DSLR or Hybrid ?

K

kulitam

Member
Hi, I'm considering buying GH2/60D/D7000 , but I'm confused about few things.

It seems to me that GH2 has similar properties as camcoders up to 1 000 $ but it has also inherent DOF, but some coding problems (underexposed areas within the picture).

DSLR's seems to have better image quality (and astonishingly low noise and amazing quality in areas with poor light - but if one person claims that "DSLR's are better with poor light than GH2" the other person claims opposite. (In my opinion APS-C and better must be better basically for the size of sensor, but in some comparative videos GH2 shows itself less noisy)), but also great load of problems in certain conditions (moire+roll.shutter effects).

So I'd like to ask if someone had opportunity to compare pros and cons of both cameras. If so, I'd be very grateful for sharing any experience/opinion/advice which could lead me to make best decision.

And one other question which have great importance for me:
How works lenses for APS-C(/Fullfame) connected through adapter with this camera (or other cameras with smaller sensor).
Have anyone any expirience with this? Are there any problems or should I beware of something?
(My point is that many lenses for APS-C obtained from "second-hand" are MUCH cheaper than ones which are made for sensors like that inside GH2).

I'd be also grateful for recommending other features like mic/tripod/lenses for each camera.


I hope this thread helps anyone who is choosing "inexpensive" solution to make right decision...

Thanks all reading this, Martin :)
 
wow. this is probably the most debated subject in video today.
for every person who loves DSLRs there is another guy who hates them. and they are both right.

i own:
1. hpx170 (used with and without my sgblade 35mm adapter)
2. 60d
3. gh2

and they all have their good and bad points
1. the hpx170 is by far the most flexible video option.
GOOD:variable frame rates, pro audio inputs, ccd vs cmos, superbly reliable recording media, super easy to work with codec
BAD: arguably not as good as most dslrs in low light (nor as sharp) not as easy to achieve variable DOF, expensive.

2. the 60d is great tool.
GOOD: more than adequate stills right out of the box, nice looking video (IF you stay with 1080), solid build.
BAD: useless in 720p, less than bullet proof recording media, 12 min(ish) clip limits

3. gh2 is great where the 60d isnt.
GOOD: limitless clip length (shoot as long as your card will hold) lack of significant aliasing/moire (at least as compared to canons in 720)
BAD: feels like a toy, evf looks like dog poo. only one dial to manage both ss and aperture

aside from quick and easy bulletpoints. this is my second gh2. i HATED the first one i had. but i used the panasonic 14-140 and pancake lenses the first time around. and i absolutely HATED everything i shot. both stills and video. this time around i got a rayqual adapter and am using old manual focus nikkor lenses and my happiness with teh overal aesthetic has GREATLY improved - both in stills and video.

i really like everything about the 60D. except the fact that 720 is useless because of moire everywhere. and the dreaded 12 min canon limit. but thats just personal. i shoot a lot of things that require longer takes.

then there is the trusty old hpx170. pretty much does what it needs to do in 95% of situations i come across. for DOF needs, i use my sgblade. its a good bit more cumbersome and not as flexible in low light than a DSLR. but i can treat it like a video camera. without having to dick around with all the compromises and roadblocks of a dslr.

it all comes down to:
a. WHAT you shoot
b. your experience
c. your expectations
d. your budget
 
wow, thanks :)

I'd like to ask how annoying and limiting are in your opinion moire and distracting artifacts in 1080 mode (60D) .
And if you know/tried any way to avoid ruining shot by moire/other stuff (i.e if you need shot guy in stripped suit or something(except not filming it :P)).
And how each camera affects emotional aspect of material. (It seems to me that DSLR's let you show emotions more distinctively).
 
