GH2 second thought (coming back to my aps-c)

[wgzn]

i was really unhappy with the "look" of everything i shot with my first tests with the GH2. but i was using the lumix glass (20mm and 14-140)
once i got a m4/3 to nikon adapter, i was able to achieve an aesthetic that was more on par with what i was used to getting from other still cameras.

the big downside though is you lose all autofocus and IS features. but hey, we're supposed to be pros here, right: ; )

i did a side by side test. and actually liked what came from the gh2 BETTER than the comparably equipped 60D
but as they say. beauty is in the eye of the beer holder...

 

[Ian-T]

I'll be the first to say I think the culprit is the kit glass. It looks nice and sharp....but something about it triggers in camera sharpening. That's why folks always cry "video." Use any legacy glass (no matter how sharp) and it's always a different story. I'm speaking mainly about the 14-140 lens (not necessarily the 20/1.7).

 

[Boncrek]

I've gone back and forth over this issue several times and I've settled on the 60D.
Why? I've struggled to find a standard zoom lens solution for the GH2
that has a fast constant aperture and IS (comparable to the Canon 17-55mm).
The 60D/T2i/T3i also offer live sound monitoring via the ML hack which is advantageous to me over dual sound.
For simple interviews a lav straight into the camera will be just fine and with those Canons I can monitor it.
Sure I love the GH2's sharpness and lack of moire/aliasing but I prefer those other
practical features more, so its a personal thing based on what you can live with.
It is for these reasons I have put my sights on getting a Canon DSLR over the GH2.

 

[flinty]

I'll be the first to say I think the culprit is the kit glass. It looks nice and sharp....but something about it triggers in camera sharpening. That's why folks always cry "video." Use any legacy glass (no matter how sharp) and it's always a different story. I'm speaking mainly about the 14-140 lens (not necessarily the 20/1.7).

Ian first thanks for your detailed reply


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.

also Cowpunk52
but i dont 100% agree about the lumix lenses all the tests i have done with my 6 lenses outdoors i can never see any difference as long as they are on the same film setting etc,indoors is another story,but i may have been filming and taking the odd still for over 35 years here in old England but i know compared to most i am still pretty poor and a complete amateur who still needs plenty of advice.

 

[khina]

+1 to that, especially the stuff about focus problems and soft portraits.

I apologize if my post get you a little excited. I'm not complaining or whining about the GH2. I might had not make myself clear but I'm just thinking and maybe other people have the same thought. I don't think I said a word about soft photograph. There are many times when fast focus and correct auto-focus are required to shoot a simple protrait or candid. I don't think a "carpenter" has the time to tell the subject to freeze a moment. My self will use the camera that will do the job fast and correct. I don't have time to stick to the old philosophical saying. Any more thoughts instead of the +1? Do please share your knowledge on the photography focus skill because like I said I'm a bad carpenter. Like I replied to David W. Jones below:

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

 

[bronxjragon]

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.

Lot of words, but really not saying much.

 

[Ian-T]

Lot of words, but really not saying much.

Ok. There's help for that you know.

 

[bronxjragon]

Ok. There's help for that you know.

Wasn't being facetious. Everything you posted on this thread just points to "its not about the camera, its about the shooter." You acknowledge they are both different tools, go on to say one is perfectly good for something but another one has a certain look to it. Inherently you think one is better than the other. Which is perfectly fine. You seem to already understand people use different tools for different reasons. So one will always be better than the other, as you say, subjectively. The GH2 IS better than a Canon APS-C for you, while a Canon IS better for someone else. So I guess in the end, it isn't subjective to the shooter, it is a fact - one camera is better than the other.

For a lot of people, the GH2 as a photography camera is absolute rubbish. So there is something damn wrong with it to many professionals, who knows, maybe because they don't like the "true to life" colors. I understand what you mean by that -- whenever I nailed a picture with the GH1 it was outstanding, more outstanding than a great photo I took with the 60D. It seems a little more "HDR" so to speak. But again, it may have to do with the in camera sharpening.

But whatever. I digress. My point is, one camera is better than the other. Which one? Depends on you. You can't go and say its all about the shooter. Someone wanting a softer look will have a horrid time with the GH2, same goes for the Canon if they want a sharper look.

