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

[daihard]

"lack of audio monitoring" isn't a factor when your using an external recorder.
Anything high end, ill use my Zoom... and even that, I set on WAV - auto gain.
As for the GH2, the 192.. (now with hack 448 bit audio) I really dont have a problem glancing at the peak audio bars... Usually im too busy paying attention to the shot, to worry about the audio... (isnt that the whole "run n gun" attitude anyway? As few large adjustments as possible)
With the case of audio verse video artifacts, i put more weight on not having Moiré over poor audio any day. Of course it all depends on what your shooting as well.
As far as native lenses, the Pana SUCK... However, the pans can use almost any lens out there... and frankly if it comes down to image quality/selection/PRICE, Nikon ftw... and I can use Nikon with my GH2.

 

[TheDingo]

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.

It all depends on what you shoot. Here are two more examples to look at:

Canon 60D vs Panasonic GH-2 Moire Test : Watch This In Full-Screen Mode

Alister Chapman: Canon T2i, First Impressions, Initial Tests

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

I listen to the audio from my digital recorder for things like room-noise and outdoor noise. I am pretty good a placing mics, so mic noise is rarely an issue. And I watch the audio level meters on my GH-2 as a visual check. ( I also test my gear before every shoot )

My run'n'gun set-up is pretty simple. If it's just me and nobody else ( and I have to set-up and shoot as fast as possible ), then I have one bright orange pelican case with my GH-2 body ( only one right now ) and my lenses and adapters, a Sekonic C-500 color meter ( expensive but very handy when your have to shoot with available light ), a crap-tastic CoolLCD.com monitor ( just for composition, and will eventually be replaced by a SmallHD when it's in my budget ), a bunch of batteries and a wall charger, a small HaloRig stabilizer, a Manfrotto 561BHDV-1 video monopod, a Manfrotto 755XB tripod with a 501 head ( I hate this head ), a couple of lens / LCD cleaning kits, and a soft briefcase with release forms and audio gear. ( Sennheiser G2 UHF system, Tram 50 LAV, Sanken COS-11 LAV, Sennheiser MKE-2 Gold LAV. The Tram 50 is my go-to mic most of the time because it's very good at rejecting room noise if you turn the diaphragm towards the vampire clip, so that it will only pick up sound from the person being interviewed. I also have the Sennheiser handheld UHF mic, which you can see in action with the audio link I provided earlier in this thread )

When there is a budget for an assistant ( or when I have a client that is willing to drag gear around ) I add a lowel tota-lite mounted inside a Chimera video softbox with egg-crate and a light-dimmer, and a few collapsible 42 inch white/silver reflectors.

 

[Ian-T]

Wasn't being facetious.

Yes you were. But it's ok....really.

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.

It all depends. Re-read what I said. For some it may be that one camera is better than the other. That's a fact. But for many other folks who give lines like "Canons are the best"...or"As a stills camera Panasonic sucks" without substantiating their claim come off as ones who are just basing their opinions on what others say. That was the reason for the last line I wrote:

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.

Before I ended with that comment I wrote some facts about both camera's specs that many many folks keep getting wrong. That misinformation is what some of these same folks use as an argument for claiming one camera is better than the other. SO....my point was...if that is your only argument then it's baseless. It's like hearing something through the grapevine where the twisted truth ends up becoming gospel.

Also, I don't believe I even gave an opinion on which camera is better between the two. So I'm not sure where you got that from. What I did say is...I like Canon colors.....but I think the GH-2's image is more true to life. So...depending on my mood...I might like one one day....and another on a different day.

If I were a pro....I might think differently (or might not).

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.

Hmmm...so...if you really understood what I meant by that (as you say)...then you can probably see why I thought your initial comment was a bit flippant. Right?

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.

So....what exactly did you think I meant when I said it goes back to the shooter? Are we not saying the same things?

I can speak for myself and say that I am not a professional photographer so it wouldn't matter to me which camera I pick because the difference in stills IQ is not apparent to me. A professional Photographer will look at his/her tool differently because certain aspects of a camera (handling, aesthetics etc.) are more important to them. How they make their decisions on which camera to use depends on what their needs are. So...yeah....I think it goes back to the shooter.

 

[khina]

...
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...

sample and no reply-to anybody in particular

I'm very very so sorry the pain and suffering and madness that I have caused to many professional "carpenters". I didn't know my topic was going to turn out this way. I'm surprised many "professional carpenters" are upset very easily. There seems to be more anger than disscussion. I apologize if I offended anybody. I'm glad I had decided to go back and use the "right tool" that will give me amazing results in less amount of time.

-a bad carpenter
a part time freelance idiot on the "side"

 

[Grunf]

I own both GH2 (previously GH1) and 550D.
While 550D is better when it comes to still photos (and I have invested a lot into glass), GH2 is vastly superior when it comes to video quality, and not too bad when it comes to stills.

Canon feels better in the hand, I agree. But even 720p image from GH2 has more detail and information than Canon 1080p.

Right now, I'm mostly shooting hacked 40Mbit 720p50 (with B-frames enabled) on GH2 when it comes to video. 1080p24 is very good on Gh2 but I never bought into stuttering (sorry, "filmic") feel of 24 fps. I would love to shoot 1080p50 but GH2 cannot hack it (sic).

I'm using a converted 9-114mm f1.7 Canon Betacam optic on GH2 for video.

 

[-Sandro-]

Hopefully (well I hope) this "problem" will disappear with the next Canon's line up that should bring a REAL 1080p video and modern codec. The video system in the canons is extremely OLD... if this won't happen there's still Sony coming this month that should be better from the GH2 based on the rumors.

