Got my GH2 - Need help...should I keep it???

skulpt said:
Brighter lens options
Click to expand...

How so, when the GH2 can also take any Canon, Nikon etc. lens with a $30 adapter?

Also, you left out of the GH2 pros:
Articulating LCD
Full 1080 monitoring
60p

As I see it the only thing the 5D has over the GH2 is super-wide and super-shallow. Both of which probably aren't actually used much.
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
Although Voightlander Nokton 25mm f/0.95 has more shallow DOF but that lens is pretty fuzzy wide open and that continues even till f/2.0 at available light.
Click to expand...
I think you're confusing the Voigtlander Nokton with the Noktor 50mm f/0.95. The Voigtlander is fine wide open, and quite sharp by f/1.2. The Noktor is fuzzy wide open and needs to go to about f/2 before it sharpens up enough.
 
OK, so once again, I would like to mention that dof for video use are fine with the GH2 and right lenses. Being that this is a video forum, I was probably asking this in the wrong place.

I have no gripes with the VIDEO ability of the GH2, it is bar none the best camera for the job, especially at its price point. I love all of the features, most of which I have not even made use of yet.

My question pertains to the photo side of the GH2, and whether another camera with better stills would be a viable alternative. In other words, I might possibly be willing to sacrafice some of the amazing video features (namely fast autofocus in video and cleaner 1080p video quality vs the canon cameras) as a trade off for improved stills and the greater availability of lenes. The question is, would something like the 60D or D7000 provide much better stills and much shallower dof vs the GH2? Also, would either of those cameras also give me more options for fast/stabalized/autofoucs lenses?

More than likely, especially after reading the respones and using my better judgement, I will stick with the GH2 and purchase the Voightlander 25mm 0.95 to fill my dof needs. I was just trying to see other people opinions of what else might possibly work, taking the tradeoff into consideration.
 
Most likely you'll still be unhappy. Good luck trying to take pictures of kids running around with a manual focus lens with a razor thin DOF...
 
skulpt said:
You guys are saying that it's possible and doable, but you're not saying what situations you need to get it to work. Can you isolate an actor's body in a room without having to zoom into their face or use a telephoto and back up to get the shot? What if you don't have the room to back up?
Click to expand...
Of course you can.

Look, here's the thing -- if you've ever seen it done in the movies, then you can do it on a GH2. The GH2's sensor is basically the same size as cinema film, with a 1.19 crop.

But are there situations where you really would like to isolate something without having to have an extreme closeup or use a telephoto to get there? With a 5D, you have that flexibility to get those kinds of shots more readily. That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...
The 5D is capable of getting shallower DOF than the GH2, certainly. The difference is about 1.75 f-stops. If you have room to open up the iris on the GH2, you can match the 5D. If you can get the shot you want on a 5D at 50mm f/1.8, then you can match that shot on the GH2 with the Voigtlander at 25mm f/0.95. In that scenario you'd exactly match the 5D's field of view and DOF (although you'd obviously need 3.5x as much light for the 5D shot, or need a couple stops' ND on the GH2).

I still think the GH2 is the best overall choice between the two. But people seem to want the GH2 to be the best in every way when that might not be the case for everyone.
Click to expand...
Exactly true. The 5D will definitely have shallower DOF than the GH2 in any scenario where you're comparing the same f-stop and same field of view. I happen to think that's about the only thing the 5D does better, I think the GH2 is vastly superior in just about every other way, but so what -- if someone's need is the shallowest DOF, the 5D gives it. Well, the 5D gives the shallowest DOF in comparison between those two, but as someone pointed out earlier, the Hasselblad has much much shallower DOF than the 5D, so it becomes a point of "choose which is appropriate for your given task."

Because the opposite also applies -- the GH2 can get incredibly more telephoto than the 5D could ever pray for. And the GH2 can exhibit so much less rolling shutter at telephoto that it's not even funny. So for a wildlife shooter, the GH2 is the absolute no-brainer. But for someone who for whatever reason, needs paper-thin shallow DOF in more circumstances than a GH2 can deliver, then yes the 5D can do that.
 
I'm hoping to take good pics with 14-140 on GH2 on sunny day. At night, I often use 20mm 1.7 + external flash bouncing ceiling. If 25mm 1.4 has fast AF, I would consider it... especially if it has O.I.S. and the linear motor.

