GH1 or Canon T2i?

Mister Big · Apr 29, 2010

After a few weeks with the GH1, I can't imagine shooting HDSLR type footage with a camera that didn't have both the GH1's stunning electronic viewfinder and articulating LCD. Codec, moire, all that mean nothing if you can't get the shots you want.

AF is fast, snappy, and reliable.

Plus the darn thing is so compact (especially with the 20mm 1.7 pancake) and no Zacuto is really required to work it.

What would be nice? A fast wide prime. Otherwise, I'm happy with the thing as both a stills and video cam.

Ron Rodenmeyer · Apr 29, 2010

Mister Big said:
After a few weeks with the GH1, I can't imagine shooting HDSLR type footage with a camera that didn't have both the GH1's stunning electronic viewfinder and articulating LCD. Codec, moire, all that mean nothing if you can't get the shots you want.

AF is fast, snappy, and reliable.

Plus the darn thing is so compact (especially with the 20mm 1.7 pancake) and no Zacuto is really required to work it.

What would be nice? A fast wide prime. Otherwise, I'm happy with the thing as both a stills and video cam.

I'll tell you what would be nice: a fast-ish native m43 zoom. Something in the 17-70 range with a constant f2.8 would be worth it's weight in crude oil. I went through a months-long stage of using nothing but old manual primes. I loved the look, the general compactness, the tactile feel of the old barrels, and even the vintage style. But lately, I've been using the kit lens and the 20mm a lot. And I must say, they are a dream. Esp. the 14-140. Except the speed. But quickly reframing by zooming and using the autofocus when needed (I'm an old video guy, and I'm as shocked as anyone by how much I'm using it. My 25 year old self would kick me!). I shoot a lot of documentary-style footage in classrooms as well as my kids at events, so I'd love to save the primes for narrative shoots and other times when time is not an issue.

Ben_B · Apr 29, 2010

I've been using the kit and 20mm a huge amount lately too! But I've mainly been using them for photos.

For video I usually use the kit lens and a Nikon E 50mm f/1.8 (which has sort of replaced my Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 because it's sharper. E series is super underrated...better than most new 'Nikkor's) I just love the look of the 50mm...I use it for all my one shots and OTS coverage....the 100mm crop is actually a really workable distance for me.

I've also been using the 20mm f/1.7 for closeups lately because I love how sharp it is and the way it makes features like pores and wrinkles pop out rather than softening them...for when you want that look.

Whenever I get the chance I've been using some longer glass too...used a friend's 200mm f/4 for a night shoot the other day and it worked great (we light unlike many people here

). Also been using a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 which is totally amazing...but sadly not mine.

My Sigma 24mm f/1.8 has been sitting in my bag a lot lately...I still love it because it's the widest lens I have for my full frame cameras, but the focus ring has been misbehaving lately so it's not really smooth enough to use for video, and it's bigger, bulkier, and softer than the 20mm f/1.7...I still like the lens though.

Deere · Apr 29, 2010

Everyone's been talking up the kit lens the last few posts. I was planning to get the body only version (I've got a set of old zeiss contax primes, have already ordered my adapter to c/y from m43) and get a hot rod csh (or similar handheld rig) with the money saved on not getting the kit lens. Here in Australia it's 1600 for the body or 2400 for the body and kit lens.

So, should I be reconsidering the kit lens?

Ron Rodenmeyer · Apr 29, 2010

Deere-

That's certainly a personal decision and will really require you to think about how you plan to use the camera. But I could not imagine owning the GH1 without the 14-140. I really like the micro 4/3 format for several reasons, and an important one is the fact that you adapt all that great old glass. But, like Ben B., I've really come around to the kit lens. As long as you have some light, it's a pure joy...especially when you need to capture "real life" and don't have time to move around lest you miss the shot. (Olde tyme points to me for using "lest"!).

But if you know you will be doing only narrative work or art-type shooting that allows you the time to change lenses and change positions, you might be better served spending the money on something else. You're going to get some beautiful images with this camera and those Contax lenses, BTW.

Also, don't forget about still shooting as Ben mentioned. Most people can't imagine shooting stills anymore w/o autofocus and IS. Not everyone, but most.

kostas · Apr 29, 2010

Deere said:
Everyone's been talking up the kit lens the last few posts. I was planning to get the body only version (I've got a set of old zeiss contax primes, have already ordered my adapter to c/y from m43) and get a hot rod csh (or similar handheld rig) with the money saved on not getting the kit lens. Here in Australia it's 1600 for the body or 2400 for the body and kit lens.

So, should I be reconsidering the kit lens?

Get the body plus the kit lens. Try it and if you feel you can do without, sell it. It is a highly regarded lens on ebay that seems to keep it's value. At least until the next, probably faster, HD micro 4/3 lens from panasonic (with the gh2 maybe later this year?).

Ben_B · Apr 29, 2010

One of the main reasons to keep the kit lens around is that at 14mm it will probably be your go to wide angle lens.

Mister Big · Apr 30, 2010

I traded my 14-140 kit lens to an EF1 owner for his 20mm 1.7 and $325 cash.

