GH2 Considering huge switch to GH2. Interested in opinions.

B

brandonanthony1

Well-known member
I recently had all of my gear stolen, about $10k worth. Luckily insurance covered most, if not all of it. This leaves me in a very interesting quandary. I was previously shooting with an Af100 with FD glass. Upon using a friends GH2 however, I was having a very hard time telling the footage apart, whatsoever. In fact, I would go so far as to say I almost preferred the GH2.

I've been doing some thinking, and flip flopping between the FS100, AF100, GH2, and good ol' BMCC. While the BMCC would be great, I think the lack of variable frame rates, as well as un-realistic-for-most workflow really is a huge put off for me (please, try to change my mind as I want one), while the FS100 is basically a better-in-low-light AF100 (at a much higher price, at the moment). Because of this, I've really been comparing both the AF100, as well as the GH2 to one another.

If you could get the AF100 hassle free, or consider building a GH2 rig from the ground up, which would you pick? I've posed some thoughts/questions below to most of the GH2 users in this forum. I'd love to hear some thoughts, opinions, etc on this subject.

VIDEO:

• I'm considering the GH2, realistically, for its quality-to-price ratio. I've also been reading heavily into hacks, and it looks like the Flowmotion hack is going to give me great quality video, while not causing any problems while shooting. Is there something else I should consider vs the AF100?
• Will I get noticeable quality loss when upscaling 720p to 1080? This will be when shooting 60p. I've done some searching and it looks like its realistically useable for web-formats.

AUDIO:

• Is there any kind of solution for AGC? What about clean-audio in general? Am I going to get anywhere near the quality of audio I was getting out of the AF100?
• Is it even possible to monitor audio w/o basically guessing?

RIG:

• The AF100 was nice, as I really didn't' have to worry too much about "rigging" everything together in a nice and cohesive manner. It really was simple to switch out lenses, mic, etc. With the GH2, I'll have to not only purchase a cage, but also a audio solution.
• Does anybody have any use with the Gini Cage? It looks to be a cheaper alternative to the D|Cage. Opinions?
• Does anybody know of any good rail systems? I was considering using the Fotga, due to it's free-like price. I was also considering Lanparte, but it seems quite pricey.

I know it seems like a bit, but it seems like a realistic solution to going the AF100 route for me, while also saving a good amount of $ for other things (lenses, etc).

So, if anybody has opinions, etc. I'd love to hear them.
 
I got a simple one: get the GH3 instead GH2. No matter what some people say it is a step up in many ways - both handling, workflow, audio options and image quality.
 
One thing worth considering is how your clients will view your gear. With the AF100, you're turning up with a piece of gear which immediately says professional camera. And prices are dropping considerably on the AF100 especially if you're buying used. And the ease of use for a solo operator in terms of audio etc makes it compelling.

I mention this as I shot a short docu on a hacked gh1 when it was first released and the number of people (the paying client included) who asked with concern about my camera choice was surprising to me. I know, that perception may have changed over the years but I wouldn't underestimate that "perception factor" either.

I now own an AF101 and a gh1 and enjoy using both depending on the circumstance. (And I wouldn't mind if someone handed me a BM pocket cinema camera in July either just to add to the collection!).
 
It really depends on what you need.
The Gh2 is a very awesome camera but if I worked pro then I would more on to something better. No time code and ok audio. You will probably need to run double sound.

If I was doing more ENG/EFP work then I would get a C100, C300 or a used F3 with that insurance money.
 
I havent used the af100 so I cant compare but as cheap is the GH2 is you can always get 2 and have 2 angles for interviews and events like weddings/musician recordings.

I like the PR-1 Shoulder rig for $250 = http://www.amazon.com/Prime-Video-S...=1366205367&sr=8-1&keywords=pr-1+shoulder+rig

The Gini rig looked nice at $100 more, but then they added $100 to shipping so i went with the PR-1. With a mount you can easily add a Tascam dr-40 to the shoulder rig and for 1000 you have a gh2, rig and audio device and when put together it looks bigger and more professional. Then add simple things like a Liliput monitor, LED light or shotgun mic to the GH2 (my rode videomic works great!) and clients will think the rig is rather professional.

527008_10101050304159063_1250475892_n.jpg
 
Martti Ekstrand said:
I got a simple one: get the GH3 instead GH2.
Click to expand...

I'd second this: better camera all around for not too much more money - better battery life, better sensitivity, better color, headphone jack, better LCD, weather sealing, you don't have to worry about hacks, and a number of other little niceties. With camera depreciation as steep as it is, this is how I'd start over and rent fully professional cams as needed (YMMV).

Lots of questions remain, though: what do you shoot, what do your clients ask for, what was stolen, what do you still have, what do you need? If you don't have any lenses, lights, or support gear and only $10K to spend, definitely go for a GH vs. an AF because you'll need every penny you can to buy the other gear. That said, a used AF ($2000-$2500) is still compelling against a GH3 as it isn't too much more expensive and offers quite a bit more... but naturally, if you don't need what more it offers, then the extra expenditure doesn't make sense. Buy the features you need often, rent what you only need occasionally.

You might even consider a Canon 5D3 due to the system's ubiquity (and despite its mediocrity). I wouldn't even consider advising you move towards C100/FS700/F3 territory unless you have anything approaching the client base and income to support it... sure, you'll get one for $10K, but it'll lose half again its value in a year or less and you won't have funds for enough supporting gear to use it properly.
 
Sorry guys. I should have stated in the first post about shooting conditions. Realistically, about 70-80% of the time, I'm shooting in interview conditions. The other half, I'm usually shooting staged b-roll to accompany these interviews (However from time to time, I do have a more creative project come along where I'm shooting almost 100% run-and-gun). The AF100 was outstanding for the interviews, really easy to set up quickly, and just made transporting everything.. easier. However, when it came to B-Roll, it really became annoying having to lug the beast onto a slider/jib/steadicam every 10 minutes. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't exactly welcoming. I can definitely see how a DSLR would make B-Roll a WHOLE lot easier.

I will be spending about $5-6k on other gear, mainly lights/audio, as well as a couple of lenses (Either Rokinon Primes, or the Tokina 28-70 2.8 Angenieux-wannabe), so there definitely is that to take into consideration.

A couple of you make a great point in that the perception of looking professional should be a concern. I've shot w/ DSLR's on set before, and we have had some skepticism here and there. However, if I were to fit the GH2 out with a Cage/mattebox/etc (see - eoshd.com's rig), do you think I would still get the same kind of "attention?"

I've also considered the GH3, but honestly, at that price point, I would look to just purchase another AF100. The GH3 really is attractive, and probably the best bang-for-my-buck. But at that price point, for only $1000 more, I can have a camera that pretty much does it all-in-one, and defeats the purpose of my original question.
 
brandonanthony1 said:
Sorry guys. I should have stated in the first post about shooting conditions. Realistically, about 70-80% of the time, I'm shooting in interview conditions. The other half, I'm usually shooting staged b-roll to accompany these interviews (However from time to time, I do have a more creative project come along where I'm shooting almost 100% run-and-gun). The AF100 was outstanding for the interviews, really easy to set up quickly, and just made transporting everything.. easier. However, when it came to B-Roll, it really became annoying having to lug the beast onto a slider/jib/steadicam every 10 minutes. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't exactly welcoming. I can definitely see how a DSLR would make B-Roll a WHOLE lot easier.

I will be spending about $5-6k on other gear, mainly lights/audio, as well as a couple of lenses (Either Rokinon Primes, or the Tokina 28-70 2.8 Angenieux-wannabe), so there definitely is that to take into consideration.

A couple of you make a great point in that the perception of looking professional should be a concern. I've shot w/ DSLR's on set before, and we have had some skepticism here and there. However, if I were to fit the GH2 out with a Cage/mattebox/etc (see - eoshd.com's rig), do you think I would still get the same kind of "attention?"

I've also considered the GH3, but honestly, at that price point, I would look to just purchase another AF100. The GH3 really is attractive, and probably the best bang-for-my-buck. But at that price point, for only $1000 more, I can have a camera that pretty much does it all-in-one, and defeats the purpose of my original question.
Click to expand...


$1000 more is a lot...... I've never heard Anyone say "Oh, for a $1000 more I will just get that".

With $1000 you can kit out that GH3 to provide an image quality and sound you simply cannot get with the Af100 which is based loosely off of the Panasonic GH1.
 
You make a good point. $1000 is a lot of money. I suppose the extra $1000 would help save me from all of the "rigging" trouble I would be facing with the GH3. It really would make it a piece of equipment I could easily throw on the tripod and go, and not have to worry about a ton of stuff in post.
 
If you do decide in favor of the GH2 (and it is an outstanding camera) your biggest problem will be that it has been discontinued and what is available is largely used cameras.

I'd try to get a GH3 and an AF100 if you could manage that.

I have both a GH2 and a GH3 and the latter is enough "more" camera it is worth the extra few hundred over what people are now trying to get for used GH2 gear (on amazon). One shows up on this site now and then FWIW.
 
Big advocate for the GH3 right here. Absolute game changer. Beats the pants off the AF100 and the GH2. Also - surprisingly versatile. With 20 gain stages in the audio(though still some AGC to worry about), a headphone jack, and the ability to adjust the ISO while shooting(equivalent to adjusting the gain on a traditional camera) - you really can't be beat. Not to mention the advantages of 60p at 1080(with an option to automatically convert it to 24p - slow motion). Plus the image quality is outstanding. Even at high ISO the noise is nowhere near as noticeable - and what is noticeable is so fine it usually ends up looking closer to film grain. Love this camera - and I'm coming from a former AF100/GH2 setup.
 
I've had a GH2 since it came out, and an AF100 purchased used recently. The AF provides more flexible 'looks' but with standard settings I honestly prefer the Gh2's footage (slightly).

Regarding sound, the Gh2 does not have a typical camcorder nasty pumping AGC - it has a limiter that rolls off over-loud sound. So as long as you don't input a signal that's too loud, the circuit won't be modifying the signal. To monitor I use a $350 Beachtfk that provides XLR and phantom - the thing is though, that starts pushing the price into GH3 territory.

i like the GH2 because its so compact and inconspicuous, so it's not in a cage etc etc. if you need those accessories, or if you feel you need to look "traditional/professional", then you'll be edging back towards the price of a good used AF100, with its conveniences.
 
Although I'm a big GH2 advocate, if I was in your position and shoot the things you do, I would spring for the Sony FS100. The picture is absolutely fabulous and it has all the functionality of a professional camera. Furthermore, with the kit lens, you have an active stabilizer which will give you steadicam-like walking shots. There's nothing like that on any of the other cameras you're considering. Just my 2 cents.
 
I would get two GH3 bodies and build your system around this. ( this would be about the same cost as one used AF100 body )

I would also add the JuicedLink Riggy RA222 to provide XLR inputs and 30 dB of clean gain to eliminate the AGC audio issue. ( set the GH3 audio to 1, then use the Riggy gain to boost the audio signal )
 
I just ordered a GH3 and am coming from an AF100. From what I've seen the GH3 is far ahead of the AF in terms of dynamic range and resolution. Also, the on board codecs are much much nicer than the AF's AVCHD which was terrible to grade.

I am going the JuicedLink route as well. That and a couple of ND filters and you have an outstanding stills/video camera.
 
Steve Kahn said:
How are vairiable NDs compared to singles? I've heard the quality is not as good.
Click to expand...

It depends on the vari-ND filter. I have three of the older vari-ND Genustech filters that shift color as you change the amount of ND, and they aren't usable with lenses longer than 100mm.

Based upon the reviews I've read ( still waiting on my back-order ) these new Eclipse GenusTech vari-ND filters have almost no color shift and don't degrade the image.

That said, I still have a set of low cost Tiffen ND filters ( .3, .6, .9, 1.2 ) that I use when I have time to swap filters, but the vari-ND is very handy for run-and-gun shoots, where you don't have much time to set-up.

At some point I will spend the bucks and buy a set of professional ND filters that incorporate an IR filter, but right now I make do without the IR filter. ( black colored objects turn reddish from IR contamination, which is most often seen in black suits at weddings )
 
TheDingo said:
I would get two GH3 bodies and build your system around this. ( this would be about the same cost as one used AF100 body )

I would also add the JuicedLink Riggy RA222 to provide XLR inputs and 30 dB of clean gain to eliminate the AGC audio issue. ( set the GH3 audio to 1, then use the Riggy gain to boost the audio signal )
Click to expand...


This is exactly what I did myself. Sold my Z5U and bought 2 Gh3s and JuicedLink.
Add the two zooms (12-100)) and one or two primes, and you will be set.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top