Canon's recent announcement. Will it hurt GH1?

Forgive my ignorance but I don't understand why you guys care. "Will it hurt GH1?" That's not any of our problems, let Panasonic, Canon, and RED worry about that.

"a better package" is very subjective. The lack of live HDMI while recording, sound, video, and codec problems do not make a better package from my point of view. Also not interested in the relatively small sensor in the GH1. I have been trying to get away from crop factors for years. Using a full frame is no different than the 35mm adapters that have become standard production tools and we have welcomed for a long time.

I don't care what camera anybody would buy, and it's not my job to promote them. The 5D works for me, but obviously not for everyone. My needs are not the same as yours. The camera is just a tool, the trick is to have the right tool for the job :)
 
Last edited:
Daniel L. said:
Forgive my ignorance but I don't understand why you guys care. "Will it hurt GH1?" That's not any of our problems, let Panasonic, Canon, and RED worry about that.

"a better package" is very subjective. The lack of live HDMI while recording, sound, video, and codec problems do not make a better package from my point of view. Also not interested in the relatively small sensor in the GH1. I have been trying to get away from crop factors for years. Using a full frame is no different than the 35mm adapters that have become standard production tools and we have welcomed for a long time.

I don't care what camera anybody would buy, and it's not my job to promote them. The 5D works for me, but obviously not for everyone. My needs are not the same as yours. The camera is just a tool, the trick is to have the right tool for the job :)
Click to expand...

This is exactly what Nathan Troutman is doing. Asking us why we care, then turning around and saying 30P is great!!! Like we haven't been using 24P as much as we can.


It's very different from using a 35mm ADapter. As much talk as there is about 35mm Adapters and full frame rarely ANYONE uses full frame on a 35mm Adapter because of the quality loss at edges.

It's definitely not the same on a grand scale.

Also, as far as I see it there are more people trying to cross-promote the MKii and D90 in this here GH-1 forum. But the people who are eager for the GH-1 are being accused of promoting the camera.

If anyone truly believes in "it's just a camera" then let's cease the sideways attacks on either.

I own BOTH. There're only two others on these boards that can quantify the differences and oddly enough they both speak highly of BOTH camera bodies. I do as well.

The rest is just conjecture from the stands, not actual experience.

Time to stop the debating and let people have their preferences.
 
Daniel L. said:
""Forgive my ignorance but I don't understand why you guys care. "" I have been trying to get away from crop factors for years. ""
Click to expand...



......... THE GRASS IS ALWAYS BIGGER ON THE OTHER SIDE

While the cropped issue is a matter of perspective. I hear
a lot of neophytes complain or exclaim their absolute
need not to be cropped, however most of them never have
shot on anything larger than 1/3, 2/3 or maybe S16mm
image area. Funny how most Entertainment has been shot on
S35mm film negative ratios with no issues, however the wannabes or
neophytes now say they can't work on anything less than 36x24mm sensors
since that implementation on the 5DMII. It's actually silly; well really silly.
I had in my hands since I was 5yrs old 120 format cameras ; so I must feel
really cropped. I find the whole subject absurd; and I want FF sensors,
however I also know that if there was only going to be APS-C approx. size
sensors, I would have zero complaints...


If your coming from, lets say:

1/3: Well that's cropped compared to
1/2: Now that's cropped compared to
2/3: And that's cropped when compared to
16mm: Which is cropped when compared to
S16mm: Cropped yet again when compared to
3perf 35mm: which is getting yet again cropped compared to
35mm AA : Which is fine, however small compared to
65mm 2:20:1 : Which is all in good, however compared to
IMAX full frame : Which is gigantic, maybe, however looking small, when compared to
8x10 large format.

You get my point!

No mater how you slice it ( crop it in this case ), your almost always smaller than something else. :-)
imaxfilm.gif



Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms


Anamorphic DSLR Lens Test Images... links:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1638289&postcount=97
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1637705&postcount=84

Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Pappas/573417404
Myspace:
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts

Arrfilms@hotmail.com
http://www.PappasArts.com
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }

.
 
Last edited:
Kholi,

The point of that post was to demonstrate how "a better package" is subjective. There is no such thing as the better package. 30p vs 24p is subjective. For me full frame is better, for someone else it's not. I'm not suggesting you need a 5D, it's not "better". They both have problems.

I don't own any Canon or Panasonic stock so I don't care who buys what. Finally, I'm certainly not trying to accuse or attack anybody.

Seriously, it's just a camera :beer:
 
The fact is who cares who doesn't buy it. It makes no difference to me personally about who is not going to buy the GH1 and for that matter who is going to buy it. Its all about what I can do with it. Will I make my money back quickly? Will I continue making money with it until an improved version comes along? Is all about that: how can one benefit from it. If you feel is not for you then, more power to you. Go get a Canon or a Red One or whatever. Anybody else's desicion won't affect my life at all.
 
it's been 24 hours now and I'm still in the GH1 camp. I'm not gonna start shooting the film now for probably another 6 months. I figure I'll get a GH1 shoot a couple of shorts and keep working on the script. By the end of the year there will probably be a DSLR that blows the GH1 and the MKII away. If not I should have the $$$ to shoot the film with both. How's that for a flipflop.

I have no doubt that the MKII produces better looking pictures but the GH1 is still more usable. Like you said Kholi the GH1 is unfukwitable......like a movie camera with training wheels.

disclaimer: if kholi's footage sux arse I'm getting a MKII
 
Squig, you might want to get the Nikon 300s. It might be THE camera! nikonrumors is talking about it and polling people to find out if they will buy it when it comes out. One more to ponder about.
 
can't wait...got a stills shoot in 2 weeks that will pay for half of the GH1. If the D300s is any good I can always get my money back on the GH1. I'm done waiting this has been a painful experience particularly thanks to a prick teaser who shall remain nameless :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
I'm still on the fence. Wondering which cam has an advantage, if any,
in effects work.

Manual is a must of course. I'm a bit sick of having to jimmy the HV20 into
TV mode. oooppps - back into TV mode........oopssssss. hit mic by mistake.
ugh.

Also the jello in HV20 is heartbreaking at times.

24p is a must for me.

I'm on a PC.
 
Nathan Troutman said:
The GH1 is not a near-to-Academy or S35 sized sensor. It's a 2X crop factor. S35 is about half way between the GH1 and 5D.
Click to expand...
Whoa, let's get our facts straight. The GH1's sensor offers a horizontal FOV that's barely distinguishable from an Academy-size frame. And S35 is MUCH closer to Four Thirds than it is to full frame. "2X crop factor" means full frame as the frame of reference. Just do the math, and stop spreading disinformation.
 
Last edited:
ydgmdlu said:
Whoa, let's get our facts straight. The GH1's sensor offers a horizontal FOV that's barely distinguishable from an Academy-size frame. And S35 is MUCH closer to Four Thirds than it is to full frame. "2X crop factor" means full frame as the frame of reference. Just do the math, and stop spreading disinformation.
Click to expand...

This is a quote from David Mullen over at Reduser.net.

"A 3-perf 35mm cine frame, Full Aperture (3-perf Super-35) is 24.89mm x 13.87mm -- very similar to the RED ONE Mysterium sensor in size"

The GH1 is 17.3mm X 13mm. So correctly stated actually the Nikon D90, D5000 & Canon Rebel T1i (D500) are closest to S35 film as David Mullen also states.

"The RED ONE sensor is Super-35 more or less (and a 4K recording uses slightly less than Super-35), and so is the Nikon APS-C sensor." (which is the sensor size of the other APS-C cameras like the D90.)

The GH1's sensor is smaller than S35. The APS-C sensor cameras are almost exactly S35. And yes the GH1 is closer to S35 than FF is. I said half-way in between but it is closer to the GH1.:beer:
 
You're not even addressing my points.

1. Of course APS-C is close to S35. We all knew that already. Nobody, especially not me, has ever disputed that. Why are you even bringing up APS-C now, all of a sudden? I didn't see it in any part of the discussion before now.

2. You originally said that the GH1's image area is not near Academy frame size. What happened to that assertion?

3. You brought up "crop factor." What's the point of "2X crop factor" again if the frame of reference is not full frame, but S35 or APS-C?

4. The GH1 has an oversized sensor that, when in video mode, is wider than standard Four Thirds. It's 18.8mm wide. The difference between that and Academy size is roughly the same as the difference between S35 and Canon's version of APS-C (which is smaller than Nikon's version).

5. To be precise, APS-C or S35 is not "halfway" between Four Thirds and full frame. You might've meant it informally, but it's not an accurate statement of fact. It's actually quite misleading. The crop factor between S35 and the GH1's video mode is only 1.3X. The difference in frame width between S35 and full frame is 11-12mm. The difference in frame width between S35 and GH1 is 5-6mm. How is that even close to "halfway"?

Most studio productions are shot at Academy size, not S35.
 
Last edited:
So after all the discussion it looks like the answer is.... no. There are some peeps who say they are on the fence but I'm not sure that exactly will hurt the GH1 sales. In the end I think people will just get the GH1 because it's price point is just too sweet.

I do agree that this is just a tool. It is like an artists brush so it really doesn't matter what you use if you are talented enough. The MkII announcement did make me think for a second but after weighing the GH1 vs MkII (firmware update) I still think there is no contest. Sure the MkII has beautiful stills but this is a video forum right? Sure the MkII "might" have a better video image (to each their own) but the jello problem in my eyes brings that image quality right back down below the GH1. And I really do not understand how anybody can say the D90 video image is better. I have yet to see a comparison that proves that... on top of it's jello shiznit.

Good discussions here but I guarantee you that somebody is going to make a theatrical length movie on the GH1 and prove its disadvantages can't stop somebody from making a great film or a great quality production.
 
ydgmdlu said:
* The GH1 has an oversized sensor that, when in video mode, is wider than standard Four Thirds. It's 18.8mm wide.

* The crop factor between S35 and the GH1's video mode is only 1.3X.

* The difference in frame width between S35 full frame is 11-12mm. The difference in frame width between S35 and GH1 is 5-6mm. How is that even close to "halfway"?
Click to expand...

:beer::beer::beer:Spot on... True! :beer::beer::beer:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top