 

[daihard]

Look, every camera is going to give you different results. We use Nikons for our business because the colors are much better and the low light abilities of the D3s are far beyond that of the 5D and 7D (even their flagship Mark EOS-1D, believe me... I sifted through over 4000 photos every 4 days for over a year). For action photography and some video options on the side, id use Canons. But either way, i've seen award winning photographs from both.
On with my rant...I think we can all agree here that the GH2 is ANYTHING BUT A RUSTY HAMMER.
If anything, it may be a more efficient tool then others... It could be, the "carpenter is just being nostalgic and refuses to see the benefit of using a newer tool.
My point is, all of these are tools at the end of the day. I've seen amazing footage from all these cameras... including Nikon.
THe GH2, with the proper settings and an experienced hand, you can produce footage matching any of the Canon offerings up to the 5D (5D being that its a full frame and you can get shallow depth at a shorter distance... With a Nikon 85 f1.4, i can get crazy shallow depth but its from telephoto ranges).
Anyhow "cinematic" look is such a stupid marker to put cameras against, its your personal taste...
If you cant use the GH2 then you will go back to your old trusty hammer, thats it. ("Cant use" isn't to imply inept, just preference)
There are huge limitations on the Canon video offerings compared to the GH series and the newer technology being implemented.
But if you feel spending more money for a camera line using older/limited technology then so be it. (The 60D is the worst...choice, its not a T2i or T3i...or even the 7D, the 60 is like a lost dog and waste of monies... I digress)
Soon Canon will come out with a new camera, and I bet monies that it will be in line with where the Panasonic is now... with regards to video, compression, functionality, and size.
As i stated before, there are hundreds of tools to change the output to your taste... both Canon and Panasonic (Namely the the 5DtoRGB software).
But you cant do anything if you dont use the "tool" the right way, in the first place.

I can't even begin too count, how many freelance idiots i've met with amazing cameras and have no clue how to take a simple photo / video... overpowered computers to check their emails, huge trucks for their bachelor lifestyles, 52inch flat screens for Rom-Coms...

Love it or hate it, the Panasonic...like the Canon is changing the direction of the industry, and both can produce Cinema quality/look.
I choose the GH2 because of the "unlocking Vitality magic", run and gun situations being mostly solo, anti-aliasing, video options, and expense (I cant afford a 5D + extras, when i already have a great stock of D700 lenses at my disposal).

Dai-Lon
http://www.dailonweiss.com/reels-recent/
http://www.kristinaweiss.com/Magyar/

 

[Boncrek]

There are huge limitations on the Canon video offerings compared to the GH series and the newer technology being implemented.
But if you feel spending more money for a camera line using older/limited technology then so be it. (The 60D is the worst...choice, no T2i or T3i...even the 7D, the 60 is like a lost dog and waste of monies... I digress)

Why is the 60D the worst choice?
From where Im standing its the best choice since I require a stills/video camera with a rugged body with manaul audio and a fast Image-Stabilized Zoom.
The 60D ML hack and the 17-55mm F2.8 IS lens do that well.
If Olympus bodies had proper video functionality then I'd be on that bandwagon and saving for an E5 with 14-35mm lens.
But alas they do not.
If the Sony/Pentax/Nikon Offerings had better video functionality then I'd be on those boats too but they also do not deliver.
I haven't seen anything else on the market that fulfill those requirements other than a 60D/17-55mm combo.
And the price is right

 

[stip]

I can't even begin too count, how many freelance idiots i've met with amazing cameras and have no clue how to take a simple photo / video... overpowered computers to check their emails, huge trucks for their bachelor lifestyles, 52inch flat screens for Rom-Coms...

daihard, let me quote my dad (photographer since the 60's): "I must redefine my idea of 'true art' nowadays. I see guys shooting with Nikon D3s and the most expensive lenses and they manage to take the most boring or crappiest pictures. That's true art!"

 

[TheDingo]

I owned the Canon 60D for 3 months, then bought a Panasonic GH-2 to compare, and ended up selling the Canon 60D...

