D7000 buyers remorse

[Lee Saxon]

I rented a GH2 last weekend to test it out. If you're shooting motion only and will never take the camera off your motion rig (which better include a protective cage) I think it might be great. That's how I plan to use it, so I'm going to buy one.

However, if you want to use it is as a stills camera too or for any reason carry it without a cage around it or, you know, ever take it outside, buy a different camera. I wouldn't say I'd feel SAFE location shooting with the flimsy little D7000, but it's like a TANK compared to the GH2. It is absolutely the flimsiest little camera I've ever seen (not counting $200 point and shoots). My NEX5 is sturdier!!!

 

[editguy]

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.

Agree 100%. Besides teaching high school broadcast and video production, I've been doing event video for many years and before that did wedding videos (got tired of the brides!). I would never have attempted doing still photography too, even with an assistant. I think a good business needs focus. I did partner with photographers, and if I had continued doing weddings I would have continued doing that. Either one on it's own is a full-time job. I've begun using my GH1 for events (want a GH2 but they seem to be non-existent at the moment) and I chose it over Canons or Nikons because of the ability to shoot continuous video. For the work I do, 12 minute clips wouldn't suffice.

 

[swyzlstyx]

The GH2 for a $2500 wedding PHOTO gig? No. I'd sue you if you showed up to my wedding with one. I know it's not about the gear...but someone with who has enough experience to charge $2500 should be able to afford more than a $699 amateur camera.

That being said, I shoot over 40 wedding videos a year with just a pair of GH1's. They're definitely not pro quality, and barely up to the task. But, I like shooting with them, until a better alternative comes out. The AF100 ain't it for me...I wanna FF pro DSLR that shoots video with the same practicality of the GH1. There ain't one yet.

The GH2 to practice shooting wedding for FREE for the next 2-3 years, until you get enough experience to start charging money? Yes. Headshots would be even easier, since you can setup a decent light kit in a home studio...even on a non-pro budget. Weddings photo gigs are a ***** to shoot.

I shoot about 20-30 photos at weddings, of things like the cake, flowers, etc, to add to their wedding video. That doesn't make it a pro photography camera.

Can you get a pro quality flash for it? Yeah, the FL50 is an excellent flash....I used it on my Olympus DSLRs and my GH1. But now I just use a $100 universal non-TTL flash that works just as well. But, I also typically shoot all manual with it. (Sunpak Auto 383)

I'd say learn your chops with the GH2 if you're broke and can't afford pro gear. Then when you start getting ready to do pro/paid work, skip the middle ground of wasting money on APS-C gear, and go straight to a full-frame D700. Heck, maybe the D800 will blow us all away with 1080p video that's as functional as a GH2. I'd dump all my Panny gear in a heartbeat and buy two of them right away!

That's just my $0.02. Good luck!

 

[editguy]

The GH2 for a $2500 wedding PHOTO gig? No. I'd sue you if you showed up to my wedding with one. I know it's not about the gear...but someone with who has enough experience to charge $2500 should be able to afford more than a $699 amateur camera.

That being said, I shoot over 40 wedding videos a year with just a pair of GH1's. They're definitely not pro quality, and barely up to the task.

I would say it's more than barely up to the task. I don't know what you're delivering your final product on, but most wedding videographers I know are still delivering DVD's, and the GH2 would provide excellent source video for a standard DVD. I do a lot of dance concerts, and they want the final product on DVD. I have had VERY few request for BR discs. And since you're doing forty weddings a year with GH1's, I would say they must be up to the task! I do understand your points, though.

 

[cici]

I have to disagree in several points with stonebat.

Especially when it comes to stills with use of flash, 1/160 sync is pretty fast - why would you need less?

If you are a professional photographer, you know that ANY professional flash will work with the GH2. You won't need/want a direct connection between flash and camera. Take

a) intern flash as a master and one or more external flashes as slaves

you can do this either portable: system flashes with slave-modes OR portable studioflashes with external power boxes

Or stationary (glamour etc. that you mention) - that would be in a photostudio, where the internal flash would act as master flash.

b) RC-remote unity on top of GH2 to control any flash (system flash or studio flash)

c) infrared-remote to control any flash (system or studio)

d) photo-cell remote to control any flash (system or studio)

If the slave flashes don't have photo-cells, then you can buy them photo-cell-shoes and they would work with the internal flash of the GH2.