If I had to have one lens, it'd be the 20mm. Funds are short and I'm happy I made the deal.

But that said, I regret selling the 14-140 and will one day repurchase it.

Camera Expert · Apr 30, 2010

Just like the articulating screen and electronic viewfinder, I find the 14-140 lens essential to own especially if you shooting events like me. If I'm in the middle of a huge crowd of people, it would be very unwise to change lenses. In many cases, those events are in broad daylight so the fact that the low-light capabilities an't that fast is completely irreverent in those lighting conditions. I'm the type of person that believes having manual focusing is essential to certain shooting conditions but when your trying to shoot video with something shaped like a DSLR, your increasing the chances of your camera shaking too much. It's bad enough that it's a bit hard to use the zoom as is even though I've gotten used to it.

OK now you got me going. When it comes to the articulating screen, I love the freedom that I get and in the same type of shooting situations with a crowd of people around me, I can easily put the camera over my head and still get the shots I need even though the camera may shake more often. That proved to be especially useful when I was recording the Boston Marathon. Doing that would be even harder if I had to use the manual focusing ring. Using 2 hand will keep the camera far more steady than using 1 hand when the camera is over your head.

BitMaestro · Apr 30, 2010

Ben_B said:
One of the main reasons to keep the kit lens around is that at 14mm it will probably be your go to wide angle lens.

On the other hand, Pany is supposed to release a 14mm f2.8 in the next couple of months. So, if you decide to forgo the kit lens, you could pick up one of those.

On the third hand, my personal wide lens is a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8.

On the fourth hand, I would recommend GH1 + kit lens now, and then AF100 body only later.

Mark

Ron Rodenmeyer · Apr 30, 2010

+1 on Mark's freakishly large number of hands! I haven't tried the Tokina yet, but everything I've seen and heard has been overwhelmingly positive about that lens.

My inner debate these days is whether to invest in some nice Nikon mount zooms (like the 11-16 Tokina) or wait for native lenses for the GH1/AF100. My current thought is to dip my toe in the Nikon zoom waters with a Ciecio7 adapter and sell them later when the m4/3 lenses appear. I'm just getting so used to the autofocus, tho...

rawfa · May 1, 2010

Taking in consideration that one has a better codec with a lower bitrate (gh1) and the other has worst codec with a higher bitrate (d550), which one can take the more pounding during CC?

Ben_B · May 1, 2010

rawfa said:
Taking in consideration that one has a better codec with a lower bitrate (gh1) and the other has worst codec with a higher bitrate (d550), which one can take the more pounding during CC?

Actually they have the same codec, the Canons have a higher bitrate.

The GH1 has better scaling, and resolves an image with fewer artifacts.

rawfa · May 1, 2010

I thought that only the GH1 shot AVCHD...

DonalDuc · May 1, 2010

some time ago I shot some videos with 550D, SX1, TX7, GH1 ... first sunny, second rainy

I hope they are there:

Barry_Green · May 1, 2010

rawfa said:
I thought that only the GH1 shot AVCHD...

Correct, but AVCHD = h.264.

Ben said it right, the GH1 and 550d use the same basic codec, but the 550d's version uses more bandwidth so it's more robust. However, the core image of the GH1 is cleaner (no colored chroma aliasing).

PH-mode AVCHD is far superior to either. It's still h.264 8-bit long-GoP, but the codec is much much much more robust. The GH1's "AVCHD" is a very limited implementation that is nowhere near as good as what PH-mode AVCCAM AVCHD can do.

rawfa · May 1, 2010

Barry_Green said:
Correct, but AVCHD = h.264.

Ben said it right, the GH1 and 550d use the same basic codec, but the 550d's version uses more bandwidth so it's more robust. However, the core image of the GH1 is cleaner (no colored chroma aliasing).

PH-mode AVCHD is far superior to either. It's still h.264 8-bit long-GoP, but the codec is much much much more robust. The GH1's "AVCHD" is a very limited implementation that is nowhere near as good as what PH-mode AVCCAM AVCHD can do.

That being said which one should be able to endure more color correction without falling apart ?

DonalDuc · May 1, 2010

Look this pictures Canon 550D / Canon SX1 / Sony TX7 from above videos

Both - 550D and SX1 - use same speed ... 43 Mbps

Sony TX7 (small pocket camera with fullHD)

Vitaliy Kiselev · May 1, 2010

I don't see GH1 picture here.

And I am interested to see aliasing problems on GH1, doing some low level sensor related firmware research.

Barry_Green · May 1, 2010

The GH1 exhibits some aliasing, but it won't look like this. The canons have substantial aliasing chroma effects, creating purple or orange rainbows in the footage. The GH1 has aliasing, but it's strictly in the luminance channel. All the still cameras have huge amounts of aliasing. The only thing really different is whether it shows up in color or not, and these pix are examples of how the color can draw attention to the aliasing pattern.

GH1 or Canon T2i?

Well-known member

Well-known member

Veteran

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Veteran

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Active member

Moderator

Veteran

Active member

Carbonite Member

Moderator