Canon would have a clean image for video without Moire aliasing, For my taste is so good the Canon's still quality that I would rather buy another DSLR system for video only and keep the Canon for stills.
Probably Canon will fix this problem soon, but if for some reason they don't get the solution, I have to consider another DSLR system for video, and at the moment there are 2 cameras :
one the GH2 , WOULD YOU PLEASE tell me why in your personal case didn't like the GH2 ? One of the things I like about it, is that Moire is minimum, however I'm not in love with the fact that doesn't have 30 P that I personally like. The other option is the new Sony A77, but there is not a Moire test yet.
Thank you for your answer.
Compared to one of the Canon DSLRs it looks & feels like a little plastic toy. The ergonomics are horrible with fiddly little buttons & the camcorder features it has that the Canons lack like continuous AF don't work well. This is just my personal opinion which may be coloured by the fact that I have been shooting with a 5DII for over 2.5 years but I gave up trying to use the GH2 & bought myself a 600d(T3i) for B-roll instead of the GH2. It immediately felt comfortable in my hands plus I already have all these lovely Canon 'L' lenses. In terms of video quality the GH2 is excellent with higher resolution & much less moire & aliasing but for me the struggle to use the camera was just not worth it compared to the simplicity of a Canon DSLR.
Last edited:
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
Relax, gentlemen.
bronxjragon
Well-known member
Completely agree. An L Lens can make a world of difference (and YES in video mode too).
Felipe Henao
Well-known member
Thank you, curious about the Sony A77
DavidBeier
Veteran
I picked a 60D over a GH2 for a couple of reasons.
1. Neither is a real video camera. From what I saw, the GH2 is an improvement when it comes to video with a bit higher resolution and a bit less moire & aliasing issues but (from what I saw/was told) these issues are still there in the GH2 and still frustrating. Neither is a proper video camera but the the 60D/7D IS are proper/amazing still cameras. For the cash I was shelling out, I wanted a camera that was really good at something.
2. Form factor of the GH2 is just crappy. I tried shooting with it and it just drove me nuts. DSLRs are already frustrating enough as video cameras without the added frustration of the plasticky construction.
3. Sensor Size. It's not the biggest issue in the world but I liked the fact that the APS-C sensor is about the size of Super 35mm film or the Red One sensor. It just meant that all the talk I'd heard over the years about what size lenses various DPs like to use would apply to the camera.
4. Lens variety. Not a lot of people are making lenses for Panasonic's 4/3s system.
5. Proliferation in the market. I'm not always one to go with the crowd but it's useful to go with a system that is getting a lot more play. So much of the industry is working with Canon DSLRs. That means a lot of my friends/collegues have Canon gear and accesories that i can borrow and make use of. That means the price on Canon stuff tends to be driven down. It means that companies like Tecnicolor support Canon DSLRs with user profiles. AND, it means that people are used/like the look of Canon DSLR footage.
These are just some of the reasons why I went with a 60D over a GH2. Not saying my choice was the "right" one as I have no desire to get drawn into the increasingly vitriolic debate that seems to be brewing on these forums.
1. Neither is a real video camera. From what I saw, the GH2 is an improvement when it comes to video with a bit higher resolution and a bit less moire & aliasing issues but (from what I saw/was told) these issues are still there in the GH2 and still frustrating. Neither is a proper video camera but the the 60D/7D IS are proper/amazing still cameras. For the cash I was shelling out, I wanted a camera that was really good at something.
2. Form factor of the GH2 is just crappy. I tried shooting with it and it just drove me nuts. DSLRs are already frustrating enough as video cameras without the added frustration of the plasticky construction.
3. Sensor Size. It's not the biggest issue in the world but I liked the fact that the APS-C sensor is about the size of Super 35mm film or the Red One sensor. It just meant that all the talk I'd heard over the years about what size lenses various DPs like to use would apply to the camera.
4. Lens variety. Not a lot of people are making lenses for Panasonic's 4/3s system.
5. Proliferation in the market. I'm not always one to go with the crowd but it's useful to go with a system that is getting a lot more play. So much of the industry is working with Canon DSLRs. That means a lot of my friends/collegues have Canon gear and accesories that i can borrow and make use of. That means the price on Canon stuff tends to be driven down. It means that companies like Tecnicolor support Canon DSLRs with user profiles. AND, it means that people are used/like the look of Canon DSLR footage.
These are just some of the reasons why I went with a 60D over a GH2. Not saying my choice was the "right" one as I have no desire to get drawn into the increasingly vitriolic debate that seems to be brewing on these forums.
Felipe Henao
Well-known member
Yes at least the 60D is a great stills camera. Gh2 lens selection is poor, 60D Build is better.
2 Options for me : 1- Wait for next round of Canon cameras
2 - Sony A77 seems to be special.
Take a look to this video, seems to be a very clean image with great motion
deltoidjohn
Veteran
I didn't like the small body or the fiddly controls. Plus the lens selection was truly woeful. Sure you can use a whole selection of manual vintage lenses, but what about for stills? Sometimes it is just nice to have AF for stills or the ability to control aperture through the body and have it displayed on screen and recorded in metadata too. And how many vintage f/2.8 zooms are there readily available? Sure, you can use a whole stack of old manual primes available for a dime a dozen. But for me, primes are not very useful. I shoot weddings and fast zooms are a necessity.
I don't argue that Canon could improve a few things. And hopefully, now that Panasonic are solving their lens issues (new X series pro lenses with fast apertures) and Sony have reportedly solved the moire, overheating, manual control and format issues that plagued their first HDSLR's, Canon will respond positively. And even if they don't fix the moire soon, I won't be in any hurry to sell my Canon gear as it's working just fine for me right now.
bronxjragon
Well-known member
People waited for the GH1 to be the "special" camera. People waited for the next Canon to be the "special" camera. People waited for the GH2 to be the "special" camera. People are still waiting (for over 3 years now) for the Red Scarlet to be the "special" camera.
This is case in point of letting the technology control you instead of controlling the technology and going out and making money with your skills.