GH4 GH4 vs. 5DIII RAW vs. Canon C100

B

Benjobe

Well-known member
If you're an owner of the GH4 then make some popcorn, sit back & enjoy. If you own one of the Canon cameras then you might need some kleenex handy.

GH4 vs. Canon 5D III RAW

http://youtu.be/nH5fafQQddg

GH4 vs. Canon C100 recording to a Ninja 2

http://youtu.be/LreHfdMuwhc


IMO, the GH4 excelled in nearly every way: detail, color, moiré, low light, movement... I couldn't even see any added dynamic range in the 5D III RAW footage. Just amazing.
 
With the right settings the GH4 produces a gorgeous image, as long as you don't mind dealing with the 4K ---> 1080 downscaling. ( I don't mind )

For regular production work the C100 would probably be more convenient to work with ( no downscaling necessary ), especially if you get into high ISO shooting.

But for less than $2K the GH4 is an absolute bargain, given the image it records.
 
TheDingo said:
With the right settings the GH4 produces a gorgeous image, as long as you don't mind dealing with the 4K ---> 1080 downscaling. ( I don't mind )

For regular production work the C100 would probably be more convenient to work with ( no downscaling necessary ), especially if you get into high ISO shooting.

But for less than $2K the GH4 is an absolute bargain, given the image it records.
Click to expand...
Looks great, but what are the options for an active EF to GH4 lens mount.
 
i don't know about this camera (gh4) yet?? it's sharp like a camcorder but for a job raw is what I use …how I rate image from top to bottom…Kodak film…alexa…red…sony…canon (300 or 5d raw)..
 
ROCKMORE said:
Looks great, but what are the options for an active EF to GH4 lens mount.
Click to expand...

Supposedly MetaBones is working on a new SpeedBooster with an active EF to GH4 mount, which will be a pretty big deal if it ever sees the light of day.

Until that day arrives there's always this to hold you over. ( I no longer own any Canon lenses, but this is supposed to be one of the best low-cost SpeedBoosters )
 
niki said:
but for a job raw is what I use …how I rate image from top to bottom…Kodak film…alexa…red…sony…canon (300 or 5d raw)..
Click to expand...

Sure, if you've got the budget and patience for RAW production and post, but people are getting very impressive results from the GH4 with the right settings. ( the whole "grading in-camera" idea is interesting )
 
Nice samples, the GH4 is tough to beat - especially at lower ISO's. Post production is much faster than ML raw and paying clients will love the image. I don't miss my 5d3 at all - got the GH4 for video productions and the A7 for FF stills. Texas Media has my A7s order as well. What a great time to be in the video business.
 
For more organic and natural look and add in the better dynamic range and higlight roll off, I prefer the look of the canon. For all out digital razor sharp images then the gh4 owns canon, imop.
 
I don't think this test showed the reason people shoot with the 5DMKIII RAW, processing flexibility. The scenes with the blown out sky through the trees show the DR of the MKIII and GH4 to be pretty similar. But through RAW post processing you pull the extra DR out of the image. I think a processed version of these scenes would show a lot more DR in the finished product for the RAW MKIII shots.
 
If it looks great, it is great. There are no losers here. All 3 cameras are awesome and totally useable.

PERSONALLY, I'm sick of Canon's fake HD resolution lies and happy to finally feel like I'm getting the resolution I paid for in the GH4
 
wwjd said:
If it looks great, it is great. There are no losers here. All 3 cameras are awesome and totally useable.

PERSONALLY, I'm sick of Canon's fake HD resolution lies and happy to finally feel like I'm getting the resolution I paid for in the GH4
Click to expand...

I've been shooting with Canons for 4 years now and made money and a lot of happy clients, but times have changed. Canon is still where they were 5 years ago (except cinestyle which changed everything) but everybody has been blowing the doors off them lately. I need to make a change.
The GH3 was a dud but the GH4 looks like a good camera for the next 2 years or so.
BMCC and the BMC4k are good, but a lot of unresolved issues, heavy files and hardrive space. I'm not shooting Gone With the Wind, just making a living. If I shot a feature or the last project I would ever shoot than raw would be it, but for daily workload I would have to spend so much more time dealing with the workflow I don't think it's worth it. I already work 7 days a week and I wouldn't work 8 days even if there were 8.
The Canons are really looking soft, although I can still make beautiful images with them. I want more detail, not more "film like" or "vintage" I can light for better DR, or find locations with better DR.
I'm not jumping out of my shoes, but this may be a good solution. I shoot with 2 cameras so I can have 2 of these for about the price of 1 BMCC4k.
 
