Considering Either GH2 or T3i

J

j229

New member
Hello Everyone,

This will be my first high quality camera. I am primarily interested in video (mostly shooting people) but would also like to be able to take decent stills. Initially I was considering the GH2 having read the commentary on EOSHD. I like the higher resolution of the GH2, but for some reason I often prefer the look of the Canons. I hate to say that Canon looks more "filmic/cinematic," but based on the video samples I've seen this is how I perceive it. Also, there appears to be more of a vibrancy to the colors on the Canon footage which I don't feel the GH2 quite matches. People mention that color correction is done in post, and the Panasonic footage can be made to match the Canon look. But from the footage I've seen, there still seems to be a difference in the end product. In many shots, the Panasonic does look to have a different quality. I have seen this referred to as a "video" look, but I don't know how accurate that is. It definitely still looks like high quality footage, but something about the aesthetic is different. I think this is especially true when dealing with things like skin tones which look more natural to me on the Canons. At the same time, I do notice the softness of the Canons and miss the extra detail from the GH2. Therefore, I'm torn between the greater resolved detail that I see from the GH2 and the more appealing colors and look of the Canon. As I do not really have any experience with cameras, I don't know what exactly I should be looking for on the video side in terms of features. Although, I've heard it said that the GH2 is designed more with video shooting in mind (e.g., longer recording time limits).

So I have a few questions. Am I just imagining the color/look difference in the finished footage ? Is now a wise time to buy either of these cameras ? They have both been out for awhile now. Is there anything coming out soon that it might be better to wait for within the same price range ? Does the hacked GH2 footage hold up much better on a larger screen ? Is there anything else I should be considering before purchasing ? I know this topic has been discussed before here, but does anything change with the newer GH2 hacks ?

Thanks for your help.
 
I've heard the "skintones are better" argument before, but I just don't see it. Here's a couple ungraded screengrabs (from my vimeo, so they're a bit compressed, but this is just for color reference) from a recent shoot I did.

xbihc2.jpg

wi9e9l.jpg
 
I was in your exact situation about a month ago. Couldn't decide between getting a GH2 or a T3i.

Obviously I'm reading this forum so it's clear I went with the T3i, and honestly, I couldn't be happier with my decision.

I agree with you of the contrasting styles to a degree. I do believe the Canons are a bit more soft, and sometimes the high resolution of the GH2's seem a bit too "video" looking to me. But like you said, I prefer the image the Canon makes.

You said you want a camera for video as well as stills. That right there should be your deciding factor. Not only does the T3i take incredible looking video, but it also takes incredible stills. As far as I'm aware the GH2 is very strong with video, but the stills are seriously lacking.

Another deciding factor for me was the sensor. I've been taking time lapses of the stars almost every night, and every single time it amazes me how many stars and even a faint Milky Way galaxy it can manage to pick up, especially because I live in a city. I have never shot timelapse with the GH2 so I can't say for sure, but from what I understand it struggles to capture the same image. I had a hard time finding any videos shot with a GH2 of the stars, yet there are many with a canon camera.

The only real issues I have with the T3i is the limited audio control, and the lack of further control with magic lantern. But you really shouldn't expect a dslr to record great audio, best to get a separate, quality recorder.

I'd say go with the T3i, but that's just because I am happy with mine. You are in the Canon forum after all, most people will probably tell you the same thing. If you post in the Panasonic forum, I bet people will say the GH2 is better.

It is ultimately your decision.
 
For the absolute best in video quality, the GH2 stomps all over the T3i. The arguments about color and skin tones are really nebulous and just based on people trying to give voice to their personal preference for the Canons, which is fine, but in practice you can get whatever colors you like in post (and to say skin tones are better...well, let's just say there's a ton of videos on YouTube with jaundice-like skin tones from those supposedly superior Canons). I would also say that, unless you are very skilled in digital photography, the difference between still photo quality won't even be that apparent to you, though the JPEG engine in the GH2 seems to be its weakest point in stills (I almost always shot RAW unless I'm shooting event stills, so I cannot comment on that directly).