So it's NO PROBLEM to use the REAL professional flashes with GH2 - from 70 USD (for a used Metz40) up to a outdoor-studio-flash for 2000 USD.

Flash is NEVER a problem for real professional work. The problem (if there is one) is

a) knowledge about light setting
or

b) the GH2's capacities in other matters (e.g. the relatively small sensor, consumer-AF etc.)

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

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

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

So IMHO

3. all professional options are POSSIBLE - only some amateur options are a little tricky - e.g. using a Nikon system flash with GH2 ... but even that could be done and the 1/160 is NO PROBLEM - I'd rather consider taking photos also with 1 sec + flash in low light: that'll give you a nice, colorful (nonetheless blurry) background and a SHARP foreground, where the flash hits, because of the extrem short burn times of flashes. So don't bother the 1/160 ... your flash gives the same amount of light with the same burning time within a photo of 1 second or 1/1000 second. Only the background changes and the longer you set the exposure, the more light you'll have in the background where the flash doesn't reach. I would not go below 1/60 at a wedding... - but I'd certainly try 1/4 sec etc.

6. why not? - YOU have to be good enough! - I know a professional photographer who takes videos and photographs on weddings with a GH1 - but he KNOWS what he does. So IMHO it's much more important to be an expert, concerning composition, master your camera 100% (whatever it is), be able to set light (all light/shade instruments!!) even "blindfold"... e.g. know the power of your flash to set it manually with 1 or 0 testphoto necessary...

Nobody would notice on the photos of a wedding whether you used a GH2 or a Nikon D3 in 99,999% of the cases. But anybody would notice red eyes, bad composition, blurry photographs and wrong positions / wrong timing for important moments during the wedding.

8. the limits are NOT concerning the flashes.... but concerning the speed of the camera (AF, metering, shooting etc.) and the small sensor if you need crops or hudge prints. But for many studio-/glamour-/ etc. -situations the GH2 can do a job nearly as good as a D3. One important factor would also be the optics... I'd prefer a D3 - but in the studio without rough weather conditions, with enough power-supply for the camera, with studio-flashes (-> ISO 100) the photos would not look that much different than from a D3.

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.

You seem a bit between the definitions: professional or amateur?

If you are professional, then your knowledge has to be high enough, to be able to take photos and videos at a wedding with a GH2 and - let's say 2x Metz 40 flashes (one in use, one for spare). That shootings could easily be worth 2500 USD, but honestly, I don't trust in your knowledge if you already have concerns about flash + GH2 because flash-light is NEVER an issue for a professional photographer. You could even use 2 external professional flashes with a compact amateur camera for 100 USD and still be able to "design" the light adequately (using diffusors, distances, angles, white/silver boards etc.) to make photos look professional - even from that compact still camera.

So - IMHO: either you HAVE already professional knowledge and you could work with any midclass-camera on a wedding - then that might be worth 2500 USD.... or ... well - you take that wedding for free and LEARN your lesson(s) for the next time(s). Clients could get VERY angry if your 2500 USD shootings are under average... or if there is any FAILURE (your camera, your battery, your flash, your brain, your trembling hand, ...).

In that case - be honest: offer yourself as a free photographer that is about to LEARN taking photos/videos at weddings. And visit the locations before, for a little training

Sorry - a lot of words, but I feel some incertitude and that might just end in a DISASTER for the wedding of your clients. That has NOTHING to do with your camera. It's all about YOUR skills!

GH2 for wedding/studio/photo/video?

Why not?!:laugh:

 

[swyzlstyx]

I would say it's more than barely up to the task. I don't know what you're delivering your final product on, but most wedding videographers I know are still delivering DVD's, and the GH2 would provide excellent source video for a standard DVD. I do a lot of dance concerts, and they want the final product on DVD. I have had VERY few request for BR discs. And since you're doing forty weddings a year with GH1's, I would say they must be up to the task! I do understand your points, though.

