D7000 buyers remorse

roxics

roxics

Veteran
1. Can the GH2 hold up as a professional stills camera next to something like the D7000 or 7D?

2. Is it taken seriously by corporate and wedding clients as an "A" camera or even the ONLY camera on set?

3. What are the flash options for the GH2(for doing flash photography)?

4. What is a good fast walk around AF zoom lens for doing photo coverage at a wedding? For instance canon has a 28-70 f2.8 L. What does the m4/3 system have that's similar (with aperture control and AF)?

5. How does the GH2 hold up without weather sealing?

6. Could you see yourself owning only a GH2 and charging $2500 for a wedding photography package?

7. Could you use a GH2 to record a non-stop hour long event where hitting stop is not an option?

8. Would you use a GH2 to shoot photos of models for an art portfolio or glamor photography?

I ask these questions because I bought a D7000 last week and I like it a lot. It seems like a camera I could do all of the above with, with the exception of the non-stop event video.
But everyone is raving about the GH2 and its video capabilities. I can see the limitation in the D7000 video capabilities.

I really need a camera that can do all the above. Awesome stills, awesome video with a budget of only $2000. But I'd like to pocket as much of that as possible for other expenses. I need a camera that can let me get into professional side work but also let me do some short films and experiment with flash photography and shooting glamor photography of models.

As someone who currently does pro corporate video with a background in indie film; the GH2 appeals to my video side but the D7000 appeals to my photo side. I'm having a hard time deciding which is the better route. Keep the D7000 or return it, pocket $550 and get the GH2 whenever it's available.
 
I have a T2i and I'm asking myself a lot of the same questions. I love the photo abilities of the T2i but I'm much more interested in the video side. Having auto focus abilities of the Panny lenses is a nice bonus when you're just wanting some quick video of family or whatever. The new Magic Lantern hacks really make it even tougher. I have $1000 to spend right now and if the GH2 were available I'd have already bought it. Probably would then sell the T2i so I can buy a nice lens for it. But now I'm having a little bit of lens lust for the T2i. Best solution is to keep both, but yeah, we're all under some sort of budget whether we're a hobbyist or pro.

I'm being patient. But yes, I'm having some confusion myself. This probably didn't help your inquiries, but it does show a lot of us are in the same boat. Hopefully others can help a little better in this thread.
 
roxics said:
I really need a camera that can do all the above. Awesome stills, awesome video with a budget of only $2000. But I'd like to pocket as much of that as possible for other expenses. I need a camera that can let me get into professional side work but also let me do some short films and experiment with flash photography and shooting glamor photography of models.
Click to expand...

In other words, you want the perfect camera. A blend of the Nikon D3x and the Arri Alexa... For less than $2,000. That camera doesn't exist yet. The GH2 and all HDSLR hybrid types compromise heavily on certain things in order to A) Shoot both video and stills and B) remain relatively affordable.

In my opinion you're going to have to spend a lot more than $2,000 on camera equipment if you want to charge $2,500 for a wedding (or charge anything, for that matter).

If nothing else, at least have two GH2's for different angles... Ideally, have a dedicated video camera for the locked-off boring shot of everything and use the GH2(s) for the cool shots that people will remember.

For still photography the GH2 is NOT a D7000 or even a 7D. It just isn't. That's not to say it can't take great shots - it can - but that it will never match dedicated stills cameras all else being equal.

Don't get caught up in gear lust (it's hard I know). The D7000 takes great video. Yes, the GH2 technically takes better video, but will your clients really tell the difference?

roxics said:
6. Could you see yourself owning only a GH2 and charging $2500 for a wedding photography package?
Click to expand...

That depends entirely on how good of a photographer you are. Clients aren't paying for your camera, they're paying for your talent and time. For $2,500 they could buy two GH2 kits, but they don't want that. They want YOU.
 
1. No
2. No
3. No built-in wireless flash support. Slow flash x-sync speed... gawd only 1/160s. Oly has better flash support.
4. Hopefully the rumored 12-50mm f2.5-3.3 HD Power O.I.S. becomes true.
5. Don't drop it. Don't get close to water.
6. No
7. Well... if you don't have to change fast primes.
8. No. Poor flash support.

