GH2 User looking to possibly transition to Sony

MattRobertson

MattRobertson

Well-known member
Hello guys,

I am a gh2 user, and I love the gh2, however I would like to get something thats more robust for what I do. Here's the things I don't like about the gh2:

  • Batteries don't last long (therefore need to carry lots and keep them organized)
  • Build quality is alright, but nothing super solid
  • Have to use dual system audio (although I can actually get a pretty decent feed from my fostex dc-r302 to the gh2, but once again thats extra sd cards to manage, extra batteries for the fostex, etc, hard for run and gun)
  • Can't change batteries while on a tripod/rig (have to take camera off of plate)
  • Poor LCD screen
  • No peaking features or such included on it
  • Noisy sensor
  • 2x crop factor - honestly the worst part of this is just trying to find good lenes, since all the conventional focal lengths often produce awkward FOV's on the gh2. For example, a 35mm, 50mm, 85mm would be very poor set on the gh2. A 17.5, 25, and 40 are the best selections for normal work on the gh2
  • Lack of stabilized lens options (esp. ones that are fast - honestly the panny 2.8 isn't enough with the sensor for decent low light work)
  • Can't monitor 720p60 through HDMI (108024p works fine though)
  • No 1080p60
  • Hassle dealing with reliability (although there are hacks which are pretty reliable there are just weird quirks still and I really want a camera that I can KNOW will work without question, esp. when running 2 camera setups)
  • Looks very amateur when you're doing corporate stuff and such.
I'm not sure I want to go the route of BMCC and such, because I just want something that is reliable, suited for field work, but can still hold its own in studio use. I can always rent a BMCC when it comes out if I really need the raw workflow, but not sure.

So i've got a bunch of questions for you guys who have experience with sony's

  • How is the lens selection for sony (not necessarily native)? What are the options for stabilized lenses on the sony? Isn't there some canon adapter that can use the stabilization feature on the gh2?
  • How is the XLR audio in the fs100/700
  • What are the sensor differences in the fs100 vs. 700? Is the DR the same?
  • What are some of the best examples of sony fs100 vs. 700 or even f3 work online? Struggling to find solid examples from this cam
  • From what i've seen there seems to be an odd asthetic to the sony footage.. I don't really know how to explain it, but something always seems "off" with it. The highlights i've always though sounded weird, and nothing much really appeared "cinematic" to me. I know that is a VERY subjective question, but for example, the canon c300 or even the GH2 have aesthetics that definitely seem more "cinematic" to me. How do you guys like the color/sharpness/overall asthetic that the cameras produce? I'm not trying to troll here at all
  • How good is the sensor of the fs100/700 in low light? Is the f3 a big step forward?
  • How is the picture profile customization?
  • How well does the picture hold up in grading?
  • Do you find the internal codec to be sufficient, and is using a recorder going to give you that big of a boost in post/overall look?
  • Any weird quirks that I should know of with these cams?
  • What things do you dislike most about the fs100/700 or even f3?
If I were to buy one, it would likely be either the fs100 or 700, but if I could find the f3 for a VERY good price used i'd hop on it. Doing some bigger stuff lately, and have the budget to use these cams, or at the least rent them on shoots. Sorry for so many questions, but its a very complicated process as you guys know trying to find a new camera, and i'd just like to be confident before I try and do so.

Thanks
 
MattRobertson said:
So i've got a bunch of questions for you guys who have experience with sony's
  • How is the lens selection for sony (not necessarily native)? What are the options for stabilized lenses on the sony? Isn't there some canon adapter that can use the stabilization feature on the gh2?
  • How is the XLR audio in the fs100/700
  • What are the sensor differences in the fs100 vs. 700? Is the DR the same?
  • What are some of the best examples of sony fs100 vs. 700 or even f3 work online? Struggling to find solid examples from this cam
  • From what i've seen there seems to be an odd asthetic to the sony footage.. I don't really know how to explain it, but something always seems "off" with it. The highlights i've always though sounded weird, and nothing much really appeared "cinematic" to me. I know that is a VERY subjective question, but for example, the canon c300 or even the GH2 have aesthetics that definitely seem more "cinematic" to me. How do you guys like the color/sharpness/overall asthetic that the cameras produce? I'm not trying to troll here at all
  • How good is the sensor of the fs100/700 in low light? Is the f3 a big step forward?
  • How is the picture profile customization?
  • How well does the picture hold up in grading?
  • Do you find the internal codec to be sufficient, and is using a recorder going to give you that big of a boost in post/overall look?
  • Any weird quirks that I should know of with these cams?
  • What things do you dislike most about the fs100/700 or even f3?
If I were to buy one, it would likely be either the fs100 or 700, but if I could find the f3 for a VERY good price used i'd hop on it. Doing some bigger stuff lately, and have the budget to use these cams, or at the least rent them on shoots. Sorry for so many questions, but its a very complicated process as you guys know trying to find a new camera, and i'd just like to be confident before I try and do so.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Here's my take…