I'd like to ask how annoying and limiting are in your opinion moire and distracting artifacts in 1080 mode (60D) .
Click to expand...
im still early in my testing. but shooting at 1/60th i notice a LITTLE less chance for moire. but as far as aliasing (like on the siding of a house) its just as prevalent at 1080 as at 720.
but like i say, im early in the game and still have not paged through every possible option. my plan in the next week is to set up with all three cameras shooting a typical "problem" situation. and see how they all perform.

if you know/tried any way to avoid ruining shot by moire/other stuff (i.e if you need shot guy in stripped suit or something(except not filming it :P)).
Click to expand...
sadly no. if you are in a situation where you have to shoot in a certain place. and that place has siding or a net or repeated picket fence. the ONLY answer is DO NOT MOVE THE CAMERA - AT ALL. and if the guy is wearing a striped shirt. tell him not to move or breathe ; )

how each camera affects emotional aspect of material. (It seems to me that DSLR's let you show emotions more distinctively).
Click to expand...
eh, i think that has as much to do with the person behind the camera as anything else. what a dslr WILL give you is a smaller, less intrusive footprint. which may in turn go either un noticed or at least be less intimidating to the subject...

all things being equal, though i still prefer the look of the 60d. right now, if i had to suggest a specific dslr, id probably say go with the gh2. as i can achieve nearly the same aesthetic as the 60d with far fewer of the dslr headaches.
 
Last edited:
The answer is not to shoot it. This is true if you're using a DSLR or an F900. I use the F900 as an example because this has come up on television shoots I've crewed with. The problems have been really overplayed as DSLR issues when they're actually digital issues that are magnified in some cases.

DSLR's don't let you show emotion or anything else more distinctively. They allow you to capture light; you have to decide how to create the scene.
 
wgzn said:
my plan in the next week is to set up with all three cameras shooting a typical "problem" situation. and see how they all perform.
Click to expand...

That sounds wonderful :) I'd be very happy if you will be willing to share your results after testing :]

eh, i think that has as much to do with the person behind the camera as anything else
Click to expand...
DSLR's don't let you show emotion or anything else more distinctively. They allow you to capture light; you have to decide how to create the scene.
Click to expand...

I know. I didn't want to say that camera is responsible for this. Image from both cameras looks different (used codec, different construction etc.) so I was just curious how you feel (or what you think) about final image of both cameras and how it's properties affects your steps when you are creating scene and for which kind of scenes is each camera more suitable.
 
Every DSLR does better in closeups than anything else. The detail in distant objects is where you will see problems, especially if you're in a forest. The GH1 with the hack is currently doing better than any of the others, but I find that the 7D is able to give me a lot more options for color correcting in post. I own both, and I have to decide if I'm more concerned about the high image quality of the GH1(3) or the ability to craft the look better with the 7D. Or if it's an event I just use the GH1 because it doesn't have a recording limit.
 
Hi, I too have been contemplating whether to go 60D or Gh2, it's a tough one but I think I've just about decided 60D. The reasons I've reasons with which I've been able to deceive myself are:

1. Build quality- I think this is really important- I think it's possibly the reason why not too many pros would contemplate using the gh2- they want something rugged, reliable and PRO, I'm not saying the 60D is great (I have a niggling thought I should go 7D for this reason) but it's reasonable, the GH2 is like a toy.

2. For all its picture quality improvements over dslrs (which are significant) it doesn't do 25P here in PAL land, combining GH2 footage with other cameras would be a bit of a nightmare.

3. I like the fact that Canon have teamed up with Technicolour to give users those new colour profles- again these feel like PRO improvements.

4. Magic Lantern is now becoming usable on 60D, this is what probably swayed me from 7D.

5. I already have a few Canon lenses which I'd rather not put on an adapter to go M4/3.

Having said all this, I think dslrs have their limitations as others have said- they are just tools to do a certain job- they are very good at getting shallow DOF close/medium close
shots, not good for wides with lots of detail- you'll need another tool for that- maybe a GH2.

So yes, it comes down to what you use it for- for events the GH2 is better, or a proper video camera. If GH2s were built better with 25P I'd go GH2- but that's where their AF101 comes in- lets face it, dslrs are great because they are so cheap, we'd all go Red or Alexa if we could afford it (wouldn't we?)
 
I agree the lack of 25P on the GH2 is a big turn off. It caused me to sell my GH1 and get a 550D and a bunch of Canon mount lenses instead. I know the GH1 does do 25P but it felt as though I couldn't move forward with the system. I didn't want to invest in a bunch of m4/3 lenses in case Panasonic make the same decision not to include 25p on their next camera as well. I didn't want to dig myself into a hole. It's not that I didn't love the GH1, it's just that I felt boxed in. Ultimately I was worried by the lack of body choices, native lens options and the overall support for the format.

Canon, on the other hand, had ML going for it and I am ecstatic that even since I bought my 550D it's functionality has been growing constantly with all the ML developments. Plus I had easy access to modern AF lenses, with plenty of 2nd hand ones available too. I still use some of my old Pentax lenses on the 550D, but the ability to get f/2.8 zooms that work hassle free on my camera body was a big plus.

There's advantages to both systems as well as disadvantages. You need to balance up your needs carefully as well as try the cameras out for yourself if you can. You can read all sorts of reviews and opinions but in the end everyone has different preferences so it will come down to what suits you better. Unfortunately I made the wrong choice for me to begin with, and had to sell everything and start again - but now I am extrememly happy with my setup.
 
Sorry for bothering, but I need to ansver two questions before final decision.

1. Post-Production: I'd like to know, how less expensive computer I need for editing footage from 60D/GH2. I'm looking for something up to 600$ but I don't thing, that I'll be able to edit footage from 60D comfortably.

2. Lenses: Some people says, that there's lack of M4/3 lenses with good aperture. I'd like to ask how big is this pine in the ass if you need lenses (preferably one basic ZOOM lens) up to 400$ from second hand.

Thanks :)
 
I was in your place and went with the 60D. I'm very happy with my purchase.

For me, it came down to a couple of things:

1. 60D takes WAY better stills. Even though I was using this a lot of video, I still want a decent stills camera.

2. Form factor. 60D feels great and very robust (why I bought it instead of a T3i) while the GH2...feels like crap.

3. Lenses. There are Canon lenses everywhere for cheap prices.

4. APS-C vs 4/3. It's not a huge difference but it's nice to have the same basic range of lenses that one would on Super 35mm.

5. EVERYONE IS SHOOTING WITH CANON DSLRs. I know this sounds silly but this was the biggest reason. I don't normally do whatever the masses do but in our field it's useful to shoot on cameras that are popular. It means that a lot more people have learned them in and out and are in a position to tell others how to get the most out of them. It means that I have a lot of friends with spare lenses and other accessories that i can borrow. It means there are a lot of people who I can call in to be a second camera on my shoot. And it means that when I'm doing something for a client, i can say, "this camera is the same kind they use on House, 127 Hours, and a lot of commercials."

All that said, I've seen amazing footage come out of all three of the cameras you listed.
 
This is certainly turned canon DSLR biased in the extreme ,i owned a 550D and i have to put matters strait and say the GH2 i have now is a class higher, the picture resoulution is much higher even my HV 30 was sharper than my 550D,the colors from my GH2 are great http://vimeo.com/26036407 this guys film shows the GH2 is no slouch in this department not that i disliked the color from my 550D,i have 6 micro four third lenses covering from 9-200mm or 18-400mm in 35mm terms then there is E-T-C 2.6x on top or 3.9x in 720P frame rate which unlike canons is not bad at all for video,i dont do stills much but what i take the GH2 handles fine, sound wise i find with one of my externals used the sound is as good as any camcorder i have had,finaly it may not be built like a 7D or 60D but all the stuff about the poor build quality is way over the top as it a lot better than than described by most detractors.
 
...I bought the Canon 60D last September, then bought a Panasonic GH-2 in December, and ended up selling my Canon 60D in January.

Canon 60D Pros
- Solid and robust camera body
- Canon EF lenses
- Great still image quality
- Can rent Canon lenses

Canon 60D Cons
- Horrible image destroying moire would show from time to time : Canon 60D vs Panasonic GH2 Evil Moiré Test
- Soft and less detailed video image ( GH-2 is sharper )
- HDMI output drops to 480P as soon as your start recording
- Canon H.264 CODEC does not use B frames, so files are larger with less detail
- 60D Camera audio is 10 dB noisier than GH-2
- 12 minute maximum clip length

Panasonic GH-2 Pros
- Video image is sharp and detailed
- Virtually no moire at all, so shooting patterns is not a problem
- Very good in-camera audio ( -63 dB noise floor ) : Sample of Audio Recorded Directly by GH-2 Camera
- Very natural looking color ( does not have that Canon "Kodachrome" look )
- Can use almost any lens with the right adapter ( my favorite are the Zeiss lenses with Nikon ZF mount )
- HDMI output stays at 1080P when you start recording, so it's easy to focus with a decent monitor
- Can record as long as your battery or memory card lasts, so you can shoot for 2+ hours if you like.
- Has a great "punch in" focus assist which greatly helps achieve critical focus
- Has a professional grade "big brother" ( AF-100 ) that you can rent

Panasonic GH-2 Cons
- Most of the image stabilized lenses are quite slow ( this is changing, but boy are they taking their time with this )
- Camera body is small and does not feel like you could use it as a "hammer" ( Canon and Nikon are more robust )
- Still photos are pretty good in RAW mode, but still not as good as Canon or Nikon in low-light ( I am hoping that a future body from Panasonic or Olympus will fix this )
- Audio input is 2.5mm instead of the more common 3.5mm
- Camera is a little hard to find, but it's worth the time it takes to find one
 
Last edited:
I've seen a lot of great looking 720/60p footage from 60D/600D and 7D.
Click to expand...

if you shoot anything with bricks, shingles or woven clothing with a 60d or 7d youre going to see moire all over it.
 
Since I already had the Pentax K-7 weatherproof APS-C DSLR I chose the GH2 over the 60D late last fall and it works great with my Pentax K-mount lenses.
5267764174_755d8e68bd_b.jpg

5595633824_d898777113_b.jpg
 
GH2 would be amazing if it wasn't for the outrageously bad jello & mediocre DR (range could be considered the final frontier of what's making video look like video, or digital film). Another issue i had with GH2 was the fixed line appearing on the sensor in ISO above 400, clearly visible in anyting above 800. Big shame, cus low-light is otherwise a strongpoint for GH2.

...then again, everyone doesn't need or want a cinematic look -- GH13/2/AF100 are all superb video cameras providing a look few others do.

IMO the moire problems are exaggerated with Canon, but x2 worse with Nikon (D7000, to me more precise). If i lived in a brick city like Amsterdam or something i would probably always keep a GH2 in the bag however, but for everything else, the false resolution is _what makes it look organic_, remember that... embrace the softness.
 
Last edited:
I have to throw in for the 60D here. I'm a little one sided because I own several Canon's and a slew of lenses. Not only is the 60D right up there in video quality with the GH2 in IMO, but its still capability far exceeds it. But no matter what you decide to go with I'm sure you will be happy. They are both great cameras.
 
wgzn said:
2. the 60d is great tool. nice looking video (IF you stay with 1080)
BAD: useless in 720p
Click to expand...

I also shoot everything at 1080p 25fps Pal which looks great and gives me a bit of room to repo on post. but I have used 720p at 50/60 fps for slow motion which is a useful feature, especially if you are using something like Twixter or AE to slow the image down even more.
 
Last edited:
kulitam said:
1. Post-Production: I'd like to know, how less expensive computer I need for editing footage from 60D/GH2. I'm looking for something up to 600$ but I don't thing, that I'll be able to edit footage from 60D comfortably.
Click to expand...

You can use Streamclip (free download) to transcode your footage in matching folders for offline editing then replace the files with the original H-264 files before exporting. I use 1280x720p M-Jpeg at the default of 50%. Files are half the size (less storage) of the H-264 and will be deleted after the project is delivered anyway. The lightest and fastest timeline you can edit and impossible to hang the computer.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top