Honestly...

[Jester2138]

Curious as to why you guys think the GH1 would be a better teaching tool than the T2i. The T2i, unlike the GH1, is a true DSLR and as such will take actual 35mm lenses natively - in addition to working like an SLR with the shutter and optical viewfinder, etc. Since nobody is using auto-focus anyway, and we're all doing full manual, what does the GH1 offer students that the T2i doesn't do better? I suppose it must have to do with whether you want them to have an easy time shooting or learn the concepts. I'd want my students to learn the concepts. If they just want to shoot easily then they should use a normal video camera.

Disclaimer - I'm not trying to start an argument. I'm just asking a geniune question. This is specifically for students.

 

[Barry_Green]

and as such will take actual 35mm lenses natively

GH1 takes every lens the t2i does, and many more

in addition to working like an SLR with the shutter and optical viewfinder, etc.

For stills, that is an advantage, although the only practical difference is whether one's using an optical viewfinder versus an LCD; operationally they're very comparable.

No doubt the t2i's experience would be more as an SLR than the GH1 would be, since it has the optical VF.

But when in film/video mode, being a "true SLR" is pointless, as the mirror is locked up and the viewfinder becomes useless on the DSLR. In cases like that the GH1 is actually superior because you can use the viewfinder in addition to the LCD.

Since nobody is using auto-focus anyway

Says who? As a "video" camera, autofocus can be useful sometimes.

what does the GH1 offer students that the T2i doesn't do better?

At the bare minimum it gives you a live histogram and actually functional exposure meter.

 

[Melvin Harris]

@Jester2138

to answer your question... for our purposes the simple reply is nothing. The GH1 offers nothing more than the T2i; but for us the Canon does nothing better- just differently. Urban education today is a land of the penny pincher. For us, as great as Canon's offerings are, the choice comes down to nickels and dimes. When I approached the district with the cameras, the T2i wasn't out yet and the 7D was brand new and more expensive so it was a no brainer there, but even more influenced the initial decision.

We have a pawn shop by our campus that sells photographic lenses. They have no idea what they have, so they sell 100 to 300mm f4.5 for like a hundred dollars because they are long. And good lenses for nothing. Seriously, I bought a pristine Canon 50mm 1.4 for $14.00USD and proceeded to buy their entire stock after I got paid again. They didn't bother to check the lenses because the came on old camera bodies, so after a while they started to sell them separately (selling the bodies for way more than the sold the lenses).
That alone shoots the GH1 to the top of the list. There are a lot of schools around with old camera stuff from when they had a photography class or what ever and the teacher quit, or had a stroke, or lost his mind and cursed the entire school for being lousy with hippies and idiots...

Donations!

What ever lens within reason that is donated by these schools for our program can (theoretically) be used. We save money! The cost of an adapter is nominal when weighed against every other factor.

That's our thing...

So that's why I asked about the viability of this camera and only this camera. It was said earlier, I had my mind made up. I can teach around the limitations and even teach an understanding of the weaknesses so as the bolster and edify the strengths... they don't know about the prejudices or biases, or any of the arguments for or against any camera any where, they only know that I can make art with this tool so this is the tool I choose because this is the tool I (we/the school) can afford and is available to me. And no offense to anyone, but I am certainly not going to tell any one in my district that a guy in LeftNut, Wisconsin says the camera does this or that or has a weak whatchamacallit... that a fast train to budget limbo.

Plus all the stuff Barry said, too.

 

[Sean Jeong]

@Jester2138

We have a pawn shop by our campus that sells photographic lenses. They have no idea what they have, so they sell 100 to 300mm f4.5 for like a hundred dollars because they are long. And good lenses for nothing. Seriously, I bought a pristine Canon 50mm 1.4 for $14.00USD and proceeded to buy their entire stock after I got paid again. They didn't bother to check the lenses because the came on old camera bodies, so after a while they started to sell them separately (selling the bodies for way more than the sold the lenses).

What kind of school do you work at? Man, if there was a store that never checked the price of their stocks, I'd be there all day.

