Sorry I have to post this here. Some of us might think of it differently. Recently, I've been coming back to my aps cameras. I've been noticing that my GH2 footages do not have the aesthetic cinematic look and feel that I'm used to make and see. Even with shooting with mount adapters. It doesn't look "cinematic" to me. It doesn't taste the same. It's more of a somewhat flat and dull, less dynamic. It feels more of a video. Also in terms of photography, it is a some what of a bad choice for some but worst choice for me. It is very lagging and misses focus. It seems to be asking for more light to bump up the shutter speed, even at 400 and with IS on, a simple portrait shoot becomes a bit blurry or blurry. 2x crop factor is also a cumbersum to stablize when shooting free. What do you think?
GH2 second thought (coming back to my aps-c)
- Thread starter khina
- Start date
bronxjragon
Well-known member
I came from a GH13 and what I really miss is that the camera really, truly is setup with video in mind. Autofocusing was amazing. But you're right, the video looks well very video! Also you can forget doing photography on the side with it, truly terrible.
I do miss capturing very detailed images with the hack and no moire problems. But having a powerful photography camera and great "film" camera in one APS-C body is my preference over a shitty photo camera and very nice, but very "video" look camera.
bronxjragon
Well-known member
True, but I can honestly say even with wedding videography, it's never been a big deal for me. I can think of only one time I've ever needed the "no recording limit" feature of the GH1 and that was just because my XHA1 was being serviced so the GH1 was my only option for the set-it and forget-it B cam to get a wide angle shot of the wedding. How often do you need to record more than 20 minutes straight?
deltoidjohn
Veteran
Both systems have their advantages, and I think it's important to make a choice and then stick with it with regards to your system. Being heavily invested in a system through quality lenses means you will (a) be getting the most out of the system you choose; and (b) you will be less likely to switch cameras if another company comes out with something. This means you will be more likely to wait around for the next update from your chosen manufacturer rather than just jumping ship, which can be costly and time consuming.
I've managed to make GH footage look like canon footage, but I just can't do it the other way round. Can't add the sharpness. There is not one thing so far I've found about the Canons that can do video like the GH series. the rest is on set benefit. The screen, the EVF, the multitude of lenses. Yes you have buy one superwide piece of glass but that's it. If I want to take stills I whip out the D90. Having both the canon and gh isn't really helpful to me as owning say a gh and a decent nikon (as their video modes just don't cut it for me) is probably that I only need nikon glass, as the lack of rings on lglass is a dealbreaker. Even the focus marks I don't like. The little window with the numbers thing, and that the ring don't stop when you turn it. Not a canon guy. But for video, I still maintain that I can make the gh look like canon footage and not vice versa. I think that the 'cinematic' traits you're looking for can be added, and that there's enough from the footage off the cam to go there. I dunno. Sunday morning. Some thoughts. Coffee.
David W. Jones
Veteran
I'm sorry, but if you can't shoot good looking video or get great looking photos with any of the modern camera offerings available today then it's not the cameras fault. Sure each camera has areas where it shines or lacks, but in all honesty any modern camera is capable of delivering a great product in the right hands. It's the carpenter not the hammer.
GrahamH
Well-known member
+1 to that, especially the stuff about focus problems and soft portraits.
Ian-T
Veteran
David Jones echoed what I was already thinking. I can't for the life of me understand why, when there are a ton of very beautiful film(ic) types of work in places like Vimeo etc., people say the "camera" looks like video. That has nothing at all to do with the camera...lol. But it does say a lot about the shooter.
Sage
Well-known member
+1000
Can some one tell me in strait words whats so wrong with the GH2s stills,i had a 550D and stills are stills,is there any way i could see [view]the extra few pixals,what is needed to spot the difference,if its on the control side i dont give a damn as its video i have this thing for,with the 14-42mm lens AF is brilliant.
Ian-T
Veteran
I'll say this....not a D@## thing...lol.
There is a lot of mixup with what is true and what some percieve to be true. The mixup is people making the "better" claim. What does one mean by "better?" Maybe it's true that a Canon might be "better" for shooting stills because of easier access to the manual controls vs a menu system to where one would fumble to get that quick shot. So that just means a professional will probably choose a Canon over a GH-x for taking stills. I wouldn't blame them (look at a T2i vs 7D...I think the pro would choose a 7D over a T2i...but in the end they can produce the same image if one knows what they are doing) But inregards to final image...they both take just as good stills in my opinion (this is coming from a former Canon 7D owner). Again...it goes back to the shooter.
Maybe it's because of the slightly bigger sensor (and I do mean "slightly"..) one might argue that resolution has an impact. But then again put them side by side...I don't think you'd tell a big difference between the GH-2's 16 Megapixels vs the Canon's 18 Megapixels. No...that can't be it.
Maybe it's the so called crop issue..?? But Canon's 1.6 crop vs GH-2's 1.85 crop (that's right...not a 2.0 crop like many folks like to post) is not that big of a difference. So...um...that can't be it either.
Maybe it is the color rendition between the two. I personally like Canon colors. But...I think the panasonic GH-2's color is more true to life. So this is subjective. This is what I think people are up in arms about when it comes to the two. Color.
If we are talking about the Full Frame vs M4/3 then it would be harder to argue for Panasonic.
But for the ever so slightly bigger APS-C sensor vs Micro 4/3s...nahhh. They go back and forth. No one is leagues better than the other. I just think folks need to be more specific when they say things like "Canon is way better" because it all depends on which Canon they are talking about...IMO.I also believe, because of these "mixups", the Canon ends up having a sort of placebo effect on how one judges the images from these cameras. We end up believing one is better ...just because the next guy says so.
