GH2 gh2 vs d7000
- Thread starter tommyp
- Start date
tommy - D7000 video image quality is great, but, unlike your GH2, it has a 20 minute video shot length limit (no big deal if you don't shoot speeches, plays or other live events), and the mirror locks up in video mode - so it will blank your viewfinder (you'll need a LCD viewfinder like this or this to shoot video with it in bright sunlight).
It will also have more moire on complex patterned objects (like striped or patterned clothing or shingled roofs) than your GH2.
On the other hand, you'll be less afraid to take it out in the rain. Absolutely fabulous still camera with a magnificent magnesium weather-resistant Nikon body.
Cheers,
Bill
It will also have more moire on complex patterned objects (like striped or patterned clothing or shingled roofs) than your GH2.
On the other hand, you'll be less afraid to take it out in the rain. Absolutely fabulous still camera with a magnificent magnesium weather-resistant Nikon body.
Cheers,
Bill
Last edited:
Yeah, spread the truthful and sober love. Nice link placement by the way, you work at Adorama?
Video quality is bulls**t.
Coming from GH2, you most likely already think the Canon's looks decent at best in terms of resolution. Okay, maybe not, but you should.
Well, here you have half the bitrate of that... the disgusting part? Nikon quite obviously did this to get video consumers. Yay, it records to 20min!!! Must be better!!! .....right?
....it's still a FAT file system. Nikon has no magic wand that Canon doesn't. Or any other manufacturer using a FAT file system.
But just like the raptors in jurassic park being smart enugh to open doors... they know what reviewers are gonna take up in Pros/Cons. (Not to even mention the xmillion comparison sites looking at pure numbers). Of course it's a great video camera. Right?
Begone, and nurture and fiddle with the fanboys over at the Nikon section.
I bought D7000 because I was just doing that, looking at charts & reading happy posts like brunerww's. And autofocus is completely useless for video (marketed as a video feauture, wtf Nikon). Also, you may just want to check out a sober review and realize that it's actually not even that amazing as a stills camera.
I delved into Nikon. Found D7000 & really thought it would be amazing. The perfect match for me, going deeper into the stills world aswell. What a combo, amazing photo camera with amazing video. Then I sobered up, and came to terms that it wouldn't even replace my Canons for stills work.
And, THE VERY LEAST, video. We live in a world where people do nothing but bother to Feel Good about their spent dollars. "My investment is good, so I must convince everyone else that it is, so I can feel better about myself & my spent money".
Yeah, well, I'm sure Nikon is looking for employees somewhere. Maybe Afghanistan, look it up.
Last edited:
NoahK
Hottie Mod
I'll just say this- Nikon's video ergonomics absolutely suck. I.e. it's very obvious when you use the GH2 Panasonic's vast interface and engineering experience building video cameras is in effect. The opposite is also very obvious when you go to use a Nikon DSLR camera for video. I had a D7000 for a weekend- such a bad experience I sent the camera back in exchange for a Canon T3i as my 'b-camera'. Nikon is just leagues behind the curve on basic video camera operation. Not saying quality wise they aren't solid enough, but these days everyone's got a huge sensor. What stands out is ease of use for video and in that area the GH2 wins hands down.
Noah
Noah
Stevet
Veteran
LOL!
Wow, that was spot on. More people need to have your attitude.
Nikon does make a good still camera and they are well known for their lens.
I'm like you, if something has an issue or falls short, I'll admit it. I certainly did with the EX1 and all the issues I had early on. All these cameras have trade-offs. The GH2 certainly has surprised many, including myself. This camera cuts fine with the EX1. It's really amazing.
The shortcomings such as DR, codec (Increase the data rate would help), and crippled HDMI output are some of the downfalls. I'm sure we could pile on a list here. LOL
As much as I like the D7000, for video it does not stand up to the GH2.
I really wish Nikon would stop loafing around and offer decent video capability such as the GH2. Panasonic has really stepped up to the plate here. I hope Panasonic addresses the crippled HDMI output on the GH2 with the next firmware upgrade. Let's also hope the GH3 is even better!
bumkicho
Well-known member
tommyp,
I have both gh2 and d7000 and I like having them both because I feel they complement each other. There are times I need to do mostly videos and gh2 is my tool, but there are times I need to do mostly stills and some videos, then d7000 is my tool. Also in situations I can direct/control shots (video), I tend to grab gh2 over d7000, but in situations I am asked to document an event, I tend to grab d7000 because I like to photograph 80% and videograph 20% when doing journalistic documentation. For that same reason I take d7000 when traveling for short documentation works.
My suggestion to you would be to rent a d7000 and test shoot with your gh2, then compare. You have to form your opinion with what you see in front of you rather than to hear what other people have to say.
I have both gh2 and d7000 and I like having them both because I feel they complement each other. There are times I need to do mostly videos and gh2 is my tool, but there are times I need to do mostly stills and some videos, then d7000 is my tool. Also in situations I can direct/control shots (video), I tend to grab gh2 over d7000, but in situations I am asked to document an event, I tend to grab d7000 because I like to photograph 80% and videograph 20% when doing journalistic documentation. For that same reason I take d7000 when traveling for short documentation works.
My suggestion to you would be to rent a d7000 and test shoot with your gh2, then compare. You have to form your opinion with what you see in front of you rather than to hear what other people have to say.
Consider the D5100
Consider the D5100
It has the swivel LCD and is $700.
The D7000/D5100 is tops in dynamic range and low light. Here's samples up to ISO 12,800
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=38615296
As DP Review points out, the GH2 struggles in low light with the limited native lenses. Not enough fast prime and zooms.
The GH2's main strength lies in its Continuous AF (best in class) and EVF (necessary in bright light).
For me, the D5100's simplified controls work well for video. However, the implementation of Live View is quirky. It's something that you need to get used to.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=38673104
Consider the D5100
It has the swivel LCD and is $700.
The D7000/D5100 is tops in dynamic range and low light. Here's samples up to ISO 12,800
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=38615296
As DP Review points out, the GH2 struggles in low light with the limited native lenses. Not enough fast prime and zooms.
The GH2's main strength lies in its Continuous AF (best in class) and EVF (necessary in bright light).
For me, the D5100's simplified controls work well for video. However, the implementation of Live View is quirky. It's something that you need to get used to.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=38673104
tommy - I agree with this 100% - the only way to know if a camera works for you is to get your hands on it, if you can -- not to listen to opinions (including mine) on the internet.
Cheers,
Bill