The video quality is definitely there, the build quality and reliability isn't up to par in my opinion, and the zoom range and low light sensitivity compared to a prosumer 1/3" camera isn't well suited for weddings, but it's doable. Most of my ceremony videos are pretty terrible compared to even first generation 1/3" HDV tape cameras. But when I slap on the 20mm f1.7 for the reception, it makes up for it. Add to that the ability to take photos of some stationary detail shots at weddings, and having a great photo camera for my personal use, the GH1 is an all-around winner for me.

Yeah, I wish more people would make the switch to BR. I finally started trying to force them on my clients, by no longer including DVD in my package. I now charge a few bucks extra to make DVD...just to see how many people really care. A lot of brides don't know what a BR is, and don't realize that their groom can play them on his game console. DVD's are more of a PITA to make than BR for me, so I'm trying to discourage them from asking me to make them at all.

But for photos, considering what you can get paid to shoot a wedding these days...regardless of talent...it would be a terrible idea IMHO to shoot weddings with a GH2....when you could just spend a few more bucks on a D700 and lenses. Especially if you still have a "day job" like the OP, and don't HAVE to book X number of weddings to pay the rent. I could start charging $5000 for a wedding photo package right now, and probably have one booked within 24 hours...and my wedding photo skills SUCK. But someone would buy it...and I could go buy a bunch of gear with the cash. But, that's kind of the problem with the whole wedding business in general...all you need to get in is $35 to buy a .com...and you're a "pro". That's how I started my business, after all. lol

 

[Ian-T]

swyzlstyx why not just stick with fast lens? That way you'd consistently outdo the prosumer 1/3 cameras in low light. Also...zoom range? You might be right with all other DSLRs....but there's no excuse with the GH-2....especially with its 2x telecrop feature.....don't you think?

I pretty much agree with cici's post....why not? If a person knows what he/she is doing then no one is going to tell what camera you shot on. I've asked those questions many times before and he seemed to explain it well.

 

[nyvz]

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.

I understand that this might be ok as a workaround, but as you said it definitely is not ideal. I generally would not use iso for fine exposure adjustment, especially since most DSLRs implement minor ISO adjustments in very different ways. The D7000 in particular seems to have great performance at low isos but its performance drops much faster as iso is adjusted higher, according to DXO, it is nearly to the point of being 1 stop of latitude lost for every iso increase, something like a software-only iso implementation found in most cameras past iso1600. This would mean that latitude-wise, it would be best to always shoot at the lowest iso and just allow the image to underexpose rather than increase the camera iso. If ever there was a camera where it is not good to ride the iso to control exposure, the D7000 seems it would be it.

 

[stonebat]

cici, thats really cute what u described. strobist set up with off the camera manual flashes during the wedding ceremony? wow. u can do that? im impressed. what about soft box, umbrella, gobo, bouncer? can u do it all by yourself while taking video? wow. slave master trigger? what if a guest uses his compact flash? r u gonna yell at him? theres a reason why guys like dustin diaz use D3 instead of GH2 for pro strobist photos. what do u think? u think dustin diaz lacks in skill so that he must use D3 to take good pics? if yes, u must be really great.

 

[Ian-T]

I don't think he was suggesting that it was ideal....just that it is doable.

 

[HHL]

Hey....did you guys see this D7000 stuff? http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...roduct-Photography-Test&p=2227023#post2227023

 

[stonebat]

of course everything is doable... in theory. m43's future target users are compact users. use compact system camera to take photos matching to entry dslr level quality. it just happened to have great video capability. thats enough to excite us.

 

[Ian-T]

Hey....did you guys see this D7000 stuff? http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...roduct-Photography-Test&p=2227023#post2227023

Yes,....and I'm trying very hard to look away .....but if footage keeps coming up like that then I think PD's delay on delivering my GH-2 would be a good thing.

 

[editguy]

The video quality is definitely there, the build quality and reliability isn't up to par in my opinion, and the zoom range and low light sensitivity compared to a prosumer 1/3" camera isn't well suited for weddings, but it's doable. Most of my ceremony videos are pretty terrible compared to even first generation 1/3" HDV tape cameras. But when I slap on the 20mm f1.7 for the reception, it makes up for it. Add to that the ability to take photos of some stationary detail shots at weddings, and having a great photo camera for my personal use, the GH1 is an all-around winner for me.

Yeah, I wish more people would make the switch to BR. I finally started trying to force them on my clients, by no longer including DVD in my package. I now charge a few bucks extra to make DVD...just to see how many people really care. A lot of brides don't know what a BR is, and don't realize that their groom can play them on his game console. DVD's are more of a PITA to make than BR for me, so I'm trying to discourage them from asking me to make them at all.

But for photos, considering what you can get paid to shoot a wedding these days...regardless of talent...it would be a terrible idea IMHO to shoot weddings with a GH2....when you could just spend a few more bucks on a D700 and lenses. Especially if you still have a "day job" like the OP, and don't HAVE to book X number of weddings to pay the rent. I could start charging $5000 for a wedding photo package right now, and probably have one booked within 24 hours...and my wedding photo skills SUCK. But someone would buy it...and I could go buy a bunch of gear with the cash. But, that's kind of the problem with the whole wedding business in general...all you need to get in is $35 to buy a .com...and you're a "pro". That's how I started my business, after all. lol

What's interesting about the BR thing is that some of the dance performances I do are high school and as recently as three years ago I was still getting requests for VHS tapes. I finally told them that I could only deliver in DVD. It's amazing sometimes how long it takes some people to adapt. And what's funny is that you can get DVD players so cheap. I have some friends that are wedding videographers that include a BR player in the package so they can get people away from DVD.
I'm actually enjoying the flexibility that the GH1 has given me. Because of the long record times I can do long events. Because of the wide range of lenses, I can get different looks. I've not been able to do the with any video camera.

 

[editguy]

Yes,....and I'm trying very hard to look away .....but if footage keeps coming up like that then I think PD's delay on delivering my GH-2 would be a good thing.

I think it's an interesting camera. I could see it being the perfect camera for some people. It wouldn't work for me because for some of the work I do, I need the long record time that the GH's can deliver. Also, the D7000 costs more. I also noticed that the D7000 seems to not be in stock anyplace either.

 

[cici]

u think dustin diaz lacks in skill so that he must use D3 to take good pics?

The TO has not the money for a D3 and asked whether it was possible with a GH2 to take photos/videos on a wedding.

And of course that is possible!

As for umbrellas etc. - You would need them at a wedding too - for the pictures before the ceremony at a special location. But during a ceremony in church you can attach an external flash on a flash slide ON the side of the GH2 - it would still go off at your choice of contact:

a) radio controlled
b) IR-controlled
c) light-controlled
d) wired

So instead of NOT letting go the OT to that wedding (no D3 for his budget) I suggested him to go for free with a GH2 and get the best he can - or to go for 2500 USD and BE the best he can.

Yes, I'm convinced that a 2500 USD job can be done at a wedding with a GH2 and some professional external flashes. External does NOT mean, that they are not attached to the camera: for the group shootings in the park you could put them on a tripod, but for run n' gun, why not attach an external flash on a side-bar at the left side of the GH2?

The question was wheter it could be done or not (also for glamour etc.) and I say that it defenitely could be done (although I forgot that he was probably talking about weddings during the day - and I'm used to weddings at night...). And for shootings in the studio (glamour etc. he mentioned) again:

a) radio-controlled
b) IR-controlled
c) light-controlled
d) wired

It's the speed of the camera and the small sensor that would make the big difference between a GH2 and a D3 - not the flash capabilities!

Of course we could suggest him 2x Nikon D3, two assistants, a LED-panel on top of the camera (best mobile run n' gun light solution so far), but that won't help him, as he requests solutions for HIS BUDGET. And that's the difference between "real" professionals, who would invest 20'000-50'000 USD for equipment at the beginning, demanding much higher rates for weddings and getting so their invested money back. The OT doesn't seem to be willing to become a professional wedding photographer. Best way would be anyway to ASSIST some professional wedding photographers and learn your business with a company for this branche.... and THEN become independent yourself. The OT doesn't seem to be wanting go that way. So the answer IMHO remains: YES you can shoot a wedding and glamour photos "wanna-be-professional" with a GH2, if you do a good job, then YES you can earn 2500 USD for that and the GH2 has NO problems with flashes per se.