HOWEVER, if you're just starting out, the GH2 is a very quirky camera. First, you have to hack it to really have it come in on its own (the non-hacked footage is still good, but the magic is definitely in the better encoder that the hacks bring you). Then there are numerous bugs and "gotchas" that might end up frustrating you. I have been hit with almost every single bug now to the point where I'm prepared on set (and I have used the GH2 professionally many times over), but it's not for the faint of heart, or someone who is unaware of the pitfalls.

If you want a camera that will work right out of the box and you don't really have to think about, the T3i would be the better choice. But if you want to get your hands dirty and come out with, arguably, some of the best video imagery you can get for under $10k, then get the GH2.
 
I'm not a fan of the GH2, but the Canons are getting old: the world has moved forward, Canon only has the 5D3 and old-genertion cameras with horrible aliasing/moire and a decidedly soft image.

And still, months after I ditched my T2i and went for a NEX-5N, I'm amazed to find new stuff that was shot on these old Canons and that looks absolutely gorgeous. Case in point: https://vimeo.com/49786954 (couldn't care less about the subject, I just watched it because it was shot on Flaat and the image looked superb).

Anyway, this may be helpful:
Flaat shootout 2012 (D800 vs GH2 vs T2i vs 5N): http://www.vimeo.com/similaar/shootout2012
My take on the 5N, and why I sold my T2i after trying this one out: http://www.similaar.com/foto/flaat-5n/review.html
 
In my experience, you can soften up the GH2 footage and make it look more like the vibrant Canon footage. However, you can't add detail and sharpness to Canon footage to make it resemble a GH2...

With the T3i, you also have more detail/aliasing/moire issues to deal with. I had a 5DmkII and got rid of it because I quickly got tired of having any wide shots littered with rainbow moire.

But I've used both cameras. Both are very capable of making great images.
 
Canon definitely has a good baked in look. Vibrant colors, better skin tones and more color tonality than the GH2. I've heard the GH3 improves on that. I have 2 gripes with the GH2 camera. 1) The 2x crop isn't as ideal. I don't care what the GH2 fanboys say, the crop makes a difference and is noticeable. 2) The color tonality on the GH2 is weak IMO. It always looks like it has a brown filter placed over it. To me, the colors on the GH cameras are too muted, while Canon's colors have much more variation and are much more vibrant. GH2 just looks monochromatic-ish to me compared to Canon

Canon has the better aesthetic out of the camera, but post can do a lot to improve GH2's image.

For me, I hate Canon and refuse to buy anything they make until they make something worth buying. I have a Sony FS700 and I love it.

For a B-Cam, I would probably pick up a GH3 over the Canons because while I like the aesthetic of the Canon's better out of camera, I hate the moire patterns, aliasing, etc... Plus I feel like Canon is a company that does not try to improve their products, but just tries to milk their loyal customers for all their money, and I cannot support that.

I think the GH3 will be better than the GH2, but we have to see more footage from it. I just hope the colors are better and it has better low light. I would personally just wait a month or so and get the GH3.

I think the key with the GH cameras is you need faster lenses. The reason why is looks more "video" than Canon is because of the much sharper image and the crop factor. Fast lenses shot more wide open will help that. One of the reasons why Canon probably look more filmic, ironically, is because it's so soft. The image looks like a movie from the 80s, so it has this instant nostalgic feel.

I do a lot of time lapses on my 60D, and that footage has a really different feel than the video. It's just so much sharper that it almost doesn't feel quite as organic as the mushy, soft video. I notice that with the FS700 also, because like the GH2, the resolution is much higher so I tend to shoot it more wide open than my Canons to create more of a softness to it.
 
I've been feeling lately like the Canons have better (easier?) upgrade routes. For owning gear, I can easily move from my 7D (t3i) to a 5dm3 anytime I want, in a year or two I can go to the c100 (or whatever is new then), and make my way up to the c300/500, all without really needing new... anything. Not sure if the same is/will be true with the panasonics.
 
Samuel H said:
And still, months after I ditched my T2i and went for a NEX-5N, I'm amazed to find new stuff that was shot on these old Canons and that looks absolutely gorgeous. Case in point: https://vimeo.com/49786954 (couldn't care less about the subject, I just watched it because it was shot on Flaat and the image looked superb).
Click to expand...

