GH1 vs Canon T2i

Thanks so much for all the advice and feedback everyone!!

I haven't decided yet, but I think I'm leaning towards the t2i since I initially fell in love with with the 7D's image when first looking into DSLRs and the t2i seems to be comparable from what I've heard.

Still considering the GH1, but it doesn't have a monitor output and if I were to hack it, I'm afraid I might break the camera/void the warranty. Is there a hack for the t2i or do people mostly use it as is?

Could also go with the GH2, but I've seen more affordable prices with the t2i.
 
I'd go for a GH2 personally, no questions asked. Have you compared the footage? It's like night and day compared to a canon..
 
Will Turner said:
I'd go for a GH2 personally, no questions asked. Have you compared the footage? It's like night and day compared to a canon..
Click to expand...

That's an entirely different discussion. He already owns a T2i and an AF100, and wants to keep the Canon. For the record, if he has an AF100, I'd wager that he is already aware of the GH2 offers.
 
M. Gilden said:
That's an entirely different discussion. He already owns a T2i and an AF100, and wants to keep the Canon. For the record, if he has an AF100, I'd wager that he is already aware of the GH2 offers.
Click to expand...

M. Gilden said:
That's an entirely different discussion. He already owns a T2i and an AF100, and wants to keep the Canon. For the record, if he has an AF100, I'd wager that he is already aware of the GH2 offers.
Click to expand...

Sorry, my mistake. I thought he/she only owns an hpx170, as stated in the first post in the thread and is specifically asking which of the video enabled DSLRs would be recommended.
 
Will Turner said:
I'd go for a GH2 personally, no questions asked. Have you compared the footage? It's like night and day compared to a canon..
Click to expand...

Do you have any footage of both that can be compared? I assumed from what I read that the T2i's image is similar to the 7D. Yes, I have a hpx170.
 
If you buy a GH body, you're going to need at least two basic lenses: the 20mm 1.7 to give you normal coverage and low light ability ($350), and the 14mm 2.5 ($200 on ebay from sellers splitting m43 kits) to give you the same on the wide end. The M43 zooms are all slow.

The advantage of Canon is you have more glass. You can cover the wide end with the Tokina 11-18 2.8, then you can get the Canon 28mm 1.8 as your "normal" lens.

Personally, I think the GH bodies are best if video is your priority. Their compact size, swiveling screen, lack of moire, and pancake lenses really make them a mini-miracle.
 
Will Turner said:
Sorry, my mistake. I thought he/she only owns an hpx170, as stated in the first post in the thread and is specifically asking which of the video enabled DSLRs would be recommended.
Click to expand...
Funny, I could have sworn it said AF100 before. Looks like the first post was edited? Or maybe I just made a mistake- happens. :)

Anyway, Mr. Big, you are right that Canons offer more native glass, but that's why most GH2 and GH1 owners have a trusty set of adapters for various types of lens mounts. The Tamron and Tokina zooms that everyone seems to love on Canon and Nikon bodies work quite nicely on the GH2 with an appropriate adapter.

That being said, you lose autofocus and OIS, which is something I wish the GH2 had in a fast zoom.
 
Mister Big said:
If you buy a GH body, you're going to need at least two basic lenses: the 20mm 1.7 to give you normal coverage and low light ability ($350), and the 14mm 2.5 ($200 on ebay from sellers splitting m43 kits) to give you the same on the wide end. The M43 zooms are all slow.

The advantage of Canon is you have more glass. You can cover the wide end with the Tokina 11-18 2.8, then you can get the Canon 28mm 1.8 as your "normal" lens.

Personally, I think the GH bodies are best if video is your priority. Their compact size, swiveling screen, lack of moire, and pancake lenses really make them a mini-miracle.
Click to expand...

This is the wrong way around. While there is more native glass for canon, there is FAR more glass available to m4/3 via adaptors. Old glass is LOTS cheaper than EF glass too, so depending on what sort of budget you have this could make all the difference. I bought a m4/3 over a canon because I could actually buy all the lenses I need to use the camera properly.

Think of it this way.. on a budget..

You can either have a 550d and kit lens or a GH1/2 with a comprehensive set of fast primes that have aperture rings and hard stops.
 
Will Turner said:
This is the wrong way around. While there is more native glass for canon, there is FAR more glass available to m4/3 via adaptors. Old glass is LOTS cheaper than EF glass too, so depending on what sort of budget you have this could make all the difference. I bought a m4/3 over a canon because I could actually buy all the lenses I need to use the camera properly.
Click to expand...


Hmm. Funny, because there is no shortage of vintage glass compatible with EOS mounts either. Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, M42, etc... The only major type of lenses that comes to mind as incompatible is Canon FD. And to be honest, FD and vintage Nikon are nearly identical in quality and price.
So unless you already have a collection of FD lenses, or are interested in using super-expensive cinema lenses, I don't think that's much of an argument.

With Canon, you still get all the advantages of vintages, but also have the option of using native lenses for IS, and autofocus for stills. That doesn't work vice versa. One of my biggest gripes with the GH2 is the lack of any kind of fast zoom with OIS. If I'm going to shoot documentary-style indoors, I need the lens to be fast enough for any lighting situation and the added IS for safety when rigged. I can throw a Canon F/2.8 zoom with IS on a 5D and go to town. M4/3, sadly, has no options for that.

...yet. I've heard about some of the fancy lenses in the works by Panasonic and hope they hit the market soon. But it will still be an extremely limited selection compared to what you can do with a native EOS mount.

Think of it this way.. on a budget..

You can either have a 550d and kit lens or a GH1/2 with a comprehensive set of fast primes that have aperture rings and hard stops.
Click to expand...

LOL- Think of it this way:

550D ($500 body only, direct from Canon right now) + Nikon 50mm F/1.4 ($110) + Nikon 135 F/2.8 ($75) + Vivitar 28 F/2.0 (Nikon Mount, $50) = $735

GH2 with kit lens ($899 on Amazon right now)... Whoops. There goes that theory.
 
M. Gilden said:
550D ($500 body only, direct from Canon right now) + Nikon 50mm F/1.4 ($110) + Nikon 135 F/2.8 ($75) + Vivitar 28 F/2.0 (Nikon Mount, $50) = $735

GH2 with kit lens ($899 on Amazon right now)... Whoops. There goes that theory.
Click to expand...

As of this writing, the cheapest I could find the T2i/550D from Canon Direct is $600 body only (maybe there's a $100 off coupon I'm missing?)

From Amazon it is a little less expensive at $549 new and $460 used.

And since the original poster asked about the GH1, not the GH2, that is the camera we should compare - and the used GH1 is $404.49 at Amazon.

So - used price to used price, the GH1 is a little less expensive (again, as of this writing and at this particular retailer).

That said, if the OP wants a new camera with a warranty, the only reasonable choice is the T2i because the GH1 has been discontinued (and the "new" price of a discontinued camera is based on its scarcity, not its practical value).

Cheers,

Bill
 
Last edited:
RatLabProductions said:
Where are you finding a good copy of the Vivitar 28mm f2 for $50?
Click to expand...

I bought one on ebay almost a year ago. First 2 I bid on went for closer to $60, so maybe I should say its worth $60? Also check KEH.com, I tend to find decent prices on vintage lenses there as well.
 
brunerww said:
As of this writing, the cheapest I could find the T2i/550D from Canon Direct is $600 body only (maybe there's a $100 off coupon I'm missing?)

From Amazon it is a little less expensive at $549 new and $460 used.

And since the original poster asked about the GH1, not the GH2, that is the camera we should compare - and the used GH1 is $404.49 at Amazon.

So - used price to used price, the GH1 is a little less expensive (again, as of this writing and at this particular retailer).

That said, if the OP wants a new camera with a warranty, the only reasonable choice is the T2i because the GH1 has been discontinued (and the "new" price of a discontinued camera is based on its scarcity, not its practical value).

Cheers,

Bill
Click to expand...

Canon Loyalty Program had them in stock for $448 body only when I bought mine a second body a few months ago. Without the loyalty program, its not much higher- comes in refurbished box, but warranty from Canon.

I was comparing it to the GH2 because Will Turner had said "or a GH1/2" in his price breakdown. What he said is simply not a true statement IMO, especially if considering the GH2.

The GH1 and T2i are about the same price factory refurbished with warranty (pretty sure both are discontinued), and both are compatible with plenty of vintage lenses. The Canon FD lenses are a bit cheaper due to being compatible with less modern bodies, however the GH1s I looked at also had inconsistencies in their quality (banding, vertical lines in the video footage, etc)- I didn't really consider the GH series until the GH2 proved to be the champ that it is.
But still, not for the reasons Will Turner mentioned.
 
Interesting I didn't realise there were so many vintage lenses available for canons. Well, as soon as they bring out an affordable camera with panasonic levels of aliasing/moire I'm sold. Actually proper 1080p would be nice to.
 
Will Turner said:
Interesting I didn't realise there were so many vintage lenses available for canons. Well, as soon as they bring out an affordable camera with panasonic levels of aliasing/moire I'm sold. Actually proper 1080p would be nice to.
Click to expand...

True. GH series wins resolution, hands down. Sadly, if the 5DmIII is the reference model that the next Rebel (650D/T4i) will be based on, it looks like we might still be slightly less than real 1080p, however the moire and aliasing are virtually gone and the rolling shutter is supposedly vastly improved.

Bottom line for me (owning both a GH2 and Canon DSLR), the Canons have more pleasing color and more control over it (especially with picture profiles and magic lantern), however the GH has better resolution. Both have plenty of vintage options, with the FD mount being notably only compatible with mirrorless cameras.

I personally love both of them and I'm not sure if I would really be ok with either one over the other.
 
M. Gilden said:
True. GH series wins resolution, hands down. Sadly, if the 5DmIII is the reference model that the next Rebel (650D/T4i) will be based on, it looks like we might still be slightly less than real 1080p, however the moire and aliasing are virtually gone and the rolling shutter is supposedly vastly improved.

Bottom line for me (owning both a GH2 and Canon DSLR), the Canons have more pleasing color and more control over it (especially with picture profiles and magic lantern), however the GH has better resolution. Both have plenty of vintage options, with the FD mount being notably only compatible with mirrorless cameras.

I personally love both of them and I'm not sure if I would really be ok with either one over the other.
Click to expand...


Don't get worried yet. I downloaded some uncompressed still frames from a 5DIII video and with an unsharp mask they are suddenly much closer to the GH2 than on first glance. If the 650D has the same resolution I would more than likely buy that over a GH2. It just seems that canon are giving us what we want, sod all in camera sharpening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top