My friend, who goes to weddings with a GH2 (and a DVX100) btw earns about 500 UDS only for the photograph prints from during the ceremony. But it's weddings at night and posings in the studio I'm talking about. The same way I did it, when I was shortly in that business. Now, I'm rather in artificial studio shootings, where I can realise MY concepts. That's not possible for commercial shootings like e.g. weddings. No ordinary client would want your crazy style and ideas on his wedding photographs. At best, some little "signature" sort of "microstyle" - your own personalization of wedding-shootings. That's still way too limited for me. But of course one can financally live with that job easily. - I did in the 90ies ...

 

[hotchkiss]

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

For some work yes. For most shoots, I'd rather have my D300 for auto focus, DR, speed, VF and other things. Although they are a necessary compromise for video, EVF's just don't cut it for critical still work IMO.

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

For wedding clients I wouldn't be concerned at all. If your images do the talking, they won't care either. Depending on the corporate shoot, it wouldn't be an issue. In some cases it could raise eye brows, but then again in tis day and age it might not. Any problem with perception would most likely come from ad agency shoots, from the junior agency types with overly cool eyeglasses. Then again, those types usually have their noses so deep up their superiors a**'s that they might not notice.

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

Panasonic , Metz and others.

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)?

There seems to be a dearth of native 43 lenses in this category at present.

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

Dunno. IMO, most of these concerns are usually overblown unless you are a nature or sports photographer... or you are prone to taking showers with your camera.

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

Yes. If I could do $2500.00 quality work with an LX5, I'd do it. To me, it's whether you can deliver the anticipated and appropriate value for your price. The cost of the camera be damned.

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

Yes.

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

I could, but the concerns from answer #1 and the lack of pro quality 43 lens might weigh on that decision.

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.

If it was me, I'd go with the D7000 first and not compromise the still functionality. Either way, I can't imagine shooting a wedding video with just one camera anyway, you'll need a second camera. If you really can afford only one camera, buy the D7000, earn some money with it and pick up a GH2 for it's video capability in a month or two. Although I could make it work, I would rather not work around the GH2's stills limitations for pro photo work.

 

[stonebat]

cici... IMHO you sound like Dory from Finding Nemo.

 

[cici]

cici... IMHO you sound like Dory from Finding Nemo.

Might be - I don't know how I sound via internet, nor do I watch or like Pixar animations.

When I was making money from weddings, I had cameras like Nikon F3 and Minolta 9xi - so either cameras with zero computer-chip or extremely "cheapish" hardware .... but it still was no problem because IMHO it's a matter of being able to handle the light of a situation, the gear you have and your own skills. With good handle of all 3 of 'em, you can manage to make good pictures without problem - and yet a GH2 ... that professionals from 15 years ago would have WISHED to have instead of their 4000 USD bodies with less capabilities...

Either spoiled or lack in skills. That's my 50 cents (or 2500 USD if you will).

 

[EditPhish]

Take it for what it's worth, but I've been looking real hard at the stills capability of the GH2 over the last week, and I just don't think it competes with cameras like the D7000 or K5. I'm typically not a pixel-peeper either. The APS-C sensors (and full frame obviously) are just way ahead for photographic performance. I think if you really need to have a photo-video combo camera, the GH2 cannot be beat, and we all know it's excellent for video... but if photography is your priority, skip it. Noise performance and Dynamic Range are found better elsewhere.

Using it for photos, I'm particular concerned about the amount of noise at base ISO, most noticeably in the blue channel. Straight out of the cam, at base ISO it's just okay but the noise is noticeable for sure, and with any post-processing on the file it just gets worse. Maybe I notice it more than other people do because I do a lot of blue-sky and seascape photography... but it's something that has really bugged me about the GH2 on the photographic side.