Last edited:
I agree. For what they are, both cameras a good value. RAW video has given the MKIII a new lease on life for me though. I was ready to move it to the "stills only" category in my work as it is quite soft with h.264 shooting. But the camera has a great look and RAW lets the real detail come through. For me, better color and higher bit depth wins over detail alone. If I had a GH4 I would shoot everything in 4k and factor a new computer in the mix to downsample to 1080p in realtime. 4k is where this camera shines.
 
yeah, don't mean to dump on Canon.... they've been great a long while..... was kinda bummed my T3i resolution was no better than the 4 year older comsumer HD HV20 I own, bummed more to find out the 1080 I thought I bought was closer to 600? That is not "soft" that is false advertising. Even the GH3 detailed proved the Canon HD was OBVIOUSLY less. (the new C-line does better) Anyway, I crop 2.40:1 so I was getting like 400 lines rather than the 700 I expected.

anyway, it's skills and content that make something watchable, not a camera. :) I'm looking forward to SHOOTING some magic, rather than worrying about framing for LESS resolution like I used to.
The C series work horses are not going away any time soon, but I am happy to have a camera not distinguishable from an Alexa by the common viewer. :)

In that comparo video, I could not deal with the under-detailed look of the 5D... My T3i looked almost that good. GH4 for the win, to me when I upgraded. :)
 
Benjobe said:
GH4 vs. Canon C100 recording to a Ninja 2

http://youtu.be/LreHfdMuwhc


IMO, the GH4 excelled in nearly every way: detail, color, moiré, low light, movement... I couldn't even see any added dynamic range in the 5D III RAW footage. Just amazing.
Click to expand...

"ND filter attached" Does that mean that they attached one to the C100 or used the built in? Either way, the GH4 did look pretty sharp. Just like film! I kid, but razor sharp deep depth of field video isn't the look I'm usually going for.
The C100 is essentially a 4k camera that outputs HD. The sensor is 4k and does a nice job with the RGGB trick to get really nice color in each HD pixel. Of course it won't record 4k but that's not really an issue for a couple more years. Shooting with built in NDs, XLRs, and a beautiful filmlike image straight out of the camera is what I need today, which is what the C100 delivers. The GH4 is a good camera and the 4k resolution is nice, but it's still an apples to oranges comparison. The oft made remark about it being less than $2000 is also not quite right for comparison. That price doubles if you want that XLR input thingy, and you still don't have NDs and you do have to suffer the DSLR lack of video ergonomics.
All this isn't to say that the GH4 is a bad camera. Clearly it's not. But it's also not to say that it's inherently "better" than a C100 or even a 5D3 shooting raw. If I was buying today, I'd still get the C100.
 
Andrius Simutis said:
"ND filter attached" Does that mean that they attached one to the C100 or used the built in? Either way, the GH4 did look pretty sharp. Just like film! I kid, but razor sharp deep depth of field video isn't the look I'm usually going for.
The C100 is essentially a 4k camera that outputs HD. The sensor is 4k and does a nice job with the RGGB trick to get really nice color in each HD pixel. Of course it won't record 4k but that's not really an issue for a couple more years. Shooting with built in NDs, XLRs, and a beautiful filmlike image straight out of the camera is what I need today, which is what the C100 delivers. The GH4 is a good camera and the 4k resolution is nice, but it's still an apples to oranges comparison. The oft made remark about it being less than $2000 is also not quite right for comparison. That price doubles if you want that XLR input thingy, and you still don't have NDs and you do have to suffer the DSLR lack of video ergonomics.
All this isn't to say that the GH4 is a bad camera. Clearly it's not. But it's also not to say that it's inherently "better" than a C100 or even a 5D3 shooting raw. If I was buying today, I'd still get the C100.
Click to expand...

The C100 is great, but it doesn't cost $2000 for XLR's on a GH4 unless you want all the SDI garbage the box adds, a Juiced Link will only run a couple hundred, same for a good vari-ND. If you want to spend $2000, get the Atomos Shogun and you'll 10-bit 4k - when its released. Yes you lose ergonomics, but with the Shogun you get a 7" monitor and 10-bit recording, and you can add an XLR cable. I'm so tempted to order one to go with my GH4 and the A7s when it ships.

Good times with so many good choices.
 
dustylense said:
Actually the 1080/60i conversion to 60p is quite nice and very easy to do. It holds up better than lots of cameras that have 1080/60p. So therefore, you will be buying a C100 now?
Click to expand...

Sweet.. didn't know that! You just gave me a weekend project.. thanks!
 
Andrius Simutis said:
The oft made remark about it being less than $2000 is also not quite right for comparison. That price doubles if you want that XLR input thingy, and you still don't have NDs and you do have to suffer the DSLR lack of video ergonomics.
All this isn't to say that the GH4 is a bad camera. Clearly it's not. But it's also not to say that it's inherently "better" than a C100 or even a 5D3 shooting raw. If I was buying today, I'd still get the C100.
Click to expand...

If you are starting from sctatch you will need to buy extras, but in the case of many who already have mixer, mics, filters etc it's a matter of upgrading the body. If you already have a 5d3 then the raw hack adds a new level of image quality for the price of a download.
With so many choices out BMCC4k, Kinimini 4k & 6K, GH4 etc. in the 4K low budget arena, as long as the client is satisfied and keeps paying, at the end of the day I will probably keep shooting with my 2 soft, low rez, outdated and boring Canon apsc DSLR cameras, rent what I need when I need it, and sit back and watch the sparks fly a while longer.
 
Last edited:
TheDingo said:
Supposedly MetaBones is working on a new SpeedBooster with an active EF to GH4 mount, which will be a pretty big deal if it ever sees the light of day.

Until that day arrives there's always this to hold you over. ( I no longer own any Canon lenses, but this is supposed to be one of the best low-cost SpeedBoosters )
Click to expand...


any online reviews about this particular model?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top