Keep both D7000 and GH2. Or consider 7D for both stills and videos.
 
Jester2138 said:
That depends entirely on how good of a photographer you are. Clients aren't paying for your camera, they're paying for your talent and time. For $2,500 they could buy two GH2 kits, but they don't want that. They want YOU.
Click to expand...

Right! That's understandable and I completely agree. What I really meant by that (and perhaps I should have worded it differently) is, can you see yourself as a photographer who charges that kind of money for your work, using only a GH2 as your primary camera? The assumption being that at that level you're a pro that runs around a lot changing settings on the fly. So would the GH2 keep up with you. Is it accessible and powerful enough for critical pro photo work?


Overall you're right. I'd love to have the perfect camera. But what I'd really love is simply a D7000 with the video capabilities of the GH2. Including flip out LCD, 1080 HDMI out, unlimited record time. There is not a ton to complain about with the D7000 and perhaps I'm just being overly critical. But as someone who has shot many corporate videos over the last 5 years I know how vital an articulating LCD screen and long record times can be for video work.

I bought the camera mostly for myself for hobby stuff. I want to learn flash photography and shoot more short films. But I also bought it keeping in mind that I need to get out from underneath my current employer because this company isn't going anywhere and neither am I if I stick around. So I want to branch out and start doing some side work if it presents itself. Which it has in the past and I haven't been able to accept it due to my lack of personal gear. I don't know if future side work is going to be photo or video work, I do both, so I want to be prepared for either. Whether it's an hour long corporate event or shooting headshots of a model or getting into wedding photography like one of my ex-co-workers did who is now freelance and gets a ton of work.

I know it's a lot of ask and I don't expect any camera to be perfect. But what I really wanted to know is if the GH2 could keep up on the still photo side of things. I guess it can't. Which means I either have to pick between a good video camera(GH2) or a good stills camera(D7000). Damn this is difficult!
 
stonebat said:
1. No
2. No
3. No built-in wireless flash support. Slow flash x-sync speed... gawd only 1/160s. Oly has better flash support.
4. Hopefully the rumored 12-50mm f2.5-3.3 HD Power O.I.S. becomes true.
5. Don't drop it. Don't get close to water.
6. No
7. Well... if you don't have to change fast primes.
8. No. Poor flash support.

Keep both D7000 and GH2. Or consider 7D for both stills and videos.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. So you think the 7D is better at both? I considered the 7D. But I went with the Nikon because it was $300 cheaper and I've always liked the feel of Nikon's in my hands over Canon's. I know that's kinda silly but...

But if the 7D has better quality video and just as good of stills then it might be worth the $300 more.

I can't keep both. I don't have the GH2. I've never even seen one in person. Nor do I have the budget for both cameras. That's the other down side about the GH2. If I return the D7000 who knows when I'd be able to get my hands on a GH2. They're out of stock everywhere. I could be cameraless for a couple more months.
 
No...the 7D is not better at video. The GH-2 is. I had a 7D for quite a while and I'll tell you ....from what I've seen of the D7000.....the Nikon smokes the Canon in video (resolution wise that is...but it seems to have the same color moire issues). But the 7D and D7000 are better stills cameras than the GH-2. All the Canons/Nikons do not continously shoot video....they have a limit where as th e GH-X cameras don't. The Panasonics were made with video in mind. Ergonomically the only ones that come close are the Canon 60D's...but then again the image is just like the T2i/7D.
 
I know 7D supports 720p60. It has a magnesium body. It has very good AF performance for stills. That's what I would get if I must take a pro picture and a live event video. GH2 is nice for indie film making, music video, casual candid video, hobby.
 
Ian-T said:
No...the 7D is not better at video. The GH-2 is. I had a 7D for quite a while and I'll tell you ....from what I've seen of the D7000.....the Nikon smokes the Canon in video (resolution wise that is...but it seems to have the same color moire issues). But the 7D and D7000 are better stills cameras than the GH-2. All the Canons/Nikons do not continously shoot video....they have a limit where as th e GH-X cameras don't. The Panasonics were made with video in mind. Ergonomically the only ones that come close are the Canon 60D's...but then again the image is just like the T2i/7D.
Click to expand...