I do agree, sometimes especially in wide shots the video looks so bad in details that I wanna smash my 550d, basically 1080p looks worse than the gh2's 720p. I'm myself very sick of the look of videos I get from the camera that have that fake/upscaled image and can't wait to change it with a new aps-c camera , preferably canon so I can keep the lenses

 

[thabo]

Ok so I'm not a highly experienced wedding videographer but every gig I've done requires me to shoot the entire thing. And the one time I turned the camera off, both my HMC40 and my buddy on the 7D we turned off at the same time for just a show while we missed about a 30 seconds of a speech, one of many speeches that night! I didn't think anything of it but the client was bummed. Luckily I had a crappy Panny point and shoot recording at the back of the gig for 2 hours straight so I did end up getting the shot. So I'd say for me, I need long record times, 29mins and 12 mins is a deal breaker for me.

 

[Emanuel]

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.

lol ;-)

 

[TheDingo]

I need long record times, 29 mins and 12 mins is a deal breaker for me.

Which camera has a 29 minute clip limit ?

In Europe the stock GH-2 has a 29 minute clip limit, but you can turn this off with the GH-2 hack.

For the rest of the world, the GH-2 is only limited by your battery power and memory card size.

Using a SDXC 128 MB card and a big external battery you could easily shoot one continuous shot for 12+ hours with the GH-2.

 

[rokkor]

My sentiments exactly, i took great looking stills with my kodak v550...so anything 'modern' and capable in the right hands is golden.

 

[Will Turner]

I have a GF1 with a set of FD primes (28mm f2.8, 50mm F1.8, 135mm F2.8) and I get great looking stills and video out of it. Sure I want a GH2 or 5DIII but it won't make my photo's or video's any better. I only ever produce content for DVD so any modern camera is adequate.

 

[Will Turner]

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.

I think it's easy to argue the m4/3 in sensor size. In situations where you need a wide aperture, the depth of field is more manageable when pulling focus on a subject, a persons head and shoulders for instance. Maybe this is just a personal preference though, but this is why I am excited about the 5DIII iso capabilities, to be able to stop the lens down in lower light situations.

 

[Ian-T]

I think it's easy to argue the m4/3 in sensor size. In situations where you need a wide aperture, the depth of field is more manageable when pulling focus on a subject, a persons head and shoulders for instance. Maybe this is just a personal preference though, but this is why I am excited about the 5DIII iso capabilities, to be able to stop the lens down in lower light situations.

Hmmm...never thought about it like that. This would be a plus if it works out that way because the one thing about the 5Dll (that I've read) was having to stop down like that therefore forcing it to lose its low light advantage.

 

[brunerww]

Which camera has a 29 minute clip limit ?

In Europe the stock GH-2 has a 29 minute clip limit, but you can turn this off with the GH-2 hack.

For the rest of the world, the GH-2 is only limited by your battery power and memory card size.

Using a SDXC 128 MB card and a big external battery you could easily shoot one continuous shot for 12+ hours with the GH-2.

Dingo - I know this is an old thread, but I think you misunderstood him - in fact, I just saw in another thread that he switched to the GH2

I'm pretty sure he meant that the 29 minute (worldwide) limit for Sony and the 12 minute limit for Canon were dealbreakers for him.

I happen to agree with him - and I would add the 20 minute limit for Nikon to the list of dealbreakers.

For crying out loud, my Panasonic FZ150 bridge camera(!) has unlimited clip length. I can't see paying a thousand dollars plus for a camera that quits recording after half an hour.

And when Canon had a chance to fix this with file-spanning in the 5DMkIII, they opted for a 29 minute worldwide limit!

I'm sure Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax won't miss my business, but I'll only buy Panasonics (or camcorders) until these guys figure this out. *end rant*

Cheers,

Bill

 

[mtan]

I agree, I am moving away from the gh1 and gh2 back to the 7D, just like it better. The lens choices are better to, I don't like the panasonic choices or having to use a different manual only lens. Canon will come out with a camera that matches the sharpness of the GH camera soon enough and I will have great glass ready to go.

 

[TheDingo]

I agree, I am moving away from the gh1 and gh2 back to the 7D, just like it better. The lens choices are better to, I don't like the panasonic choices or having to use a different manual only lens. Canon will come out with a camera that matches the sharpness of the GH camera soon enough and I will have great glass ready to go.

7D Cons
- Cannot use as many lenses as the GH2 because of the deep flange distance ( $2,600 to Modify your 7D body to take PL lenses )
- High degree of aliasing with fine details
- High degree of moire with fine patterns ( especially with wide shots )

Canon already sells a camera with the sharpness of the GH2, it's called a C300 and costs $16,000

 

[FrameFarmMedia]

Canon will come out with a camera that matches the sharpness of the GH camera soon enough and I will have great glass ready to go.

Canon won't be canabalizing their cinema line anytime soon. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Many feel the 5d3 is less sharp than the 5d2.

 

[Ian-T]

...Canon already sells a camera with the sharpness of the GH2, it's called a C300 and costs $16,000

I know I'm going to probably be considered as "One of those GH-2 fanboi's" for agreing with you but.... Good point.

 

[pulpfiction007]

The GH series from Panasonic do just fine with stills...they aren't as satisfying to work with (for me) in that area just because of the lack of an optical viewfinder and user interface...but great photos can be taken with either, and easily I might add.
Also the GH series are more integrated for video shooting and have fewer issues, they are also sharper.
One Canon other than the MK3 however can do video that is alias free...it's called the T3i in 3 x mode. Don't go over the 3x mark and you have a Super16 video camera that is free from all the moire of the MK2, 7D, 60D, t2i, etc. It's a feature that is way overlooked as some sort of gimmick. It is not a gimmick at all. In fact if I were Canon I would have called it S16 mode and not 3x zoom.

 

[ErikTande]

+2. Some GH2 photos: