DSLR decision for "creative" work

S

Scalar

Member
I'm looking for an HDSLR that can provide quality 1080p & 720p video with acceptable low light performance as well as more typical sun-light and indoor lighting (light with actual lighting or otherwise.) My goal intially was to purchase a modest HD camcorder setup (tripod,extra battery,accessories etc) as well as an HD projector, screen and a few monitors on credit cards to undertake a few upcoming projects (both for musical performance and worship videos.) I can't afford to spend $3-5k atm so the pro hd cams (plus lenses & kit) are out of bounds for the moment as that eats my entire budget.

Then I realized that I think what I really want is the ability to compose 'creative' shots of relatively short length (30 sec to 5 min) with a strong emphasis on depth of field etc (which is why I'm leaning towards DSLR now.) Rather than upgrading to a higher end camcorder than the TM700 (where i can swap lenses etc) I think the HDSLR route makes more sense. So my short list (in order of cost) is obvious: Canon T2i/55D, Panasonic GH1 or Canon 7D. Initially I was considering getting something like the Panasonic TM700 and just shooting more 'traditional' camcorder shots but have thought about this for a while now and think DSLR's that do HD video make more sense. This purchase will likely get some use both as a traditional DSLR (ie, photos) as well as shooting video at music events so grain is probably a concern as well as white balance in dark conditions.

I realize that the GH1 is the only one that comes with a 'camcorder' style lense that will maintain focus while zooming/tracking targets and that it has iA/AF in the body to help with these duties. Also being somewhat familiar with Canon lenses, I realize that the 'savings' of a T2i (versus the GH1) can quickly disappear if I want a low f-stop lense with nice optics.

I've got Macs & PC's here, specifically two 2008 era Xeon rigs (Mac Pro & Win7 Xeon) as well as a 17" Macbook pro (pre-unibody) and am not worried about needing an SD card slot adapter or playback/codec issues as long as the source codec is supported by mainstream software. Some portion of what I intend to do with this will be delivered in a variety of formats anyway. I'm familiar enough with Adobe, Sony & Apple software that I'll use whatever works best with the source footage & take that into other applications & editing environments as needed. I do also have photographic experience from my days in school on up, having used SLR & video cameras since the early 90's and even spent time working in post production (doing 3d and graphics.)

Anyone feel like helping narrow my decision down?
 
GH1 for sure!!!! although it is not as good as 7D in low light, it has came a long way in image quality with it's new update then again I know shooting at music events means low light low light low light so it just depends on what you are going to need it most for but I would personally go for the that though. Plus if you are planning on buying lights that should help you.

Either way go with a DSLR for sure, you get the ability to do photos and HIGH quality video much better then the TM700 and for around the same price (camera body that is).
 
I should probably add that using the camera itself at music events isn't going to be the *primary* usage, just something that would be nice to do since I won't invest in a decent camcorder for a while. Shooting video to be used *for* music events (and some stock footage uses) is the primary thing I have in mind for the near future, but that leaves a lot of latitude still. In fact much of the material could just as easily be made artificially in 2d & 3d software or even something like processing/vvvv/quartz composer, and may even sit alongside some of that.

Basically I in realizing that a DSLR allows me to what I wouldn't be able to do without a much larger investment in professional camcorder gear (lenses etc), I am really more interested in my 'creative options' with each choice here. I'm asking myself if the Gh1 made sense just because it 'fit' what I had been looking for in a camcorder. Certainly the lense looks great (better than the Canon kits i think?) especially for video work.

So I started looking at the Canon gear and much of what I see discussed on photography & videography/film forums are about features that adhere to a certain workflow. Ie, how well the source codec works in a chosen editing environment, mini-hdmi or composite outpuit, sound sync etc. And while I actually have a small personal audio studio that can certainly benefit from additional sync, that's not my primary concern right now either. Perhaps I should think more about that...

But what I'm really wondering at the moment is what style of shooting I'd be favoring in opting for T2i over a GH1?
 
