GH2 Fanboys (& Girls) why wouldn't I buy a Canon 60D?

Chadfish said:
So the GH2 doesn't get as shallow DOF as the canons? Can one still get a decent amount? That's really the main reason I'm looking at DSLR.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why people don't tell the whole story when it comes to this topic but FYI...you get exactly the same amount of DOF on the Canon 7D/60D/T2i and Panasonic GH-X cameras. The only thing that changes is the FOV. I had a 7D for a spell and went to the GH-1. Same DOF...but just a slightly smaller imperceivable field of view.
 
And to add, there have been so many threads related to this, so search around - but sensor size does not effect DOF.

I had written off the GH2 due to the no 25P thing. But as I have an AF100, its less of a concern, especially for corporate gigs with online or DVD delivery it makes no difference at all.

I have a 5DMKII thats not been used outside some previs since the AF100 came and only saw the GH2 for the first time Saturday when I was playing with Phillip Blooms.

You know what does it for me? The size. I think if Im going to have a DSLR it might as well be as damn well small as it can be and the GH2 is much smaller than the 5DMKII.
 
Noel Evans said:
And to add, there have been so many threads related to this, so search around - but sensor size does not effect DOF.
Click to expand...

Can you explain what you mean by this? Are you talking in theoretical terms in the sense that sensor size is not "directly" related to sensor size? Without further describing your statement, you will likely mislead a lot of people.
 
Ian-T said:
I'm not sure why people don't tell the whole story when it comes to this topic but FYI...you get exactly the same amount of DOF on the Canon 7D/60D/T2i and Panasonic GH-X cameras. The only thing that changes is the FOV. I had a 7D for a spell and went to the GH-1. Same DOF...but just a slightly smaller imperceivable field of view.
Click to expand...

What do you mean? DOF will be affected by focal length and your choice of focal length is affected by field of view. The 1.2x sensor size difference between the GH2 and 7D equates to about 0.5 stops more depth of field assuming both are at the same f-stop and that you choose your focal length to match field of view. This is why I am a bit confused by your statement. You could get a same field of view and DOF image on both cameras for example using a 50mm f2 on a 7d and a 42mm f1.6 on a GH2. These would be different lenses.
 
Yeah but we are not talking about changing the focal length to match the FOV. That would indeed make a larger sensor exhibit shallower DOF. But if you take changing the focal length away from the equation...using the same lens on all these cameras, from the same distance and at the same F-stop will display a slightly different FOV....but the same type of DOF. At least that's what I believe. The problem with trying to get the same FOV with the 5Dll is....the image gets too shallow..which means you have to stop down....defeating the purpose of its low light advantage. In the end...for making movies...the 7D/t2i/GH-1/2 are much better to mimc real movie cameras.
 
Last edited:
Ian-T said:
I'm not sure why people don't tell the whole story when it comes to this topic but FYI...you get exactly the same amount of DOF on the Canon 7D/60D/T2i and Panasonic GH-X cameras. The only thing that changes is the FOV. I had a 7D for a spell and went to the GH-1. Same DOF...but just a slightly smaller imperceivable field of view.
Click to expand...

You guys are out of your mind. :) DoF is NOT always the same, sorry. The DoF is dependent on the Circle of Confusion AND the magnification principle of the sensor size relative to the image to the final resultant resolution. I know people keep trying to say that DoF is the same, but it is NOT. Sensor size is relative to the magnification principle, and pixel size, if we keep resolution fixed, then the pixels will be different causing different Circles of Confusion.

DoF is relative to BOTH phenomenon.

Don't think this is the case?

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

7D, 55mm, F1.4. subject distance 10 feet.

Depth of field
Near limit 9.74 ft
Far limit 10.3 ft
Total 0.53 ft

In front of subject 0.26 ft (49%)
Behind subject 0.27 ft (51%)

Hyperfocal distance 369.5 ft
Circle of confusion 0.019 mm

Now, 5D, F1.4, subject distance 10 feet.

Subject distance 10 ft

Depth of field
Near limit 9.6 ft
Far limit 10.4 ft
Total 0.84 ft

In front of subject 0.4 ft (48%)
Behind subject 0.44 ft (52%)

Hyperfocal distance 234.1 ft
Circle of confusion 0.03 mm

Not the same. Sure, they are close in this example, but start playing with the numbers with the focal lengths, f-stop and subject distance. You will see that you can get some pretty different DoF in certain circumstances.

And given the fact that you have to move closer or further for the same framing on cameras with different sensor sizes, it does change your DoF for your specific shot you are trying to frame, which really matters more, wouldn't you think? I am SO TIRED of people talking about how sensor size doesn't matter. I shot with an HVX200 before I got my 7D. It does matter in realistic application of the camera and your distance and framing from the subject.