- Lens selection is very, very good. You can adapt just about anything to the NEX mount, and with the Metabones EF adapter, you can use Canon EF lenses electronically. The Sony lenses are actually not bad at all, including the 18-200 with the optical stabilization. They're a bit slow, but the images look quite nice.
- XLR audio is excellent. I've never had any issues with it.
- Sensor size is the same between the FS-100 and 700, I'm pretty sure. I've heard mixed reports on DR, so you might test that out for yourself.
- Look at Postmaster's FS footage and camera settings. Frank's work looks great, and his settings (and those from Abel Cine) are the perfect starting point for dialing in your own look.
- In my real-world experience, low light on the FS is as good as it is on the F3.
- With the FS-100, I never felt like the codec was a limitation in grading/post. Now, I wasn't doing heavy VFX or super-stylized grading, but it worked very well for my needs. The FS-700 may give you a nice boost via the SDI (FS-100 is HDMI only), depending on what you're shooting.

As for quirks/dislikes about the FS series, the list is short. No NDs on the 100 sucked. The LCD on the F3 is better-positioned and…well…better than the FS.

What you'll want will certainly be dictated by your budget, but if it were me, I'd look into a used FS-100 and rent the 700 or F3 when the project/budget called for it.
 
A few thoughts on your questions...

Lenses - there are a few E-mount lenses with OSS, with a Metabones adapter Canon's IS will work, with cheap adapters pretty much every lens on the planet can be adapted to the E-mount, legacy manual focus glass is great, I use Rokkors and I'm looking at Leica R's.

XLR audio is good, as good or better than most low-end external recorders like the Zoom h4n and Tascam DR100, its very clean

There's lots of very cinematic footage from the FS floating around, lots of great examples posted on this board, personally with the limited DR of the GH2 - I don't find it very cinematic, the FS100's tonal gradation is far superior but as is the case with picture profiles, it takes more work to get a good image out of the FS than a DSLR where you're just lowering the sharpness, contrast and saturation.

The FS sensor is far better than any DSLR in low light IMHO, lots of shadow detail and noise is very smooth - unlike the GH2 you don't get banding in the shadows at higher ISO's - 3200 on the FS is cleaner than 800 on the GH2, the detail is remarkable - makes most DSLR footage look real, real soft

The picture profiles can be heavily customized, search the board for the FS100 PP thread, lots of great options with Frank Glencarin's and Abel Cine's being my favorites

I'm not the best colorist, but the FS footage grades very well, much better than the GH2 and the 5d2 I previously used

Most say the external recording options don't add anything significant to FS footage, stuff on the SD cards looks great

Quirks? The monitor is in an awkward location, many use external monitors. If you're going shoulder mount this is pretty much a requirement as its difficult to see what you're shooting while rolling. The periscope loupe is a tad long for some, it doesn't bother me.

Dislikes? It takes work to tame the highlights with the FS, it takes more care with exposure. The top handle is nothing to write home about on the 100, it looks a little better on the 700, but not much. You have to menu dive to get beyond the four ISO presets you can set on the FS. The 100 has no ND filters and this camera really needs them as the base ISO is 500, its very sensitive.

Most of your GH2 dislikes mirror what I didn't like about the 5d2/GH2 I was using, the FS cures all of them.
 
MattRobertson said:
So i've got a bunch of questions for you guys who have experience with sony's
  • How is the lens selection for sony (not necessarily native)? What are the options for stabilized lenses on the sony? Isn't there some canon adapter that can use the stabilization feature on the gh2?
  • How is the XLR audio in the fs100/700
  • What are the sensor differences in the fs100 vs. 700? Is the DR the same?
  • What are some of the best examples of sony fs100 vs. 700 or even f3 work online? Struggling to find solid examples from this cam
  • From what i've seen there seems to be an odd asthetic to the sony footage.. I don't really know how to explain it, but something always seems "off" with it. The highlights i've always though sounded weird, and nothing much really appeared "cinematic" to me. I know that is a VERY subjective question, but for example, the canon c300 or even the GH2 have aesthetics that definitely seem more "cinematic" to me. How do you guys like the color/sharpness/overall asthetic that the cameras produce? I'm not trying to troll here at all
  • How good is the sensor of the fs100/700 in low light? Is the f3 a big step forward?
  • How is the picture profile customization?
  • How well does the picture hold up in grading?
  • Do you find the internal codec to be sufficient, and is using a recorder going to give you that big of a boost in post/overall look?
  • Any weird quirks that I should know of with these cams?
  • What things do you dislike most about the fs100/700 or even f3?
If I were to buy one, it would likely be either the fs100 or 700, but if I could find the f3 for a VERY good price used i'd hop on it. Doing some bigger stuff lately, and have the budget to use these cams, or at the least rent them on shoots. Sorry for so many questions, but its a very complicated process as you guys know trying to find a new camera, and i'd just like to be confident before I try and do so.

