GH2 How does Panny TM900 (consumer camcorder) compare to GH2?

S

sigamy

Well-known member
It's been a few years since I've paid lots of attention to cameras. I now see that DSLR's have really taken hold for indie filmmakers. A few years ago everyone was slapping 35mm adapters onto Canon HV20s.

75% of my shooting is typical family stuff - events, sports, vacations and fun movies with the kids. 25% is hobby filmmaking.

I'm wondering if folks could put together a Pro/Con or comparison list of a high end consumer camcorder, like the Panny TM900 or X900 compared to the GH2. I know the GH2 benefits in DOF, probably dynamic range, and bitrate with the hack. Is there anything else? In comparing footage from these two would it be close or would one really shine? Also, is it too hard to shoot adhoc events and sports with a DSLR? I'll admit to often using auto mode when using camcorder for these shoots.

I've always wanted one camera to handle my typical family shooting and my hobby. I'm not a pro and (not that I'm buying now) my budgets are always limited to the "high-end consumer/low prosumer" range.

TIA.
 
Just the fact that you can use amazing glass on gh2 is enough. I wouldn't want to be limited to a stock zoom lens, which is just so-so compared to some prime glass.
 
I would stick to your TM900 for live event recordings ( having a 13x zoom, excellent auto-focus, and very good built-in image stabilization is hard to give up ), and use the GH2 for the slower / more serious shoots.

Between the two the GH2 produces a sharper, more detailed image, in much lower light, but you will never get a 13x, auto-focus, stabilized zoom for the GH2 that works as well as the TM900 does.

I use an HMC-150 and a TM700 when I shoot live events, and keep my GH2 for the more serious interviews/Indie/corporate film-making gigs.
 
This is just my opinion, YMMV.

You go buy the 900, a big SD card, an extra battery, charge the batteries, and you go shoot. Maybe later you buy more batteries, or more SD cards, but that's going to be about it.

You go buy the GH2 or 3, buy a lens, a large SD card, extra batteries and go shoot. Real soon you figure out that kit lens is crap for what you want to do, so you go buy the bigger zoom. Pretty soon after that you figure out both zooms suck for low light indoors, so you go get yourself some expensive fast primes. Then you..........

Get the picture ??? :-)
 
I wouldn't compare the GH2/GH3 to a camcorder. I would compare the FZ200 to a camcorder. The FZ200 has a 1/2.3" sensor and the X900 has a 1/4.1" sensor. Other than that both shoot 1080p @ 60 FPS at 28 mb/sec. Both have image stabilization and both shoot stills. However, the FZ200 will shoot much better RAW images than the camcorder and the FZ200 has a much longer zoom lens. However, the camcorder does have a nice bright F1.5 lens on the wide angle end.

Really the camcorder is very similar to the FZ200. It is just a different body housing and a slightly smaller sensor. Neither of them will give you shallow depth of field. I honestly, can't find a good reason for camcorders to exist today. I will never buy one again and I wouldn't recommend that anyone who wants to take pictures as well should buy one. It is not so much that they are bad. It is just the fact that they are so expensive, they don't take good photos, and they don't take better videos than hybrid cameras.

Buy the FZ200 and you will be happy. It is a wonderful camera. It is not a perfect camera but it is the best option for family events like you describe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top