Ok...I'll shut up now.
Last edited:
cowpunk52
Veteran
There's nothing wrong with the stills, the GH2 is an excellent digital still camera and it's very easy to get great shots with it. I shoot stock for a few major agency's with a GH2 and the performance is miles beyond acceptable, and these companies always inspect my photos at 100% and they have to be technically flawless. I used to shoot a 5D, but switched after doing my own side by side comparisons - and none of the companies said a word. As long as IQ is up to their standards, they couldn't care less what I used.
In all honesty, it was said perfectly before - if you can't get great photos (or video for that matter) out of any of the modern digital cameras today, it's not the cameras fault. What camera you use no longer determines how good your photos can be, not anymore. In fact, that hasn't been the case for a long, long time. Anyone that says otherwise is trying to justify their own shortcomings or they're trying to sell you something. I know that no one wants to admit the fault lies with the operator - not when there's so many juicy expensive toys right around the corner that promise to turn anyone into a brilliant photographer - but please, don't buy into marketing hype; focus on developing skills.
Last edited:
Zxander34
Well-known member
amen.
Sometimes that old saying does not apply. We all have this toughness philosphical atitude and standard that a few times we have to bow to the truth, the one that works better that gives out the most result. Sometimes we apply our words of wisdom onto people to make us more wise but hide our stupidity because we are most likely are that same person. If GH2 is so great to you with your "right hands" and you're a great "carpenter" why change "hammer" when VHS was fine? There are times when a hammer is so rusty and broken that it's better to nail the nails with the right "hammer". Is't the carpenter's fault or is't the hammer? A bad carpenter is when he refuses to use the tool that nails the most nails all the way into before sunrise. A little bent on those nails then he comes a jackhammer. Where as a good carpenter waits after sunrise then uses the right hammer for nailing nails before sunset. A rare times when a carpenter strangely uses his forehead nailing nails.
-A bad carpenter
Peace
I have absolutely no complaints about the video/cinema look of my GH2. Ive worked with Canons, Sony HD Cams, and I am extremely pleased with the GH2 quality.
Its not the best camera for photos, but there again... most great photos are about capturing the moment with the right metering. Many people shooting in "P" then you cant fault the camera.
Ive captured better stuff with my Canon G9 and LX5 then i've seen with a lot of 7D/5D/D90/etc...(Not that i'd ever consider using a LX or G9 in a professional situation... just wouldn't look right
)
For a camera under $1k + a few accessories, you cant find a better feature/quality packed HDSLR.
At the end of the day it is a "Tool"... there are hundreds of options to change many of the properties of the RAW footage to further fit your video needs, so there is no reason to complain about the "filmic" look.
Its not the best camera for photos, but there again... most great photos are about capturing the moment with the right metering. Many people shooting in "P" then you cant fault the camera.
Ive captured better stuff with my Canon G9 and LX5 then i've seen with a lot of 7D/5D/D90/etc...(Not that i'd ever consider using a LX or G9 in a professional situation... just wouldn't look right
)For a camera under $1k + a few accessories, you cant find a better feature/quality packed HDSLR.
At the end of the day it is a "Tool"... there are hundreds of options to change many of the properties of the RAW footage to further fit your video needs, so there is no reason to complain about the "filmic" look.
I wish I could agree that it's the user alone who determines the level of videoish feel of the footage but I do see where the OP is coming from. The Panasonics (GH1/2) are the hardest to tame concerning that issue. I own GH2 since February and still haven't figured out what it is. It drives me crazy, some shots lack it completely and look and feel gorgeous, some have 'video' written all over - and it doesn't matter if it's wide shots or shallow dof portrait shots.
I stick to certain rules and workflow to avoid it, I only use legacy prime lenses, no kit stuff or modern 'analytic' lenses and yet. It can get very frustrating and I find myself going back to 5D more and more despite feeling bad about the resolution step down.
I stick to certain rules and workflow to avoid it, I only use legacy prime lenses, no kit stuff or modern 'analytic' lenses and yet. It can get very frustrating and I find myself going back to 5D more and more despite feeling bad about the resolution step down.
Last edited:
Sage
Well-known member
As it stands, the division is this:
-The gh2 is a god send if you have professional color tools and really know how to use them to convert linear video into a panny 's-log'
-If you don't, the gh2 holds your work back from being taken seriously because it has that air of video out of the box (which is a bigger loss than resolution is a gain in this limited situation)
The complication is completely understandable. If you find yourself in the later category w/ a gh2, shoot in nostalgic, with contrast -2 and saturation up. Use old, (telephoto primes*) diffusion filled lenses from the 70s. This will get you closer to where you want to go; then just find a solid colorist for work that is critical to you.
*and lighting* without video to log conversion, lighting the subject is the best way to play those linear video values to seem like log film
-The gh2 is a god send if you have professional color tools and really know how to use them to convert linear video into a panny 's-log'
-If you don't, the gh2 holds your work back from being taken seriously because it has that air of video out of the box (which is a bigger loss than resolution is a gain in this limited situation)
The complication is completely understandable. If you find yourself in the later category w/ a gh2, shoot in nostalgic, with contrast -2 and saturation up. Use old, (telephoto primes*) diffusion filled lenses from the 70s. This will get you closer to where you want to go; then just find a solid colorist for work that is critical to you.
*and lighting* without video to log conversion, lighting the subject is the best way to play those linear video values to seem like log film
Last edited: