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

Chadfish

Chadfish

Veteran
OK, yes slightly provocative thread title... I don't want a war, I just want a camera.

I am an EX1 user getting to a point where I want a little DSLR video fun. I'm practically sold on the GH2 judging by image quality. I was liking the 60D, but I don't like the moire thing, and I don't like this red darks and yellow skin thing I've seen and experienced while trying to color it away. A 60D plus is you can do manual audio levels(I'm a sound guy too), and shoot 1080p/30 - two things I really want.

On the other hand I do not like that I can't shoot in 1080p/30 with the GH2. Am I right that you can't get 1080/30 on a GH2? No workaround? I hear you can do 720p/30 at 17mbps, and 1080p/24 at 24mbps. A lot of my stuff ends up on TV so 30p works best for that.

I want to cut footage with the old EX1 sometimes too, so it would be nice to hear from any GH2/EX1 owners. Or 60D/GH2 owners too please.

So what don't you like? What do you LOVE. Without just badmouthing Canon, why is the GH2 better? The main thing I hear in favor of the Canon is that you can use Canon lens'. Well I own no lens', and imagine that the 20 or so available from Panny would be plenty.
 
Yes, you can do 30p with the gh2 in 1080, but its hidden in the 80% variable speed feature. (no sound though)
And one of my fav things about the gh2 is lens selection - literally any lens ever made can be adapted to it because of m43 flange distance; the ext crop even makes 16mm glass worthwhile.
Someone is even making an electronic Canon mount. And for tech reasons, native m43 glass can go to places mass produced cheap glass has never gone...

I think the implementation of the Gh2 lcd and firmware feels really cheap and cobbled together, like a joke.
But my filmmaker eye cannot refuse the beauty that only this dslr is capable of.
half.jpg

gh2smooth.jpg
 
I switched because I was so sick of being afraid to shoot a scene in 60p (close to no moire on the gh13)
 
Chadfish said:
So what don't you like? What do you LOVE. Without just badmouthing Canon, why is the GH2 better? The main thing I hear in favor of the Canon is that you can use Canon lens'. Well I own no lens', and imagine that the 20 or so available from Panny would be plenty.
Click to expand...

Had my GH2 for a few days now and it's currently sitting next to my 7D which I've had for a year but is going on eBay soon. Forgive my slightly passionate post but I finally feel passionate about a camera again. I missed that feeling.

There is no contest. The GH2 is clearly superior in video. That is not my opinion - it is demonstrably true in both tests and real-world applications.

It is *much* sharper, resolves more accurate color, has no moire or aliasing, no record limits, flip out screen and EVF (both of which are SO useful), accepts a more varied lens selection, ETC crop mode which is useful, audio controls and on-screen monitoring...

I could go on, but you get the idea. If you're shooting video there is absolutely no reason to buy a Canon over a GH2 IMO.
 
Jester has it nailed... It's a sweet camera. I shot a lot of 7D and that's a great camera, but it's so soft comparatively.... and the run times and the overheating were a PITA.
 
I love my Canon T2i (same camera as the 60D without the flip-out LCD and the manual audio gain).

But I love my GH2 more.

To be fair, I do miss the million pixel LCD and the 3.5mm mic input on the Canon -- but you can't see that stuff on the screen.
 
I purchased the RainbowImaging AF Confirm Pentax PK K Lens To Canon EOS EF Mount adapter back on Oct 28 2010 and downloaded the Canon 60D movie mode video the next day and was ready to order the 60D until I seen the first GH2 native video files and to make a long story short I ordered the GH2 and Voigtländer Nokton 25mm f/0.95 soon after and today I know it was the right choice. BTW anyone interested in that Canon 60D movie mode unlisted youtube 720p video here it is:
 
I eventually went for the 60D. I like the shape / weight better, manual audio with better quality, and I feel it gives a more 'filmic' look...
The GH2 resolves more detail and therefore looks much sharper and that makes it a better camera for almost all film formats, except fiction in my opinion.

GH2 is better for interviews (no moire), for landscapes and nature (more detail and resolution) but for narratives I prefer the softer (still HD) look of the Canon's. Movies always seem a bit soft to me, which is why the Canons resemble it more I guess. Too much detail and it starts to look more like video...

But hey that's me. I would be happy with both and I'm sure you can impress everyone with both, as long as you know what you're doing.
 