Canon 60D Pros
- Solid and robust camera body
- Canon EF lenses
- Great still image quality
- Can rent Canon lenses

Canon 60D Cons
- Horrible image destroying moire would show from time to time : Canon 60D vs Panasonic GH2 Evil Moiré Test
- Soft and less detailed video image ( GH-2 is sharper )
- HDMI output drops to 480P as soon as your start recording
- Canon H.264 CODEC does not use B frames, so files are larger with less detail
- 60D Camera audio is 10 dB noisier than GH-2
- 12 minute maximum clip length

Panasonic GH-2 Pros
- Video image is sharp and detailed
- Virtually no moire at all, so shooting patterns is not a problem
- Very good in-camera audio ( -63 dB noise floor ) : Sample of Audio Recorded Directly by GH-2 Camera
- Very natural looking color ( does not have that Canon "Kodachrome" look )
- Can use almost any lens with the right adapter ( my favorite are the Zeiss lenses with Nikon ZF mount )
- HDMI output stays at 1080P when you start recording, so it's easy to focus with a decent monitor
- Can record as long as your battery or memory card lasts, so you can shoot for 2+ hours if you like.
- Has a great "punch in" focus assist which greatly helps achieve critical focus
- Has a professional grade "big brother" ( AF-100 ) that you can rent

Panasonic GH-2 Cons
- Most of the image stabilized lenses are quite slow ( this is changing, but boy are they taking their time with this )
- Camera body is small and does not feel like you could use it as a "hammer" ( Canon and Nikon are more robust )
- Still photos are pretty good in RAW mode, but still not as good as Canon or Nikon in low-light ( I am hoping that the GH-3 will fix this )
- Audio input is 2.5mm instead of the more common 3.5mm

NOTE: If you don't know how to grade your footage in post, you will probably like the look of the video from Canon DSLRs much more than the Panasonic GH-2. If you can properly grade your GH-2 footage, you can create almost any look you like and never have to deal with f*cking moiré or lack of detail in your final image ever again.

 

[Boncrek]

You can also monitor audio from the 60D, AFAIK you cant do that with the GH2.
I basically live on this forum so I know all bout the GH2's advantages over Canon DSLRs.
I used to be on the GH2 bandwagon (and trust me, I loved the image quality of the narrative/cinema stuff) but got fed up with the native lens selection and the audio workarounds when it came to run n gun shooting.
For my type of run n gun/interview shooting, the 60D wins out by a large mark for the reasons I listed above.

*IF Panasonic comes out with that rumored fast OIS zoom lens AND the GH2 hack (or some other method) finds a way of monitoring audio THEN I'll jump back unto the GH2 bandwagon. Adding a battery grip accessory to improve handholdability would be appreciated as well.

 

[TheDingo]

You can also monitor audio from the 60D, you cant do that with the GH2. I used to be on the GH2 bandwagon but got fed up with the native lens selection and the audio workarounds. For my type of run n gun/interview shooting, the 60D wins out by a large mark for the reasons I listed above.

...And I feel exactly the opposite. Most of my work for the government is run'n'gun interviews, which is why I love the GH-2 for this. Yes the audio monitoring issue is a little bit of a pain, but I find moiré a much bigger issue for me. I love Canon and Nikon cameras for stills, but for video my best choice is the GH-2. All of this might change when the new Sony cameras are announced on August 24th, and when the Canon 5D MK3 finally shows up. ( sounds like 2012 at the moment )

 

[daihard]

Why is the 60D the worst choice?
From where Im standing its the best choice since I require a stills/video camera with a rugged body with manaul audio and a fast Image-Stabilized Zoom...

My apologies, the camera is a great video and photo camera... dont get me wrong. Just that the camera is a bit awkward with regards to price and functionality.
But, I guess the 600D fits more into that "odd" category then the 60D, I guess im judging based on the fact I havent seen much of the 60D in the industry im in. Mostly its 7/5Ds

"From a spec and feature point of view it sits almost exactly half-way between the EOS 550D and the EOS 7D."
http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/slrs/canon_eos60d

 

[daihard]

daihard, let me quote my dad (photographer since the 60's): "I must redefine my idea of 'true art' nowadays. I see guys shooting with Nikon D3s and the most expensive lenses and they manage to take the most boring or crappiest pictures. That's true art!"

ROFL! So true, you almost cant help but take something amazing... and yet, SO many fall SO short! I wanna meet your Dad!

 

[Boncrek]

...And I feel exactly the opposite. Most of my work for the government is run'n'gun interviews, which is why I love the GH-2 for this. Yes the audio monitoring issue is a little bit of a pain, but I find moiré a much bigger issue for me. I love Canon and Nikon cameras for stills, but for video my best choice is the GH-2. All of this might change when the new Sony cameras are announced on August 24th, and when the Canon 5D MK3 finally shows up. ( sounds like 2012 at the moment )

I guess because of where I live we dont encounter many sources of moire/aliasing so its not that big of an issue.
I live in Jamaica and my good friend owns a 7D and he hasn't seen anything resembling aliasing/moire like we were expecting.
I believe its more a matter of perception, if you look for it you will find it basically.
The average viewer prob doesn't recognize half of what we see as creators of this art.