Imagine the lens at 25mm, 65mm, 100mm with image stabilization when taking video on GH2. Sweet!!!!!!
 
Roman707 said:
The question is, would something like the 60D or D7000 provide much better stills and much shallower dof vs the GH2?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. The 60D and D7000 will provide fundamentally identical DOF to the GH2.

If you want substantially shallower DOF than the GH2, your shopping list starts and ends with the Canon 5D Mark II.

Also, would either of those cameras also give me more options for fast/stabalized/autofoucs lenses?
Click to expand...
Only for stills mode. No functional autofocus of any type for video mode on any of the other DSLRs.
 
Barry_Green said:
But for someone who for whatever reason, needs paper-thin shallow DOF in more circumstances than a GH2 can deliver, then yes the 5D can do that.
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to believe the reason why the Wife (and as her assistant... and I) got out of the wedding business is not because it was a pain in the ass, but because we didn't shoot with 'paper thin' DoF... in fact
part of my 'assistant' duties was to get shots that had as near to infinite DoF as a 35mm or a 2 1/4 were capable of... locked down on a tripod of course... But for any of those 'wonder' shots, ring (or ring+hand) on bouquet or whatever... for the last 4-5 years of her doing weddings we were using Fuji S-2/3/5's, which may have had a 1.5 scale factor... when we changed from 35mm film film to 35mm digital, we never heard a complaint from the customers about the 'loss of DoF'...

And while it may not be a good thing to always 'do it in post'... fuzzed out backgrounds can be done in post...
 
Barry_Green said:
I think you're confusing the Voigtlander Nokton with the Noktor 50mm f/0.95. The Voigtlander is fine wide open, and quite sharp by f/1.2. The Noktor is fuzzy wide open and needs to go to about f/2 before it sharpens up enough.
Click to expand...
I agree, the 0.95 Nokton 25mm is much sharper than the Canon F1.2 , Leica D Summilux 25 mm f/1.4 , LUMIX G 20 mm f/1.7 and any other lens I seen tested at Lenstip.com . Here is a post with the tests:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...-candlelight&p=2193692&highlight=#post2193692
 
Barry_Green said:
Of course you can.

Look, here's the thing -- if you've ever seen it done in the movies, then you can do it on a GH2. The GH2's sensor is basically the same size as cinema film, with a 1.19 crop.


The 5D is capable of getting shallower DOF than the GH2, certainly. The difference is about 1.75 f-stops. If you have room to open up the iris on the GH2, you can match the 5D. If you can get the shot you want on a 5D at 50mm f/1.8, then you can match that shot on the GH2 with the Voigtlander at 25mm f/0.95. In that scenario you'd exactly match the 5D's field of view and DOF (although you'd obviously need 3.5x as much light for the 5D shot, or need a couple stops' ND on the GH2).


Exactly true. The 5D will definitely have shallower DOF than the GH2 in any scenario where you're comparing the same f-stop and same field of view. I happen to think that's about the only thing the 5D does better, I think the GH2 is vastly superior in just about every other way, but so what -- if someone's need is the shallowest DOF, the 5D gives it. Well, the 5D gives the shallowest DOF in comparison between those two, but as someone pointed out earlier, the Hasselblad has much much shallower DOF than the 5D, so it becomes a point of "choose which is appropriate for your given task."

Because the opposite also applies -- the GH2 can get incredibly more telephoto than the 5D could ever pray for. And the GH2 can exhibit so much less rolling shutter at telephoto that it's not even funny. So for a wildlife shooter, the GH2 is the absolute no-brainer. But for someone who for whatever reason, needs paper-thin shallow DOF in more circumstances than a GH2 can deliver, then yes the 5D can do that.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the thoughtful, in-depth reply Barry. I think the overall point I was making is that there will be more flexibility on the DoF front. More so now to think of it than standard film of the past. :)

Just a question for some people though that might know more.... The sensor sizes are comparable, but does the distance to the sensor make a difference between film and the GH2 for example?

Roman: It really depends then what your preference is. If you're 60/40 video, go GH2. If you are 60/40 photography, maybe stick with a traditional DSLR.
 
skulpt said:
The sensor sizes are comparable, but does the distance to the sensor make a difference between film and the GH2 for example?
Click to expand...
In what way?

When using a film lens, you have to use an adapter that moves the lens to the appropriate distance. I have a PL adapter for my AF100/GH2, and it moves the lens to 52mm away from the sensor. I also have a c-mount adapter for them, and it moves the lens to 17.52mm away from the sensor (which is actually closer than the m43 standard difference of 20mm). Canon lenses are about 40-something mm away from the sensor, Nikon lenses are, I think, like 46mm (too lazy to look it up). So lots of different types of lenses have lots of different distances from the sensor.

Single-chip designs are more appropriate to use with film lenses; maybe that's what you're thinking of? Using an interchangeable lens designed for a three-chip video camera could cause more issues when used on a single-chip design, because the video lens is designed to be used with a beamsplitting prism and therefore it's possible that the individual wavelengths of light might be designed to focus at different points maybe... but stills lenses and film lenses are all designed to project directly onto the sensor, so no, there should be no difference that I can think of caused by m43 having a 20mm FFD, or c-mount having 17.52mm, or Nikon having 46mm or PL having 52mm...
 
Here you go, GH2 Raw converted to jpg.

P1000227.jpg


P1000202.jpg


P1000203.jpg
 
I will be keeping my GH2 after all. Thank you for all of the reassurance. I took some more test shots and video footage using just the 50mm FD 1.4, I must say that I am impressed. I just need to practice my composition and learn how to use all of the features of the camera. No doubt, this is the king of the hybrid cams.

I will wait for the 25mm 1.4 from Panasonic, and the bright zoom. After I acquire these two lenses, I am sure I will be set. I will also play with manual focus primes for shallower dof in video and photos.

Now my only dilemma is, do I keep my 20mm 1.7, or return it. Rumors are strong that the 25mm 1.4 will be announced by February, and patients has always seemed to pay off for me. I just want to make sure I invest in the right lenses, that is why I skipped out on the 14-140, because I would rather wait for the bright zoom.
 
Roman707 said:
Rumors are strong that the 25mm 1.4 will be announced by February, and patients has always seemed to pay off for me. I just want to make sure I invest in the right lenses, that is why I skipped out on the 14-140, because I would rather wait for the bright zoom.
Click to expand...

I waited for the 100-300 for about a year after it was "announced." Just sayin...
 
I own both cameras, the 5D MK II and a GH2. The Gh2 has a lot more of possibilities, a more practicable monitor for framing and AF - what is in a lot of situations very important.
But the Photo-quality is far away from 5d MK II - the Film quality is similar, but far away from the DOF of 5D. The low light Quality of the 5 D is so much better than GH2 that I am very disappointed about the GH2. So many people here was enthusiastic, but what for? They dont own a 5D. The Gh2 with 160 ISO is noisy as 5D with 800 or 1250. Never the less: I will keep the GH2 because of its possibilities and its so inconspicuous, that you can work in differnt situations where the 5D is to noticeable.But the GH2 is to young to make a final judgement.
Benn
 
Roman707 said:
View attachment 27616

Here is a scaled down image from the Sony Alpha full frame camera. The lens on the camera was a Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T 2.8-22 24-70mm. Please tell me if there are lenses for the GH2 that can give me this kind of result. I am willing to use legacy or non-native manual fucus lenses. I know the Voightlander 25mm 0.95 would probably give me good results, but is there anything else more available/affordable?
Click to expand...

A couple of things spring to mind: This is a f2.8 lens, so yes, you can find other optics wider and obtain a shallow dof for the smaller format. However, really wide aperture lenses are going to give you a real PITA to focus. On my GH2, to focus manually, you cannot judge it by the 100% view with high accuracy. For this kind of family photography, you'll go nuts trying to focus, with a) presumably hand held rocking and b) baby won't stay still. The only way to focus with precision in manual mode is to press and hold the qmenu button and then press the menu button. Whilst all this is happening, your framing is uncertain and a little subsequent movement will ruin it all. AF isn't going to help either. You will want razor focus on the eyes - practically again, your hit rate to achieve lock-on focus on the eyes and not the hair, nose, ears, mouth etc. is going to be slim.

I'd keep the GH2, enjoy it and use a longer lens than 70mm- 35mm equivalent. Be warned, even with a static subject, a 90mm f2 lens on a Leica R or M will give you nightmares with portraits, if the face is not full on, one eye will be in and the other not at f2. Even f2.8 is hit and miss.
 
Bane - looks like you are using a Mac with the RAW heeby geebies. I get that awful green cast too on mine since the December update.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top