Thanks for the input! Keep it coming. I'm open to hear from Canon fanboys too. I'm not here to argue. I'm here to learn. I think that the sharper image of the GH2 may be a better match for my EX1. I did just shoot with a T2I and, didn't think the footage blended too well. Though I think the camera operator wasn't as experienced with his T2i as I had hoped. That footage, shot with a 600 Arri/Softbox, combined with some consumer halogen overheads (iKea ceiling lights on a rail that you could aim) turned out way yellow. He was doing WB, but maybe he had it in some form of semi-auto mode.

Here are before/after stills:
Before
attachment.php


After
attachment.php


And here's the video. Anything with me making coffee, and product shots of coffee are EX1, and the performance stuff is T2i. I graded the main shot of guitar/vocals, and the main backup vocal part, and just did 3-way color on the other stuff. Still red/yellowish, but corrected somewhat. It was a struggle to take it from where it started to a natural looking color. To the naked eye, it did not look yellow in the room.

I'm hoping to get that sweet bokeh, but more natural color with a GH2.
 
I own a 7D and I have used a GH2. I would have purchased a GH2 if I had not bought an AF100 instead. It clearly to me has a much better image quality, hands down. I will say, the LCD screen on it is less than desirable to me, and the quality of construction is not as nice as the 7D, but it's handling of moire/aliasing is much better. It's NOT zero. I can make the GH2 alias/moire in situations. That said, it's not like the Canon moire that happens MUCH lower in spatial frequency and is REALLY distracting. Since the GH2 is only luma moire, you can get away with it more in a shot since in most cases it will be much more subtle.

I've stuck with Canon lenses and am awaiting the Birger adapter because I want to be able to switch back and forth between EOS mounts on Canon cameras, and the Epic series if I happen to move up there eventually. There are a lot of m4/3 lenses that are nice, but I don't want to be stuck just with the m4/3 mount.

And I am not selling my 7D. I still use it for stills and I think for stills work it is superior to the GH2.
 
So how does the 720p/30 on the gH2 look? Does the fact that it's 17kbps degrade the image much? I'll probably be using that mode most since I am not a 24p fan. And what about firmware hack possibilities? Think someone could hack up a 1080p/30 mode? I have not looked into exactly what's been done with the GH1 firmware hacks. Could I expect some good things in coming months?
 
Chadfish said:
So how does the 720p/30 on the gH2 look? Does the fact that it's 17kbps degrade the image much? I'll probably be using that mode most since I am not a 24p fan. And what about firmware hack possibilities? Think someone could hack up a 1080p/30 mode? I have not looked into exactly what's been done with the GH1 firmware hacks. Could I expect some good things in coming months?
Click to expand...
There is a 1080/30p mode on the GH2. It's the 80% speed mode while in 24p. But, as Sage said, there's no audio recorded while in this mode.
 
And lets be clear, 720p on the Canon cameras is HORRIBLE. I NEVER use it because the image quality is so bad. We just gave up on it.
 
I don't understand why someone would pick a camera with a softer look even if it seems like the GH2 is too sharp. You can get rid of sharpness in post without many problems but getting sharpness in post (especially with aliasing and moire going on) is almost impossible to do and still look good.
 
Svart said:
I don't understand why someone would pick a camera with a softer look even if it seems like the GH2 is too sharp. You can get rid of sharpness in post without many problems but getting sharpness in post (especially with aliasing and moire going on) is almost impossible to do and still look good.
Click to expand...

Perhaps by "soft" he was referring to bokeh? I mean, real film cameras for movies can shoot very sharp, or not. So I think it's a choice the DP makes whether or not to make things soft.
 
I'm not a fanboy, so I may not be fully-equipped to answer this question. :D

But…

I've shot with every single Canon or Panasonic DSLR made, from the 1DMkIV and 5D to the original GH1 and even the hacked GH13. I've owned most of them and rented the others. And now I own two GH2s, and an AF-100. Each and every one has their strengths and weaknesses, but ultimately I chose the GH2 because of what I felt was a superior video image both in sharpness and color reproduction.
 
Stab said:
...I prefer the softer (still HD) look of the Canon's. Movies always seem a bit soft to me, which is why the Canons resemble it more I guess. Too much detail and it starts to look more like video...
Click to expand...

The first time I put the GH2 video up next to the 7D video I thought I had totally messed up the 7D and it was slightly out of focus on every shot. Turns out the GH2 is just that much sharper. Besides, even if you prefer soft HD to sharp HD, it's possible to soften the GH2 but impossible to sharpen the Canons. On another note, I think the Hollywood folks shooting on RED and 35mm would disagree with you on your point that "too much detail and it starts to look more like video."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top