Yeah my question was in regards to the 7D being better at video than the D7000. I know the GH2 is better than all. But from what you're saying the D7000 shoots better video than the 7D. I agree with you on the sharpness from what I've seen. But the D7000 lacks the 1080/30p mode and the ability to change aperture while recording. Although I heard the 7D has overheating issues and short record times. I guess it's all a wash. Pick one and shoot right?

Like I said, being traditionally a video guy, the video features jump out at me the most, in which case the GH2 looks nice. I don't know how to use half of the still photo features on the D7000. But I want to learn. I also wanted the bigger pro body of something like a 7D or D7000.
 
GH2 is king.
It is only 900, so you can just wait until its available and grab it!
 
roxics said:
Pick one and shoot right?
Click to expand...

RIGHT!!! :laugh:

After reading more about what you want I'd say just stick with the D7000, it looks like the best compromise between all the things you want. Better still and video than the 7D, better stills than the GH2.

Unless you really need 1080p30, that is, in which case the 7D/60D/T2i are your only options.

BTW, did you consider selling the D7000 for a T2i or 60D + GH2?
 
Personally I would not hire a photographer using GH2 for wedding photos. Don't get me wrong though. I like GH series. Also I don't think it would be a good idea to use a single vdslr for both stills and videos for a live event. I'd keep both GH2 and D7000.
 
roxics said:
.... But the D7000 lacks the 1080/30p mode and the ability to change aperture while recording. . ....
Click to expand...
Yeah...that's what killed it for me (plus the moire issue).

As far as the 7D....I didn't run into any issues with overheating...but in what you are looking to do I'd say you just might. Outside of having a "proper" camcorder to do the job I think the GH-2's are the best deal.

If you can do what stonebat suggests above then it's a win-win.
 
It is rather simple. Buy a GH2 and you'll be able to do everything you want between both cameras. You can even use it as back-up if you are shooting an event and the D7000 falls and breaks into little pieces. As it happened to me once with the D90 falling during a wedding. I had the GH1 and it performed great as a back-up. Now I am planning to get the D7000 and the GH2 and both will make me money.
 
Awesome. Thanks for the advice everyone. I think you guys are right. I should stick with the D7000 for now. See if it can make me any money and then buy a GH2 body with Nikon adapter. The video on the D7000 is passable for corporate or even wedding work. As well as music videos and such. Unless you're super picky I can't see much of where it isn't usable. Yeah it's got issues. Moire and aliasing but whatever. People have used 5D2's and 7D's for feature films and they also have moire and aliasing issues. As for frame rates. I mean we do buy these cameras for the cinema look otherwise we'd just get a video camera. So having only 1080 24p shouldn't be an issue.

I guess I really should go back to my first thought when I bought the D7000. Which was "I need a good pro stills camera that does cinema quality video." What I meant by that was that I needed a pro camera that would keep up with me if I were doing a heavy fast photo shoot like a wedding or if I needed to do a cinema style video shoot. I wanted something that was bigger in my hands, weather sealed, had a lot of buttons and knobs instead of menu options and gave clients the impression I was a pro using a pro camera. So yeah, this D7000 was probably the best camera to start with. I'll pick up a GH2 in time. :)
 
roxics said:
Yeah my question was in regards to the 7D being better at video than the D7000. I know the GH2 is better than all. But from what you're saying the D7000 shoots better video than the 7D. I agree with you on the sharpness from what I've seen. But the D7000 lacks the 1080/30p mode and the ability to change aperture while recording. Although I heard the 7D has overheating issues and short record times. I guess it's all a wash. Pick one and shoot right?

Like I said, being traditionally a video guy, the video features jump out at me the most, in which case the GH2 looks nice. I don't know how to use half of the still photo features on the D7000. But I want to learn. I also wanted the bigger pro body of something like a 7D or D7000.
Click to expand...

As someone who has been shooting video with the 7D/5D for years but has a GH2 on order and nearly pressed submit an order for a D7000 yesterday, I feel your pain.