Thanks
Click to expand...

First of all, i haven't shot with a GH2. I can really only speak about the FS700, which i have, and also report much of what i've been reading on this forum every day for the last 6 months or so.

The native E-Mount lens line up is a bit lacking right now. Though most of them have OSS, and also Auto-focus. Though i haven't had very good results with the E-Mount auto focus while trying to track some one moving back and forth in the shot. It's nice to have such features as Spot Focus (touch the screen area to focus) and Focus Transition (like pre-setting rack focus points). The 18-200mm 3.5-6.3 is alright to have for OSS and AF. The 50mm 1.8 is great. Rumor is 3 more lenses will be announced on Aug. 28th in E Mount.

You can also get the Sony LA-EA2 adapter which allows you to use Sony A Mount lenses, with phase detection auto focus which seems to be faster at tracking objects. Except you don't get OSS (why i haven't taken the plunge and waiting for more E mounts)

But as many will say, the beauty of this mount is that you can really adapt just about any lens to it.

Most of all, the Metabones adapter allows you to use Canon lenses. IS works, but AF would not. It's solid, they way to go for sure if you have Canon glass.


The FS700 has the 4k sensor in it, of course. Some say the FS100 is a little less noisy, or at least the noise looks more organic. Probably a very slight difference. Both are excellent in low light, however.

Picture profile customization is just excellent, you get pretty much every option in the book. The FS700 especially, which offers 4 Cinegammas. Highlight roll off is better and i haven't heard anyone struggle with off colors on the FS700 vs. the 100.

As for grading. I shoot directly to the SD card in AVCHD at 24mbps. I actually find it holds together super well! I've also heard this from many users, the general consensus seems to be that the AVCHD right off the SD Card is much better than what you'd expect. I don't think there's a major difference when recorded to an external recorder. Only what i've heard while researching the camera as well.

Overall, i absolutely love the FS700. Built in ND, Cinegammas. Probably should mention the slo-mo as well (yeah, i know it's been done to death, but it's great!).

A couple of examples released just recently looked nice to me...

https://vimeo.com/47276099 - shot with FS100
https://vimeo.com/47465437 - shot with FS700

OH! Dislikes. I really wish they'd allow you to use the scroll wheel for ISO. Instead, you have 3 pre-sets and an auto button that you set in menus. Kind of a pain.
The LCD screen being on top has already become an annoyance. Cant see it if your camera is set up high. Can't tilt it down very far before obviously the actual camera is in the way. Flip it around if for some reason you need to self shoot (i do for vlogs) and the handle is right in the way. Been looking for a somewhat inexpensive but good external monitor.

Other than that, i wish the E-Mount auto-focus was better, but hey... probably shouldn't be messing with AF anyway, right?

Also, these complaints don't take anything away from it being an amazing camera for me!
That's all.
 
Stephen Mick said:
What you'll want will certainly be dictated by your budget, but if it were me, I'd look into a used FS-100 and rent the 700 or F3 when the project/budget called for it.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth that's the decision I made a couple of weeks ago, moving up from a 7D. If I have a job that needs better than the FS100 I've probably got the budget to hire something in.
 
Dang. You guys are bad on my wallet. Haha i'm VERY convinced to move to a fs100. I have been so pissed at the gh2 lately. Just doing lots of highend shoots going into the tens of thousands and its DEFINITLY time to move on from the gh2. I just can't trust it to be 100% reliable, and its not meant for a professional work environment. Really appreciate the responses so far!
 
Got my FS100 less than 2 weeks ago, upgraded from Canon DSLRs - really enjoying it! It looks like you really know what you want from the camera and FS100/700 won't disappoint you!
 
Totally! I've shot enough with the Gh2 to love/hate it haha.. I think its definitly time to move on though :) And thats great andrew!
 
MattRobertson said:
Dang. You guys are bad on my wallet. Haha i'm VERY convinced to move to a fs100. I have been so pissed at the gh2 lately. Just doing lots of highend shoots going into the tens of thousands and its DEFINITLY time to move on from the gh2. I just can't trust it to be 100% reliable, and its not meant for a professional work environment. Really appreciate the responses so far!
Click to expand...

