GH1 vs 60D

The GH13 kills 'em all right now for video image quality (DSLRS) unless you need to go super-duper wide in which case the 5DMkii is king. Although heck the Panny 7-14mm is pretty friggin' wide and I don't think there are options much wider than 14mm (equivalent FOV) for the 5DMKii, but you can get a faster 14mm (35mm FF equivalent FOV) on the 5DMkii than you can with a GH13, but still there are more wide fast options on the 5Dmkii than the GH13.
 
thisisapocalypse said:
The GH13 kills 'em all right now for video image quality (DSLRS) unless you need to go super-duper wide in which case the 5DMkii is king. Although heck the Panny 7-14mm is pretty friggin' wide and I don't think there are options much wider than 14mm (equivalent FOV) for the 5DMKii, but you can get a faster 14mm (35mm FF equivalent FOV) on the 5DMkii than you can with a GH13, but still there are more wide fast options on the 5Dmkii than the GH13.
Click to expand...
Well, if you really must, Zeiss does make an 8 mm / f2.8 Ultra Prime lens.
 
Going that wide on a Canon is an aliasing nightmare in any shot with fine detail, and it is also very soft in comparison to hacked GH1 footage.
 
Blackout said:
Going that wide on a Canon is an aliasing nightmare in any shot with fine detail, and it is also very soft in comparison to hacked GH1 footage.
Click to expand...

Agreed - at this point in time I think the GH13 crushes all within this form factor. I honestly don't know why you'd go another route if you want to use a dslr style camera for video primarily...the only reason that would make sense is if you already owned a bunch of Canon L glass for the EOS system...and even then you could use it on the GH13, just can't stop down easily...admittedly an issue.
 
This shot I could have never achieved on any of the canons.... would of looked too mushy or aliased:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV_6dM3CntY&fmt=37
fullscreen it.

1920 x 1080 24p

(opening super wide of the city and ending wide)

Youtube didn't like the slow opening fade and blocked up a bit but it is pristine in the master.

note these are rough little lighting tests of the locations not any sort of finished video... it was enough to get the client to book an actual music video.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I agree with all that. And yes, GH1, even not hacked, is better choice for those who want to shoot video primarily. That's why I, being a "Canon fan" for many years in still photography, chose GH1 over 7D when I went for video.

IMO GH1 and Canon, staying more or less close to each other in video, are still very far apart in still photography quality. And being very impressed with GH1 video, I still miss that Canon photo quality.

So now they came up with the 60D and looks like they they really improved it video-vise, but did nothing, even downgraded compare to 50D in still photo. And after reading the review I think that for guys like me, who don't shoot video professionally, but yet care about quality, the 60D is better all-in-one camera.
 
lol, people here are out of their minds. Coming from the Canon boards I dare any user with a Gh1 hacked or un hacked to post footage with ambient lighting and dar areas and see how well they compare to canons.

While yes the GH1 is sharper that is not the look everyone desires and to top it off in low light situations Canons perform better, a lot better
 
life4eva: the difference between 5D & GH1 in dynamic range is only 0.3EV...
As for the low light, I was pretty amazed at how clean it was with the only light of my computer screen : GH1 very low light test
I wouldn't need "a lot better" than that !
Plus with the added ergonomy (flip screen/autofocus/slow motion), if you shoot video I see no reason to chose a 5D over a (hacked) GH1.
 
life4eva said:
lol, people here are out of their minds. Coming from the Canon boards I dare any user with a Gh1 hacked or un hacked to post footage with ambient lighting and dar areas and see how well they compare to canons.

While yes the GH1 is sharper that is not the look everyone desires and to top it off in low light situations Canons perform better, a lot better
Click to expand...



Unhacked GH1 with fast glass in available light on a downtown street in a small town, lit by street lamps. I could've pushed the shutter a little slower (in fact probably should have, I got a bit of strobing and rolling bars here but you don't really notice) and eeked out about 66% more light.



And here's the old unhacked GH1 favorite from Martti.
 
life4eva said:
lol, people here are out of their minds. Coming from the Canon boards I dare any user with a Gh1 hacked or un hacked to post footage with ambient lighting and dar areas and see how well they compare to canons.

While yes the GH1 is sharper that is not the look everyone desires and to top it off in low light situations Canons perform better, a lot better
Click to expand...

The Canons do have better high ISOs...that is true and depending on what you're shooting, you might need that - but Canon aliasing is pretty bad - neither the GH1 nor the Canons are perfect. It's also less expensive to get fast glass (older used mf lenses) for the GH1 than it is for the EOS line.
 
I wan't the GH1/GH2 to be good but it simply doesn't deliver the right feeling. It's sharp and really HQ but that's not enough to beat Canons film look unless you prefer the video look.

To me it's "video" vs "film look"

I still don't know if I should get the 60D over the Gh2 (I'm sure it'll be hackable)
I could probably live with the video look since the quality is so high and sharp. It just gives the wrong feeling if I'm going to do "estethic movies".
 
Last edited:
Xian said:
I wan't the GH1/GH2 to be good but it simply doesn't deliver the right feeling. It's sharp and really HQ but that's not enough to beat Canons film look unless you prefer the video look.
Click to expand...

Now this is just silly... it all depends on the mode you shoot in. I had a 7D for quite a while...and loved it. But I realized a long time ago what people call a "film-look" when it comes to the Canons. It's because the image is lower resolution which makes it softer looking. It's the same exact thing that "helped" the HVX look....um...filmic. Not that it's a bad thing...but...the image from these GH-1's do not look like video at all. In fact...the Canons look like older film while the GH-1s look like today's Hollywood..um...aesthetic film. If you have not noticed....film nowadays don't look like film anymore. Film today is so sharp and clean looking. There will come a time (if it's not already here) where both film and video will converge and one will not be able to tell them apart. These small cameras are getting close...but for some folks they are close enough.

Don't get it twisted man...if the GH1's don't look like film...then neither do the Canons. I say they just look....different. If you like the Canons...then so be it. Me...I'm just glad to be here. :) If it were up to me...I'd grab every kind of DSLR out there and use them each for different projects...just like professionals use different film stocks for different types of projects/aesthetics...or whatever. Why does video cams have to be any different? I just wish I knew how to shoot like a lot of you. :)
 
I think most filmmakers would prefer the Canons for getting the right look. Don't get me wrong, I like the GH1 too.

It's not only about the softer look. Canon also has a greater range of contrasts which is just like film. The opposite is typical for video. I don't think it's about old film and new film but I see your point.

Film don't look like film anymore?
I think it does. Many things have to be right to get the true film look, sadly lot's of people have a lcd-tv which many times makes film look like video and it's aweful. So even true film can look like video. I have no other explanation to your statement :-)

Anyway, everything I say about the GH1 is based on what I've seen so far on Vimeo. Maybe there are some shots out there that I think got the right "feeling". With the right lenses and post production you could probably make it look really good. I just think that Canon gives this right feeling straight from the camera.

BTW sharpness and high resolution doesn't have to be that important. Compare a photo from a compact digital camera to a analog system camera. The digital camera is way much sharper but would you rather shoot a movie with that kind of quality than the image from the analog camera?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top