It looks okay, nothing that makes me go "that is so NOT Canon footage, oh, wow, it is." You can process the hell out if it and make it look good, plus correctly setting the white balance and having something interest to shoot always makes a helluva difference.

I just finished a project I shot a while ago back on my 60D, and I spent the whole time wishing I had shot it after I had gotten my GH2.
 
The main reason NOT to get a Canon dslr is because of wide shots filled with moire and aliasing. GH2 is a lot better in this aspect, A LOT better. Also the crop factor is not that serious, I shot on a Canon dslr non stop for close to 3 years and the GH2 is only like less than 5mm difference which is barely noticeable.

Canon Dslr also has lower resolution, when compared to the GH2 with a Hack it's not even fair....

Canon 5d Mark III is king o flow light/ high iso, but that's also a $3k camera. The GH2 has a bad form factor though so you're going to need a rig/cage for it. A canon 60d with Battery grip you can hand hold it since it has more weight and better feel imo.


Overall my main reason for the jump was due to a Music Video I did with a Canon dslr. The wide shots lacked detail and had aliasing and moire. This is simply somthing that cannot be corrected. Canons are great for shooting medium shots to extreme closeups but on extreme wides the footage looks very very lower res.

GH2 while not perfect based on video image quality alone is a lot better than Canon. Just look at this footage done with GH2 and you will never find canon footage with this much detail.....
 
Thank you for your responses everyone. Are there any other upcoming cameras I should be considering, aside from the GH3, in the same general price range ?
 
While I would pick the Gh3 over the Canons, the crop factor becomes very noticeable on wide angles. On a Tokina 11-16, 11mm on Canon would be about 14mm on GH2 and that is a very, very noticeable difference. When you get really wide, every mm starts to become very noticeable. On longer lens, the crop difference is not that bad but in wide it's a big difference.

Thats why I would hesitant about the Black Magic cam with its 2.3x crop. That's pretty major to me at least, but maybe not to others.

But still I would get the GH3 over the Canons. Better camera and Panasonic is a much better company that I just feel better about buying from. Canon just leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
 
I have both cams, the gh2 is my go to vid cam, but I use the t3i for timelapse and stills. The t3i for video is very very soft compared to the gh2 as I'm sure you have seen.
 
I have both cams, the gh2 is my go to vid cam, but I use the t3i for timelapse and stills. The t3i for video is very very soft compared to the gh2 as I'm sure you have seen.
Click to expand...
this is pretty much my take on the scenario as well.

you can get great looking images and video from either - its just a matter of what you like and the workflow youre comfortable with.

ive owned or used just about every one of the popular DSLRs (60d, 5dll, 7d, 5dlll, gh2, etc) and NONE of them is perfect. they ALL have some fairly significant compromise depending on who's talking and what theyre talking about.

ive owned two GH2s in two different scanarios. 1st time i used the lumix lenses 14-140 and 20mm and i HATED just about everything i shot with them. autofocus was great, but i just didnt care for the aesthetic. second time i used a rayqual m4/3 to nikon adapter and used a bunch of old nikkor lenses. the general aesthetic was MUCH more pleasing. but EVERYTHING was uber-manual. no IS no AF, no modern conveniences at all.

now i just rent.
for video i generally go to a GH2 with a variety of native m4/3 glass from olympus and voigtlander
for stills typically a rented 5dll

to address the OPs question. for me, it would come down to what i did more of (or made more money from):
for video - GH2 hands down. (if for no other reasons than no clip length limits and less moire worry)
if i shot more stills than video, t3i.
thats it.
 
I have both cameras- both are great. I will say in general the GH2 has cheaper accessories and is a lot lighter camera so it's easier to walk around with. And it's a bit more hackable- well that's to say there's more hacking being done on it. The resolution is a bit lower but that's not enough of a difference to really make it night and day. If I *had* to pick one and I cared more about video than stills, I'd definitely go with the GH2 (or actually I'd go with a GH3 at this point).

-Noah
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top