The GH1's advantages over the Canons don't seem to fall into your profile of use here.

Yes, it can do autofocus. But it doesn't sound like you are going to be doing all that much moving around with your subjects. Yes, it can record longer than the Canon's 12 minutes per take, but that isn't a part of your stated needs. Yes, the codec with the new hack is better than Canon's, but the Canon's is already good enough for it to find it's way into some feature films and other places.


On the other hand, you've indicated that low light performance is important, and the Canon camera is superior there. Based on your subject material, it also seems like you are going to be spending time "wide" and the Canon will make that somewhat easier.

You didn't mention how you plan to handle audio. And that answer might just tip the scales back to the GH1.
 
Scalar said:
But what I'm really wondering at the moment is what style of shooting I'd be favoring in opting for T2i over a GH1?
Click to expand...

Your last post came in as I was typing mine.

The GH1 is the better unit if your usage mirrors that of a traditional camcorder. If you need autofocus, longer record times, want to record sound into the camera, or need an LCD that can move around like a camcorder, the GH1 is your camera.

If your workflow is more similar to how a film camera might be used, then the Canon's are the better bet. Sync sound, short takes, etc.

I think you see less discussion of the Canon's in terms of actual use, because they have already become the darlings of Hollywood and Burbank at this price point. They are clearly good enough quality wise because they are already doing the work. Everything from Leno, to SNL, to crash cams in Ironman 2, etc. The GH1 has not seen that kind of acceptance yet. Maybe in the future.
 
I realized the GH1 had been more appealing because it conformed to what I had initially thought I would buy (a camcorder.) The reality is that I can do a lot with any of these of course. But the Canons certainly fit the sort of material I'll shoot in the next 3 months and I'm really leaning towards the T2i, though it might be because I'd like to have the 7D which is considerably more expensive for what doesn't seem to be a huge gain in terms of output.

Someone mentioned 'gaining access to panasonic lenses' as a virtue for the GH1, but again I suspect that's because it fits traditional videography workflows. He also mentioned using a 'ton of older cheap lenses with cheap adapters' being popular with Gh1 users...
 
Scalar said:
I realized the GH1 had been more appealing because it conformed to what I had initially thought I would buy (a camcorder.) The reality is that I can do a lot with any of these of course. But the Canons certainly fit the sort of material I'll shoot in the next 3 months and I'm really leaning towards the T2i, though it might be because I'd like to have the 7D which is considerably more expensive for what doesn't seem to be a huge gain in terms of output.
Click to expand...

I got a T2i and absolutely love it. More than the 5D in fact thought the 5D's sensor is just lovely. I like that I can shoot 720/60p on the T2i, and I love the fact that it costs so little. When things are changing as quickly as they are now, being able to get into the game for $800 is terrific, and I won't feel bad if a great, new camera comes out a year later. The 7D has been reduced in cost somewhat so it's less an issue these days. But the T2i body cost what one of my memory cards cost for my EX1!!

Scalar said:
Someone mentioned 'gaining access to panasonic lenses' as a virtue for the GH1, but again I suspect that's because it fits traditional videography workflows. He also mentioned using a 'ton of older cheap lenses with cheap adapters' being popular with Gh1 users...
Click to expand...

I don't see any significant advantage to the Panasonic lenses unless you just want that autofocus. These lenses are slow. I shot Canon still cameras for quite some time back in the 80s before moving to pro Nikon bodies. The Nikon glass from the 70s and 80s was TERRIFIC. So now, I have $15 adapters on my Nikon glass to mount them on my T2i. I use them all the time. So, with the T2i, I have the full array of Canon EOS mount glass, and the full array of Nikon AF and manual glass with a $15 adapter. I can't think of any possible advantage of the GH1 lens wise. Both have adapters available for more exotic glass like PL glass should you have the desire to start spending $5k to $80k on cinema glass.
 