Im also looking forward to that Sony announcement because if what the rumors say are true then it will be a better DSLR for my purposes than the 60D is right now (although we haven't heard anythign on how the Sony A77 will manage audio so I'll wait and see)
I guess Im just tired of debating one camera's specs over another when good work is coming from all of them all the time despite all these drawbacks.

I respesct that the GH2 is best for you, and I know it is a great camera.
I have gigs of downloaded videos showing off the GH2 superior image quality so i know its a legit cinema tool
If only it had the kind of industry support the Canon DSLRs have along with their lens selection. Then I'd be excited for the GH2 again lol

 

[Boncrek]

My apologies, the camera is a great video and photo camera... dont get me wrong. Just that the camera is a bit awkward with regards to price and functionality.
But, I guess the 600D fits more into that "odd" category then the 60D, I guess im judging based on the fact I havent seen much of the 60D in the industry im in. Mostly its 7/5Ds

"From a spec and feature point of view it sits almost exactly half-way between the EOS 550D and the EOS 7D."
http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/slrs/canon_eos60d

You're basically right on all points there.
It is an odd sort of product for Canon to put out especially with the 7D and T2i/T3i segemnts already in full force.
If the 60D was not present however I would have to live with the T3i and I'd rather not deal with the smaller/weaker body.

Coming from my DVX I became a lover of HD resolution but I've recently found that resolution isnt everything.
Ergonomics and a small workeable audio solution became more important than the resolution of the Canons or moire/aliasing.
All DSLRs will have some compromise so its just a matter of deciding which ones you can live with.
I can live with the 720P resolution (still better than SD btw) if I get a fast zoom lens with IS and live audio monitoring.
Getting a great stills camera is really just a bonus after that

 

[TheDingo]

I guess because of where I live we dont encounter many sources of moire/aliasing so its not that big of an issue.

Moiré can show up any time you are shooting something with a fine pattern, things like: bricks in a wall, the weave/stripe of a suit jacket, venetian blinds, vertical blinds, car grills, window screens, kitchen strainers, wall paper patterns, carpet patterns, sky-scraper windows, tennis nets, etc...

The bugger of it all is that often you don't notice the moiré until editing your footage and then you either live with it, blur parts of the shot ( which looks weird ), or loose the shot completely.

With audio, I always shoot with multiple recorders, so I have in-camera audio and at least one digital recorder going at the same time. If there is a problem with the in-camera sound ( I am pretty skilled with audio so this is a rare event ), I can always use the digital recorder audio as my back up.

Audio is a big deal for me, which is also why I choose the GH-2 because it provides me with an extra 10 dB of audio range compared to Canon DSLRs. This can make quite a difference if you have to boost the audio levels and then noise can become a problem.

 

[Boncrek]

Moiré can show up any time you are shooting something with a fine pattern, things like: bricks in a wall, the weave/stripe of a suit jacket, venetian blinds, vertical blinds, car grills, window screens, kitchen strainers, wall paper patterns, carpet patterns, sky-scraper windows, tennis nets, etc...

The bugger of it all is that often you don't notice the moiré until editing your footage and then you either live with it, blur parts of the shot ( which looks weird ), or loose the shot completely.

With audio, I always shoot with multiple recorders, so I have in-camera audio and at least one digital recorder going at the same time. If there is a problem with the in-camera sound ( I am pretty skilled with audio so this is a rare event ), I can always use the digital recorder audio as my back up.

Audio is a big deal for me, which is also why I choose the GH-2 because it provides me with an extra 10 dB of audio range compared to Canon DSLRs. This can make quite a difference if you have to boost the audio levels and then noise can become a problem.

I know about the moire and aliasing , its just that its not as noticeable or prevalent as we were led to believe from online posts such as these.
I guess we all want perfection and anythign that ruins/degrades or image needs to die! lol

Doesn't the lack of audio monitoring on the GH2 throw you off then?
I'd love to see the run n' gun setup you've used for the GH2 if possible.