7D
pros: 60/50/30/25/24p options, very well known performance, gives you nice looking video, over a year old but the sensor is aps-c and aint bad especially if you know how to use it.
cons: moire, aliasing, too soft to confidently deliver 1080p, 4GB video clip limit, AGC audio, encoder@40+Mbps is passable but not great, monitor on LCD OR HDMI

D7000
pros: potentially the most latitude in any camera around so sources say, probably resolves more detail than 7D, manual audio
cons: moire, aliasing, probably softer than GH2, codec at ~25Mbps may not be great, missing manual aperture control for video?, monitor on LCD OR HDMI, performance is a bit unknown (im optimistic that some of the bad latitude/color performance I've seen in sample videos may be fixable with carefully setting picture control settings or custom picture controls just like in the 7D)

GH2
pros: sharp, possibly oversampled 1080p, manual audio, monitor LCD AND HDMI, possibly best performance encoder, usable AF with native lenses, ETC, no recording limit, more lens options
cons: less film mode flexibility (no custom gamma curves), better video performance out of the box, least latitude of all three cameras (but probably the most latitude out of the box for video), 24Mbps bitrate only available for 1080@24p mode, fewer format native lens options

Bottom Line
7D has great infrastructure and availability already
D7000 has great latitude (though samples illustrating this for video are rare)
GH2 has great sharpness and usability

At this point, I want all the sharpness and latitude I can get from a camera, and the AGC in my 7D is just a pain. However, it allows me to shoot now with a known workflow and known performance that still vastly exceeds most of the other prosumer video camera options out there.

If you are serious about stills (I am not so much), its hard to imagine the GH2 is going to be enough for you, and while the D7000 looks better for stills and the 7D's flaws are many, most of them have not totally unreasonable workarounds or just require a bit of care to be taken during operation, whereas if you want to shoot 60/50/25p or 1080/30p video and you have a D7000 you just can't. The manual aperture issue may be worked around possibly, but it may be a huge pain as well...
 
+1.

7D, 24-70mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8L IS II plus a lot more gadgets.... $$$$$!!!!! The bottom line. Trying to use vdslr for paid jobs aint cheap. There's a good reason why so many pros applauded AF100/101. Try this site: http://theeditman.com He tried GH1, 7D, 5Dii, GH13, AF101.
 
I must say i enjoy reading posts like these. I'm a hobbyist that enjoy nice electronics.
And can not meet professional pricing. The gh2 would be perfect for me if only it took
decent pictures like the nikon d700. I think I'm sticking with my gh13.
If i were a pro photographer I'd wait for the potential d800. It can be around this year.
I would've bought the canon 5d2 if it had autofocus like the gh13.
I think the best is yet to come. I'd hold off if had the money ready to go.
 
I haven't tested the D7000 for ISO noise and other flaws. But the easiest work around to the D7000's lack of aperture control in video is to change the ISO. It's not ideal. But on the plus side you can change your exposure without changing your depth of field. So far (to me anyway) anything between 100-1250 looks about the same. What I mean is, completely usable.

For me personally, most of what I shoot doesn't require me to change exposure on the fly. My most typical shoots include street photography, studio portraits, corporate talking head videos and indie films. In all but the first scenario you set your aperture/exposure and shoot. If you change anything you're doing it wrong. lol I just haven't been on any shoot where I'm hand holding the camera or walking around with it and need to change the exposure on the fly. So as much as I'd like to have the ability and as silly as it is not to have it, it's easy to work around. It's certainly far from the worst problem the D7K could have.
 
If your experience is video, and consider yourself good enough to be pro, I'd get the camera shoots better video, and offer your services in video. Don't ever offer stills and video of the same event, or both will suck. I've been shooting for over 20 years and know all the shutter speed vs aperture stuff, and can get decent stills in natural light, but flash has always baffled me, I don't know why a pro slr with matching flash set to auto doesn't know the flash is there and can't set the exposure right, when a cheap point and shooter can get a decent shot every time. Anyway I'm not confident enough to charge for stills, certainly at high end wedding rates. Your milage may vary but we don't want to see you on Judge Joe Brown, getting chewed out for shooting crap pictures on not good enough cameras.

If you want to learn stills find a good photographer that is willing to take an assisstant. The best photographer that I know has been doing this for 15 years and still hasn't gone out on his own. It takes time to gain the skills to charge top rate, and those that do it without the experience are just hosing their clients and dodging disaster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top