 

[dvbrother]

The T2i, unlike the GH1, is a true DSLR and as such will take actual 35mm lenses natively

There are 2 flaws in the above sentence. First, as Barry Green noted, the GH1 will take any lens the T2i can use. The second flaw is the idea of taking "35mm lenses natively." What does that mean? What is a 35mm lens? In my understanding a 35mm lens is one made for a full-frame 35mm film camera. If that is the case, the T2i doesn not accept them natively, and the field-of-view will be cropped by 1,5x. The GH1's field-of-view crops a 35mm lens by 2x.

what does the GH1 offer students that the T2i doesn't do better? I suppose it must have to do with whether you want them to have an easy time shooting or learn the concepts. I'd want my students to learn the concepts. .

If that's the case, perhaps the GH1 with manual still lenses is the way to go. If students are forced to use manual aperture and manual focus, they will better learn the concepts, yes? The T2i will use lenses that have autofocus and electronic aperture.

I know you said you weren't trying to start an argument, but your post sure seemed constructed to make the GH1 look like a camera that wasn't a "real camera", and was unfit as a learning tool. This is not true in either case.
Also, the articulating LCD of the GH1 comes in very handy when shooting movies. The T2i cannot do this.
If it comes down to cost, get a T2i, I'm sure it will work just fine for students.

 

[Jester2138]

Well. Wow. I didn't mean to provoke you guys into defensive mode. I wasn't implying that the T2i was a "better" camera, just that from what I knew of both cameras that I thought it would teach students the concepts easier/faster/whatever. I don't own either camera, after all... Notice how I asked for your opinion... And wow nowhere was I implying that the GH1 wasn't a "real" camera... lol?

 

[Sean Jeong]

Well. Wow. I didn't mean to provoke you guys into defensive mode. I wasn't implying that the T2i was a "better" camera, just that from what I knew of both cameras that I thought it would teach students the concepts easier/faster/whatever. I don't own either camera, after all... Notice how I asked for your opinion... And wow nowhere was I implying that the GH1 wasn't a "real" camera... lol?

Well you actually did imply the GH1 wasn't a real camera by saying that the T2i was a true dslr while the GH1 isn't. And you did imply that the T2i was a "better" camera by saying the T2i does everything better than the GH1.

You've got to pick your words more carefully if you don't want to imply the things you are saying.

If you don't own either camera, why are you comparing them. You could ask for a comparison but you can't assume one is better than the other.

 

[Melvin Harris]

And I quote...

Since nobody is using auto-focus anyway, and we're all doing full manual, what does the GH1 offer students that the T2i doesn't do better?

There's an implication there and even with a disclaimer it does provoke a response...

 

[tears2040]

I owned a GH1 now a T2i. The T2i uses a better compression method so given in the right hands with a GH1 and T2i the Canon will look better. Does that mean the T2i is a better camera, NO it's just that panasonic gimped the GH1 in this area.


Now with that said there is amazing footage shot with the GH1 and I miss the flip LCD screen, but my area is web based media so the better compression method for me is needed.

Also many different lenses can be mounted to the Canon T2i as well. All of the Canon EF + EFS and many third party manufactures that make lenses as well. Now let me stop derailing this thread. Whether it's a GH1 or T2i you will have a great camera, I wish I had access to something like this when I was in Middle School ( 15+ years ago)


peace

 

[Ben_B]

Says who? As a "video" camera, autofocus can be useful sometimes.

Yup, even I who use my GH1 almost exclusively for narrative filmmaking ended up doing some ENG type stuff with it at a protest and found the auto-focus incredibly useful.

 

[thisisapocalypse]

For teaching purposes, I think the GH1 would be a better camera if you are interested in also teaching them the fundamentals of exposure and focusing. A GH1 with manual focus lenses is as basic as it gets and the best place to start if you want to give your students a lesson in the fundamentals. Talking about aperture, then showing them an aperture ring, and having them actually turn the thing to change the aperture, and seeing the results in the GH1 viewfinder will impart much more than turning a dial on the Canon and showing the aperture change on the LCD info panel, it's just not the same thing - they may understand that there is a number there, but that's about it - it's also disconnected from the lens itself in a physical sense - same with autofocus...it's much easier to learn the fundamentals when you are working at the most basic level, i.e., you've got to turn the aperture ring, you've got to turn the focus ring, than working on something that's been so automated - once you understand it all, then going to something that is all electronic/auto like the T2i is no problem.

If I really wanted to teach students about exposure/photography, I'd want to use something all manual - so a GH1 with MF legacy lenses would be absolutely the way to go if this is what you'd like to achieve - but besides all of these points, bravo for what you are doing and what you are trying to do - in the age of auto-everything, most students don't get to play with all manual cameras anymore or get good instruction on the basics of photography/exposure, so in that sense, whatever you are able to achieve is going to be a big net positive in their lives.

 

[Ben_B]

I completely agree!

Using the GH1 things make a whole lot more sense....the manual lenses are amazing, and the fact that you actually see the changes as you make them...it's just....it's great. I can't even articulate it. Since most SLRs don't trigger the aperture until you take the picture it can be confusing.

Anyway the GH1 is so perfect to learn on...I know so much of this stuff so well now because of learning the GH1 and learning from the people here. SLRs, motion picture film cameras, etc, never made sense to me until I used my GH1, and now I can shoot on any SLR and gave some advice to some people shooting on 16mm film that helped them with their production (they were having trouble doing equivelant exposures.)

 

[thisisapocalypse]

I completely agree!

Using the GH1 things make a whole lot more sense....the manual lenses are amazing, and the fact that you actually see the changes as you make them...it's just....it's great. I can't even articulate it. Since most SLRs don't trigger the aperture until you take the picture it can be confusing.

Anyway the GH1 is so perfect to learn on...I know so much of this stuff so well now because of learning the GH1 and learning from the people here. SLRs, motion picture film cameras, etc, never made sense to me until I used my GH1, and now I can shoot on any SLR and gave some advice to some people shooting on 16mm film that helped them with their production (they were having trouble doing equivelant exposures.)

Exactly - I feel like if you learned on a GH1 *WITH* MF legacy lenses you would have a much easier transition to shooting 16/35mm film than if you were to learn on a Canon DSLR, and for so many of us the goal is to do just that. If I had to pick someone to work on a film project with me, and the choices were narrowed down as such the only difference between the candidates was that one was using a GH-1 + Manual Focus lenses, and the other using a Canon DSLR, I'd go with the person who had used the GH-1 + MF lenses because of what you *have* to know to make that work with the GH1 and you can get by without understanding when shooting on a Canon DSLR.

(For the record I really like Canon products and have used them extensively over the years in still photography - so I am NOT a Canon hater in any sense of the word)

 

[tears2040]

Exactly - I feel like if you learned on a GH1 *WITH* MF legacy lenses you would have a much easier transition to shooting 16/35mm film than if you were to learn on a Canon DSLR, and for so many of us the goal is to do just that. If I had to pick someone to work on a film project with me, and the choices were narrowed down as such the only difference between the candidates was that one was using a GH-1 + Manual Focus lenses, and the other using a Canon DSLR, I'd go with the person who had used the GH-1 + MF lenses because of what you *have* to know to make that work with the GH1 and you can get by without understanding when shooting on a Canon DSLR.

(For the record I really like Canon products and have used them extensively over the years in still photography - so I am NOT a Canon hater in any sense of the word)

lol

So you take a dump on Canon and then say your not a hater, that's funny. Also who cares about shooting on 16, 35, Gh1, T2i, etc. None of the matters. If I could shoot on a cellphone and achieve amazing final results that's all that matters.

No one cares ( the audience) who are the actual people who go to the movies and buy tickets ,what you shot it on. Yeah it's cool to know the tech aspects but at the end of the day none of that matters.

 

[Ben_B]

lol

So you take a dump on Canon and then say your not a hater, that's funny. Also who cares about shooting on 16, 35, Gh1, T2i, etc. None of the matters. If I could shoot on a cellphone and achieve amazing final results that's all that matters.

No one cares ( the audience) who are the actual people who go to the movies and buy tickets ,what you shot it on. Yeah it's cool to know the tech aspects but at the end of the day none of that matters.

Actually I believe to the OP, who is asking if the GH1 would be a good camera to teach his middle school students filmmaking on, it matters very much. Please read the relevant posts before commenting.

As for hating or not, you can say bad things and not be a "hater." I can dislike something Obama does and say so but still like and vote for him, I can say that the iPad is a stupid idea but still love Apple (it's not btw), and he can say that he feels like the Canon DSLRs don't allow you to learn at the same level as the GH1 and not be a hater.

 

[thisisapocalypse]

lol

So you take a dump on Canon and then say your not a hater, that's funny. Also who cares about shooting on 16, 35, Gh1, T2i, etc. None of the matters. If I could shoot on a cellphone and achieve amazing final results that's all that matters.

No one cares ( the audience) who are the actual people who go to the movies and buy tickets ,what you shot it on. Yeah it's cool to know the tech aspects but at the end of the day none of that matters.

We're not talking about the audience in this case, we're talking about the people who have to make the film, so the tech aspects do matter since the goal of the OP is to teach students how to use the cameras and produce footage - you can get lucky now and then without knowing the tech aspects but to be really good and deliver consistent results you do need at least a fundamental knowledge of how cameras work, and the GH1 is very good for that with MF lenses.

I didn't say a single derogatory thing about Canon whatsoever in my post. I said nothing about whether or not the cameras are good, but a good camera, and a good camera to *learn* on are two different things. I prefer the build and lenses of Canon over anyone else as far as modern DSLR photography is concerned, I think the GH1 video looks more filmlike but its codec is also not optimal for all shooting conditions, I'm actually planning to buy a T2i to use as a 2nd camera and when I can use the GH1 I will, and when the GH1's codec is not appropriate for the scene, I'll use the Canon. I'd probably always use the Canon if it weren't for its aliasing method and the moire issues - but it has those issues so I'll use it when those issues aren't a problem for the shot, and the GH1 when they are...sheesh! I've used the 5D, 7D and like them both a lot - if the 5D had 24p that's more than likely the route I would have gone initially over the GH1 because of my Canon loyalty (over the years I've owned and/or used extensively (either I owned it or another pro photographer friend had the cam and I used it) the EOS-1, EOS-3, EOS Elan IIe, 10D, 20D, 30D, 10s, RT, 5D, 7D, owned the 300mm f/2.8, 80-200mm f/2.8 L, 27-70 f/2.8-4 L, 20-35mm, 35mm f/2, 28-105mm, 17-40mm f/4 L, Zeiss ZE 50mm f/1.4, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, 100mm f/2.8 Macro...every top of the line flash they've produced for the EOS line (upgraded every time one came out)....the list goes on) and various point and shoots.

I agree that if you shoot it right it doesn't matter what you shoot it on, and if it looks good the audience won't care, nor will they think about it, I fully agree.

 

[Jester2138]

Well you actually did imply the GH1 wasn't a real camera by saying that the T2i was a true dslr while the GH1 isn't.

And being an SLR has what to do with being a real camera? That's what I was saying about you guys going into defensive mode. You see it as implying something, I simply see it as stating the fact that the GH1 is not an SLR, while the T2i is. Which is completely 100% true. I'm sorry if you took that as an attack on the GH1.

 

[Barry_Green]

It is true, yes -- but the fact of the matter is that for video, being a "true DSLR" is a drawback.

On the "true DSLR", the viewfinder goes away when put in video mode. On the GH1, you still have access to the viewfinder -- which makes a big difference if you're shooting in bright-light conditions outdoors where the sun washes out the LCD, or if you're blind as a bat up-close (like I am) because you can adjust the viewfinder diopter.

So yes, the 7t2 is a "true DSLR" -- and for stills, that's great. But for video it's a step downwards.

 

[Jester2138]

Yet, most everyone I know who switched from a normal camera to an HDSLR has mentioned how these HDSLR's have forced them to think about parts of cinematography that they never thought about with the normal cameras. That said, it's entirely possible they'd learn the same things with a 4/3 camera. As a student, I think I learned more from my D90 in a month than a DVX100 in a year.

 

[OPHERBA]

Regardless to picture quality.
Unfortunately I don't think the GH1 will survive too many students hands. Its build quality is nothing like the Canon pro cameras.

Thanks.

Johnnie