Now, between the AF100 and 7D, as I said earlier, they are REALLY close. I've learned to work with the AF100 sensor size, and can get relatively the same things. But doing from a 5D to a 7D, hardly. You will have to use different lenses for the same shots between different cameras, and DoF is HUGELY different to me.
 
Ah ok, so you are just talking theoretically. I mean dropping FOV out of the equation is extremely impractical, and doesnt really relate to any normal use of a camera. You might as well say that a 1/3" camera has the same DOF as 35mm because you could put the same lens on both, but no one would ever use that lens the same way on both, nor would it be possible for them to.

Then again the lower resolution of a 7D may increase depth of field a bit to close the gap between it and a GH2, assuming perfect viewing conditions of course.
 
nyvz said:
Ah ok, so you are just talking theoretically. I mean dropping FOV out of the equation is extremely impractical, and doesnt really relate to any normal use of a camera. You might as well say that a 1/3" camera has the same DOF as 35mm because you could put the same lens on both, but no one would ever use that lens the same way on both, nor would it be possible for them to.
Click to expand...
Well....all I was really addressing was Chadfish's question about DOF when he asked "Can one still get a decent amount?" Of course one can get a decent amount. It wasn't in reference to FOV.

Now I understand your point about the "realistic" use of a camera. But at the same time I can use the same argument about the 5Dll's ultra shallow DOF when it comes to shooting movies. In my example above I stated that in order to match the 7D/GH-2 FOV and get "similar" DOF it would have to stop down...which would darken the image and undermine its low light advantage.
 
Ian-T said:
I can use the same argument about the 5Dll's ultra shallow DOF when it comes to shooting movies. In my example above I stated that in order to match the 7D/GH-2 FOV and get "similar" DOF it would have to stop down...which would darken the image and undermine its low light advantage.
Click to expand...

This! I consider full frame to be a bit silly, because in order to really use those great f/1.4 lenses on FF you effectively have to stop down to get a manageable DOF, but that totally defeats the purpose of f/1.4 lenses because now you're losing light compared to f/1.4 on smaller sensors.

IMO 4/3 and APS-C are the best compromise, because the sensor is big enough to get a pretty shallow DOF at f/2.8 and a really shallow DOF at f/1.4 - while not being SO shallow you can't focus on anything and thus you can get both really shallow DOF and lots of light.
 
My Ex1 has a half inch sensor, and everyone was saying that you can get a more shallow DOF with the EX1 over a 1/3" sensor camera. Bigger sensor = shallower DOF.
 
nyvz said:
Well, I think you mean increases :)
Click to expand...

Yes, actually :) Sorry about that. Got confused at what resolution I was talking about :)

Easiest way to prove to yourself Take an image and reduce the size of it. Because you've lowered the resolution, more of the image will be in focus than before. Duh! :)
 
Jester2138 said:
IMO 4/3 and APS-C are the best compromise, because the sensor is big enough to get a pretty shallow DOF at f/2.8 and a really shallow DOF at f/1.4 - while not being SO shallow you can't focus on anything and thus you can get both really shallow DOF and lots of light.
Click to expand...

Agree 100% I love the APS-C size sensor. I refer to it as the ~S35 size myself which the AF100/GH# is close enough too. :) Best of all worlds.
 
Jester2138 said:
This! I consider full frame to be a bit silly, because in order to really use those great f/1.4 lenses on FF you effectively have to stop down to get a manageable DOF, but that totally defeats the purpose of f/1.4 lenses because now you're losing light compared to f/1.4 on smaller sensors.

IMO 4/3 and APS-C are the best compromise, because the sensor is big enough to get a pretty shallow DOF at f/2.8 and a really shallow DOF at f/1.4 - while not being SO shallow you can't focus on anything and thus you can get both really shallow DOF and lots of light.
Click to expand...
+1 to the Nth power. :thumbsup:
 
Jester2138 said:
This! I consider full frame to be a bit silly, because in order to really use those great f/1.4 lenses on FF you effectively have to stop down to get a manageable DOF, but that totally defeats the purpose of f/1.4 lenses because now you're losing light compared to f/1.4 on smaller sensors.

IMO 4/3 and APS-C are the best compromise, because the sensor is big enough to get a pretty shallow DOF at f/2.8 and a really shallow DOF at f/1.4 - while not being SO shallow you can't focus on anything and thus you can get both really shallow DOF and lots of light.
Click to expand...

This depends a bit. A FF35 lens on FF35 throws 4x as much light on the sensor at a particular stop as a lens on a m4/3 sensor at the same stop. For this reason, a FF35 sensor is generally about 2stops more "sensitive" than a m4/3 sensor. This tends to mean you CAN get 2stops less DOF if you want or stop down 2stops and get similar performance to m4/3. I doubt everyone would agree that f1.4 is on FF35 is unmanageable, I agree that does complicate many things and is often not appropriate, but it sure is a nice option to have in your pocket. Of course this concept varies due to photosite architecture and readout techniques, but for similar technology it should generally hold up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top