Appreciate your input. I should probably just move on from here to what rig, tripod, lenses and overall kit to get for a T2i...:laugh:
 
Last edited:
I think unless you need super-high ISO performance the GH1 with hack is very hard to beat, especially since you can use Canon FDs (or virtually any lens in existence) on it for that matter. You're going to be recording sound double-system with any of the DSLRs if you intend on having any sort of usable sound - the articulating LCD is also a big bonus.
 
And there is the crux of the argument....

GH1 fans don't understand how you could pick anything but a GH1. Canon fans swear their camera is better. In reality, both are good cameras serving slightly different needs, expectations, and workflows.
 
Which is why I was trying to figure out how to differentiate between the sort of usage I'd favor with each. Honestly I can always buy the other later if I find a huge deficit in my workflow or want to shoot with the other.
 
PerroneFord said:
Your last post came in as I was typing mine.

The GH1 is the better unit if your usage mirrors that of a traditional camcorder. If you need autofocus, longer record times, want to record sound into the camera, or need an LCD that can move around like a camcorder, the GH1 is your camera.

If your workflow is more similar to how a film camera might be used, then the Canon's are the better bet. Sync sound, short takes, etc.

I think you see less discussion of the Canon's in terms of actual use, because they have already become the darlings of Hollywood and Burbank at this price point. They are clearly good enough quality wise because they are already doing the work. Everything from Leno, to SNL, to crash cams in Ironman 2, etc. The GH1 has not seen that kind of acceptance yet. Maybe in the future.
Click to expand...
gh1 hasn't seen any where near that acceptance yet because the hack is barely a month old
 
Homunculus said:
gh1 hasn't seen any where near that acceptance yet because the hack is barely a month old
Click to expand...

The GH1 crowd has been saying the GH1 is better than the Canons since before the camera even shipped. We now have threads asking of the GH1 is as good as a RED or if it's ready for feature filmmaking now that the hack is out.

So I don't know what to tell you.
 
PerroneFord said:
The GH1 crowd has been saying the GH1 is better than the Canons since before the camera even shipped. We now have threads asking of the GH1 is as good as a RED or if it's ready for feature filmmaking now that the hack is out.

So I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...

that's because the gh1 was already comparable to the canons even before the hack. doesn't mean it was as good or better, but it was comparable, that's a fact.

now that the hack is out and according to some people the gh1 is like a brand new camera, then it goes without saying that it's at least as good if not better than the canons. point is, for professional use it was not better than the canons before the hack image quality wise, but now it is image quality wise and that has been proven by many here (trumpet charts 7d/gh1 comparison, dynamic range gh1/5dii comparison threads abound) so point is the hack is only a month old, it takes a while for such info to percolate down throughout the industry. the only #1 thing still holding gh1 back in my opinion from dominating the canons in the pro market is lack of live hdmi out. very few true professionals working on big money projects whether it's music videos or feature films etc will want to shoot their entire project on a tiny LCD, so that will be gh1's downfall if live video out can't be done with a future hack
 
Homunculus said:
the only #1 thing still holding gh1 back in my opinion from dominating the canons in the pro market is lack of live hdmi out. very few true professionals working on big money projects whether it's music videos or feature films etc will want to shoot their entire project on a tiny LCD, so that will be gh1's downfall if live video out can't be done with a future hack
Click to expand...

I've got news for you. Even at my meager level of filmmaking, it's tipped the scales to the Canon's for me as well. Hack or no hack.

The next time I ply the waters will be for a camera that shoots either RAW, or can give me uncompressed. I was willing to compromise this time because I already have a camera with HD-SDI out. But for the next round of buying, it's at LEAST and S35 sensor, and at LEAST HDMI out.
 
Actually, let's revisit this comment for a moment...

"now that the hack is out and according to some people the gh1 is like a brand new camera"

No. It's exactly the SAME camera with every shortcoming it had before, save one. The codec is now broadcast quality. That is a terrific advancement, but the hyperbole and overstatement does a gross disservice. The camera has not changed form factors, it did not get a new screen, it doesn't have new frame rates, it doesn't have a new sensor, and it still can't put out a live view. It's the SAME camera with an upgrade.

Is the codec better than the Canon? You bet. But Panasonic has already told the community they have no intention of developing this into a professional tool. Canon, to their credit has a direct pipeline to Hollywood right now, and they are working feverishly developing their technology into something professional. There are already beta versions in the hands of ASC cinematographers that have improved codecs and other goodies.

One company working feverishly to better the product, another saying they aren't interested in developing the product. If I was spending my money tomorrow, guess which way I'd lean, all other factors being equal.
 
PerroneFord said:
One company working feverishly to better the product, another saying they aren't interested in developing the product. If I was spending my money tomorrow, guess which way I'd lean, all other factors being equal.
Click to expand...

Allow me to re-quote you with a slight modification that represents my viewpoint on the issue:

One company trying to patch a consumer DSLR into making it somewhat more appropriate doing a professional video job... the other company starting from the ground up to build a dedicated digital cinema camera the right way, not needing any patching. I know which way I'm leaning! :)

Also, this whole thing about Canon and how fast they work, has always puzzled me. The difference between the two companies is night and day. Panasonic always produces the best products with today's technology. Canon produces the best products with yesterday's technology. As an example, look at the XF300. Wow, a 1/3" camcorder that records to solid state memory with variable frame rates and a 4:2:2 codec. Where have we heard of that before? Oh yeah, the HVX200, introduced FIVE YEARS EARLIER. Five years. I mean, sure, congrats to Canon for coming out with something, but -- seriously, five years later? And yes it has a sharper image and less noise, but ... five YEARS later? And now that even Sony has started to migrate to H.264, Canon decides now's the time to introduce MPEG-2? And while Panasonic's moving on to SDXC in the AF100, Canon goes with CompactFlash?

I'm not telling you which one to like. I'm only pointing out that one of the companies is first on the block, with the newest technology, and the other company is last to the party and shows up with last-generation technology. Some people like to be on the newest, some may take comfort in the "tried and true", to each their own. I know which I prefer, everyone else's mileage may vary.

So, yeah -- Canon might refine a DSLR to, what -- maybe have an accessory port where you could plug in some XLRs? Or maybe have a modified live HDMI out that actually puts out a full signal... I don't know what they plan on doing to refine their DSLR. But while they're doing that, Panasonic will be building a dedicated-purpose digital cinema camcorder, and will probably be on their third or fourth iteration before Canon comes out with something comparable (saying that because Panasonic had the HVX, HPX170, and HVX200A, and HMC150 all released before the XF300.)
 
Last edited:
But Canon did beat Panasonic to the DSLR video market (behind Nikon of course), so I wouldn't say they are always behind.

I will be the first to admit that the hacked GH1 looks great. Even beyond that, Moire on the Canons is MUCH worse because it is colored, and that coloring happens FAST! (rainbows anyone?).

For me it was simple. Eventually I want to move to the S35 from Red, and I like Canon glass. Red has an electronically controlled Canon (and Nikon) mount as an option.

Were I not investing in Red in the future, I'd seriously consider getting a GH1 as well. But, I feel with just a few months till new cameras are on the market, I will wait and see. I am eyeballing the AF100 and REALLY HOPE that it works as well as others hope, especially in the rolling shutter department.

We are in that 'almost' stage.

I also plan to keep my 7D as a stills camera, and it really excels there.

I also use the HDMI video out during recording on a jib arm, and that is one of the reasons I have not purchased a GH1 yet, as that is ESSENTIAL.

If the 7Dm2 came out with an articulating display, faster read/reset, no more color moire, XLR inputs and remote operation, I'd be happy. I actually LOVE shooting the form factor of a DSLR which is why I like the body styles of the Epic and Scarlet cameras.

So in all that, I say this, do you need this camera now? Can you hold out? Given the AF100 is just around the corner, I'd seriously consider the GH1 since there is an upgrade path with your lenses. Other than that, really, no one has a clue what Canon has up their sleeve and the shortcomings of the Canon image is a lot more than the GH13.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top