Sounds like some good sized budgets.. how is this even a hard decision? :) I went with a 700 after shooting on a couple GH2s for a year. A happy FS user here.
 
THat's a lot of questions. Oh gxd, my reply looks like a TL-DR post, but here goes...

How is the lens selection for sony (not necessarily native)? What are the options for stabilized lenses on the sony? Isn't there some canon adapter that can use the stabilization feature on the gh2?

Stabilisation? Some E-mounts have good stabilisation. For Ex-Canon users, you'll need the Metabones EOS adaptor, and use the EOS IS lenses. It's not perfect (fer-petes-sake DON'T use Canon IS on a tripod), but will help smooth out the micro-wobbles on handheld footage. No idea about GH2.
​



How is the XLR audio in the fs100/700

Audio snobs will say that if you can, you should get a better mic pre-amp and feed the FS100/700 line level (IOW, hire a sound guy), and that's quite true - but the average voxpop won't stretch it. Narrative? High end corporate? Get a sound guy, get a pre-amp, strive for the best. Atmos? R&G? It's absolutely fine. Quite frankly, few will notice the difference between pre-amped Mics and directly connected mics.​



What are the sensor differences in the fs100 vs. 700? Is the DR the same?

700 is.... different, to most it's better. FS100 has some ugly oddness at boundaries between ultra bright and shadow. Both lack the nit-picking subtle detail that the F3 has, but they're a lot cheaper. It's nearly as good as an EX1 for detail, but not quite. It's not the sensor, it's not the lens, it's not the codec. I'm told it's the processor.

From what i've seen there seems to be an odd asthetic to the sony footage.. I don't really know how to explain it, but something always seems "off" with it. The highlights i've always though sounded weird, and nothing much really appeared "cinematic" to me. I know that is a VERY subjective question, but for example, the canon c300 or even the GH2 have aesthetics that definitely seem more "cinematic" to me. How do you guys like the color/sharpness/overall asthetic that the cameras produce? I'm not trying to troll here at all

I shoot Corporate - my clients want 'expensive' looking images that are clean, sharp and colourful. I get that with the FS100, but the highlights are a sodding challenge. The FS700 with CineGamma makes all that SO much easier. Does it look like film? No. Does it look like video? No. It looks like nice HD. My clients like it and pay me to deliver it, YMMV.​



How good is the sensor of the fs100/700 in low light? Is the f3 a big step forward?

The F3 is The Daddy, but the FS100 is The Daddy's Best Mate. The FS700 is The Uncle. The FS700 was designed to be the F3's B Camera, the FS100 does what it does.
​



How is the picture profile customization?

You can quite happily screw up the picture with the PPs, you can also tune the camera to your lighting situation and deliver to your editor the rushes that will give the best results. FS100 is much more about waving dead chickens around because of the dangerous highlight handling. FS700 is about choice of CineGamma over Noise and whether you need ITU709 to add some drama to flat overcast or office lighting. Really, honestly, you'll be fine. Test, test again.
​



How well does the picture hold up in grading?

See Picture Profile answer. I also supplicate to Alister Chapman's knowledge here, in that the issues of banding aren't necessarily to do with the original camera footage.
​



Do you find the internal codec to be sufficient, and is using a recorder going to give you that big of a boost in post/overall look?

The internal codec is just fine for 99% of most people's work. You won't see a huge leap in quality by recording on an external recorder... but you will for things like high motion, chromakey (if you take note of Detail settings in PP), challenging DR situations. You won't need an external recorder unless you really know why you'll need an external recorder.
​



Any weird quirks that I should know of with these cams?

Avoid over-saturation. Be aware that boundaries between blown highlight and shadow detail will be marred by artefacts that can't be removed in post. CineGamma really does help highlights, you work so much harder on an FS100. Do budget for a rig - EVF, power, lens support, external recorder maybe. The lego brick form factor isn't perfect for every shoot. But the image is worth it, pees all over my EX1.
​



What things do you dislike most about the fs100/700 or even f3?

FS100 - internal screen not totally representative of what you're doing exposure-wise. Form factor is great so long as you invest in a lot of extra scaffolding to cope with the 20% of situations where the form factor is totally wrong. FS700 so much easier to live with over FS100. Are built-in NDs, Slomo and CineGamma worth the extra money? Hell yes. Yes, yes, yes. Is it worth spending the extra money selling your FS100 and buying an FS700? Eeeew, that's a hard one, and I think the answer is Yes, but on your own head be it.
​
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top