GH2 I have finally seen the light and now I have questions.

refocusedmedia

refocusedmedia

Veteran
Long story short, I have a Canon 60D. I loved it when I got it in 2010 (my first DLSR and FHD camera), and have grown increasingly unsatisfied with it ever since. The lack of resolution, the terrible DR, the mushy compressed resulting footage - all of it. I can't afford L-series glass or Zeiss lenses to help compensate.

For years, I have heard about the quality of the GH series and just couldn't fathom that they were that much better despite all the Vimeo comparisons in the world. Well, now I get it. I've been helping shoot a web series pilot with my 60D and Canon 17-55 f/2.8 lens and the director decided to let me operate the main camera instead (stock GH2). The difference was astounding. Real detail (not sharpness), actual shadows, soft highlights, less jitter, hell even the onboard sound was better. All shot in the same location with the same lighting/support and the same actors. I know this is old news to you guys, but it just happened for me and now I want to move away from the dark side.

Here's my dilemma: I know very little about non-EF or EF-S lenses, and even less about the MFT mount. I am trying to decide if I should keep my lenses and adapt them, or if I should sell them and start fresh with glass. Here is what I have currently:

Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS
Sigma 30 1.4 (old style)
Canon EF 85 1.8
Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS APO

From what I can tell, there is only one adapter that will let me use my EF-S lenses with IS and that is the $600 Metabones Speedbooster. I can't even find one that works with EF-S and has manual aperture control (if you know of one please tell me). I've read that I can take the plastic EF-S tip off and use EF adapters, but that seems sketchy. Can someone help me understand what my experience would be if I kept my lenses?

If I sell my lenses, I don't know where to start to look at replacing them. I never use AF for video, so I am ok with full manual lenses -- but which ones are worth looking at? I've read that some Olympus and Leica lens mount directly without adapters, but which ones? And do they mount in a way that would allow me to use their electronics or do they become manual? I've also heard there are some other lens brands that can mount directly, so I'd have similar questions there. Are there cheaper active mounts for other non-Canon lenses, like Nikon for example, that would allow me find a lens capable of IS? And what about MFT native glass -- there seems to be such a limited selection compared to the EF/EF-S native glass selection that I'm used to. I'd like to get at least one walkaround lens with AF for photos (that's what I use my 17-55 for quite a bit).

As far as FOV ranges are concerned, on my 60D I use the 17-55 the majority of the time, the 30 and 70-200 when needed for lowlight or tele/closeups, and the 85 hardly at all. I tend to like a 24ish-60ish range when you factor in the FF crop, and I'm a big fan of the handheld look so I tend to like the wider end of that range. I'd probably be fine with two fast primes (one wider, one less wide) and a walkaround zoom with AF for photos. I think I can manage without a tele, and that is my most expensive lens so I'm thinking I should probably sell it. But it's such a great lens it's just as easy to justify keeping it.

If you stayed with me this far, thank you. I know these threads can be cumbersome, but I've always appreciated the DVX forums for it's vast wealth of knowledgeable and helpful users. Almost done.

At this point, I'd be happy with a stock GH2 over my 60D -- but I also know I can get a GH3 for not much more. Is that really worth it? I've read some comparisons and see there are some definite improvements in the GH3 over the GH2, but I've also read some users happy to be sticking with their GH2. I've also considered a GH4. If I can swing it, it would definitely help me stick out around here as just another Canon DSLR shooter in the crowd (not to mention being more future-ready). Let's say it came down to a GH3 and a couple lenses or a GH4 and one lens -- which would you pick and why? If the latter, which one lens would you choose if you were in my position?

Anyway, I'll give you guys a break now. Thanks for reading. Also, if you have any good resources on transitioning from Canon to GH, or primers on the GH and MFT mount, I'd love to see them.
 
I'll give you a couple of first thoughts.

You are not the first person to contemplate this transition and while the site's search engine leaves a lot to be desired, scrolling through several pages of this section should yield a ton of information.

Olympus lenses made for m43 fit without adapters. Leica do not.

As far as the GH3 to GH4 dilemma, it really depends on what you want to do. For some, the upgrade form the GH2 to the GH3 was very welcomed, others missed the multi-aspect sensor of the GH2 and the ability to hack the bit rates. If you need to have 4K video capability then in m43 the GH4 is the only option. And if you were going to go that route, I think the 12-25 would replicate your focal lengths, but it's important for you to try out the combination to see if the resulting IQ is what you are after. I know it seems obvious, but lenses play a huge part in how footage looks.

Hope this helps a little.
 
stoneinapond said:
I'll give you a couple of first thoughts.

You are not the first person to contemplate this transition and while the site's search engine leaves a lot to be desired, scrolling through several pages of this section should yield a ton of information.

Olympus lenses made for m43 fit without adapters. Leica do not.

As far as the GH3 to GH4 dilemma, it really depends on what you want to do. For some, the upgrade form the GH2 to the GH3 was very welcomed, others missed the multi-aspect sensor of the GH2 and the ability to hack the bit rates. If you need to have 4K video capability then in m43 the GH4 is the only option. And if you were going to go that route, I think the 12-25 would replicate your focal lengths, but it's important for you to try out the combination to see if the resulting IQ is what you are after. I know it seems obvious, but lenses play a huge part in how footage looks.

Hope this helps a little.
Click to expand...

It does, thank you, and I am in the process of reading through this section of the forum (never been here before!).

I know lenses play a huge part of course, but man -- even the footage from the cheap kit & 45-200 Lumix lenses on the GH2 was much better than my 60D and Canon 17-55. Canon's codec and compression ruins so much of the image, it's crazy to finally see the reality firsthand.

Thanks again for responding.
 
refocusedmedia said:
Let's say it came down to a GH3 and a couple lenses or a GH4 and one lens -- which would you pick and why?
Click to expand...

GH4 : 4K image ( 2 times the resolution for 1080 HD footage when downsampled from 4K ), CineD profile provides 2+ more stops of dynamic range, Effective Focus Peaking makes it easy to use manual focus lenses, NO Moire and little aliasing in the recorded image, 70 dB Audio dynamic range ( 7 dB more than the GH3 ), Good Audio Preamps ( work perfectly with a -50 dB audio signal ), 10-bit 4:2:2 HDMI output. ( this list could go on and on, the bottom line is that the GH4 is a huge upgrade over the GH3 )
 
For what it's worth, my favorite three manual focus lenses on my GH2 (now G6) are Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-VC, Sigma 30mm f1.4, and Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 non-VC ..... all Nikon mount and used with a Metabones Nikon-M4/3 Speedbooster.

So if I were in your shoes, I'd likely buy the EF Speedbooster and carry on with your existing lenses.
 
First wanted to mention the "dark side/light side" thing... best to lose that mentality, it's what makes people put so much emotion into their tool choice that they can wind up making the wrong decision and compromising their project. Personal opinion there, for whatever it's worth. 60D is still a great camera for a great many things (though IMO one-man-band video production isn't really one of them).

The GH2 was a nifty camera and still punches well above its weight, but it's bettered by the GH3/4 largely due to battery life, internal audio, image (though arguable), and a number of simple functional improvements. The '4 is a significant step up from the '3 in a number of areas as well.

The Metabones Speedbooster is the best option with your lens set. The slight modification necessary to make the 17-55 work involves removing a few screws, and is totally reversible. If you choose to sell those lenses, your preferred working focal ranges hint towards a Panasonic 12-35/2.8, Olympus 12-40/2.8, or Olympus 4/3 14-35/2 . Natively, you can mount MFT/m43 lenses regardless of manufacturer. Any other lens requires an adapter, including 4/3 lenses, Olympus OM, etc... just check the lens mount before buying. There are lens adapters for nearly everything available.
 
On the GH3 vs GH4 front, I can only say that I had the GH1, GH2, but skipped the GH3 and went to the GH4. I sold my GH1 to help pay for the GH4. Here was my thought process.

GH1 - Good before hacked. Lots of detail, but got blocky and mushy in high detail situations. After hack, phenominal except in low light where fixed pattern bands were an issue. Audio input had to be attenuated with a patch cable unless I was using my Senheiser G3s where I could attenuate on the receiver. Had to get an adapter to go to the 2.5mm mic input. Really good onboard mic as well for ambiance and close subjects. Screen and EVF were decent, but left something to be desired.

GH2 - Bought to be my #1 camera along side my GH1 in order to relegate my HD Canon HV-20 and 30 to backup duty and not have to use tapes. Better image and color, similar DR. Also good onboard mic but now had level control and no longer needed attenuation cable. Stock AVCHD 24Mbs codec held up much better than stock GH1, but still would lose integrity in too highly detailed scenes. Once hacked, amazing detail in every situation. Should mention that with well known settings both GH1 and GH2 hacks were rock solid. Screen and EVF res was better, but not amazing.

GH3 - Quality was good, but IMO, not better than hacked GH2 in anything I saw. Having headphone jack and 3.5mm audio input would have been nice. Upgraded screen, but a lot of complaints about the EVF. If it would have had focus peaking I would have gotten it, that's what it came down to.

I would have loved to have kept my GH1 but I needed to justify having it and couldn't when the GH4 arrived. It's resale value was still good so I let it go with the thought I may buy one again down the road if I found myself missing it too much for 3 camera shoots (very rare as I have pretty much stopped doing weddings) but have been thinking more and more that the GX7 will be camera #3, or another GH2 depending on price.

GH4 - Everything I ever wanted and more. Honestly. I have had this camera for 7 months and there is almost nothing I don't love about it. Resolution, image Q in the colors, gradability, even low light performance is good for everything I do. The wifi app I use a lot (as there is I do a fair bit of in front of camera work as a one man crew in a studio). When I'm out and about filming with manual lenses the increased EVF and screen resolution is great, but most of all... focus peaking. That's the primary thing I miss every time I film with my GH2 now. I wanted it on the GH3, and when I got it on the GH4, I was a happy man. I use AVCHD 24M 1080p @24 when I don't need extra res and the scene isn't insanely detailed (though I've never seen it break down, I can't think of a time I've really pushed it on detail) and save space. I use AVCHD for 60p less detailed, and MOV for 60p more detailed. Sure, I wish 96fps was a little sharper, but it is still very usable for all my projects. People are so impressed with the slow mo, they really don't care that it's a tiny bit soft, IMO. It really is a complete package.

Lenses:

For all lenses on GH4: Do best when shooting 1080@60p due to not as much resolution to process and more frames to analyze for focus (as well as probably higher shutter speed giving less blur in the motion). 1080@24p and 180+ degree shutter (50 or below SS) and it struggles sometimes to find focus, especially high motion scenes due to motion blur. AF is almost useless in UHD or C4K @24p and not much better at 30p in my experience.

My Lenses:
Lumix 14-140 F4.0-5.6: Original version with Good all around lens with great range. Wish it was faster aperture. Dim to dark indoor scenes are not this len's friend. Will force you to the 3200 ISO range. Still, incredibly versatile in any decent-brightly lit situation. Fast auto focus motor if the camera can find focus.
14-42 F3.5-5.6: Use very occasionally when I decide I want that extra 0.5 of light to my 14mm shots. Also use this in my underwater bag housing for my GH2 because small size fits lens tube nicely. Sometimes a bit soft on long end. Not a bad lens, but not great.
Lumix 20mm F1.7 (oringinal version): Great optical quality, tiny lens. Focus motor is pretty slow. Stills it's not a problem, but for video, autofocus is a no. Hard to get used to manually focusing reliably, especially before GH4 and peaking. Good focal length, but often wish I had something wider with same or better aperture speed.

Metabones speedbooster MD-M43: Worth every penny IMO. My Minolta MD lenses give me the more vintage look while still being incredibly sharp, where as my Lumix lenses are very precise, but sometimes too surgical looking for narrative shots. Gives extra light and makes gives closer to FF look when I want it.
 
Here's my experience: Had 7D, T3i, and 60D with 2 "L" zooms (17-40 f4L & 70-200f4L), 24mm, 28mm, 50mm EF primes, the 18-55 & 55-250 zooms. Saw Bruce Dale's "Summer Morning" short shot with "stock" pre-production GH2 and 14-140mm "kit" lens and was stunned by it's detail so sold off all Canon stuff and converted to a couple of GH2's and "native" m4/3 lenses, haven't looked back yet.

Upgraded to GH3's and now have a GH4.

I feel I lost NOTHING in sharpness quality by replacing Canon glass with Panasonic Lumix and Olympus m.Zuiko lenses. The "native" m4/3 glass CAN seem to be too sharp but I'm well used to using a bit of diffusion when I want something a tad softer.

The GH3 EVF is not the best (a bit of step down from the GH2 - they made the optical design part smaller and some folks feel they can't use it) but I can use it and even see focus in it, especially when using the magnified focus assist. The GH4 EVF is a PHENOMENAL IMPROVEMENT over that in the GH3 and the LCD is even better, couple that with the 4K resolution and that makes the GH4 the best way to go IMO.

Lenses: Lumix 14mm f2.5, Olympus m.Zuiko 25mm f1.8, and Olympus m.Zuiko 45mm f1.8 makeup a great starter kit of "fast" glass primes. The Lumix 14-42mm (ver 2) f3.5 to f5.6 would make a pretty good "walkaround" lens (I use the older 14-45mm f3.5 - 5.6 that used to come with the GH1 for that, but those are only available used and prices are around $250 now on those.

For longer "reach" I have the Lumix 45-200mm f4-5.6 and am very happy with that one. An Olympus m.Zuiko 9-18mm f4-5.6 takes care of my ultra-wide needs and I've succumbed to a couple of other lenses like the m.Zuiko 75mm f1.8 along the way.

I didn't try to go for all those lenses within a short time span, took my time and purchased several of them used over about a 3 year span. A good place to watch for used bargains is the "buy/sell" forum on mu-43.com, I've had good luck with my purchases there (this site - dvxuser - and that one are the main two I watch for anything having to do with m4/3 topics.

If budget is a consideration watch both sites for bargains on "lightly used" GH3's. It's probably mostly eyeglass wearers who have the most difficulty adapting to the GH3 EVF. I was highly myopic with astigmatism and still managed to adapt well enough but I'm very adaptable, after cataract surgery with astigmatism correcting implants (no longer have to wear glasses!) it got even better.

I've seen used GH3's go for $600 or so.

Good luck
 
I went through a bunch of Canon gear in the last few years - it all started with T1i, then 7D and 60D, then 5D Mark II. Also, I had Sony FS100 for work and currently shooting with Canon C100. Bought GH4 for my personal projects and weddings. Micro 4/3 sensor is too small for me(yeah, Im spoiled by FF and Super35), so I've got a Speedbooster and now it feels just right. I have a lot of Canon glass at work and a wedding company I work for has a nice collection of Canon L glass. So, it all depends. I'd go for GH4 - it's and AMAZING camera and I'm blown away by all the features Panasonic put into this tiny body. EVF is stunning, 4k is incredible! IS is very, very, VERY big deal for some people(including me), so 17-55 would be a perfect choice.
 
Crop factor will take getting used to on the lenses. I have Metabones speed booster for Nikon to m43(there is no ois or af) and I have a kipon canon to m43 adapter with aperture control.

You need to research if you're going to get the Speedbooster for Ef lenses. To control aperture and have OIS you need to power it somehow. If you have a lot of canon glass with ois it is an absolute need, I think.
Without elaborate work arounds or gear you will only have AF on m43 lenses. I would suggest using m43 lenses if you need auto anything. It will be faster and better.

I can suggest two lenses. The mft prime Voightlander 25 mm 0.95f, an utterly superb portrait and low light lens and the Sigma 18-35 1.8f, Nikon or canon(get speedbooster for your choice), the best "affordable" wide angle zoom out there. Then pepper in a couple of lumix or Olympus feature packed walk around lens with af and ois.
 
I don't think you can go wrong with a GH2, GH3 or GH4 so I'd balance your budget in favour of lenses for stage 1 of your GH romance =)

Given your requirements (you mentioned IS, AF, 24-70mm range, and a walk around lens for photos too) then I think hands down the best choice is the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8. It's absolutely fantastic if you can afford it and perfectly fits your needs. If your budget is tighter then go for the 14-140mm f/3.5-f/5.6. Very sharp, IS, AF, just struggles in lowlight.

If you want something a little bit special then as a 2nd lens I would got for the Voigtlander 17.5mm or 25mm. I have the 25mm and it is hands down my favourite lens ever. Fully manual, but such a joy to use for filming and photos and incredible lowlight and beautiful rendering. If you can't stretch to the Voitglander then the Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4 is also a beauty for your lowlight work!

Welcome and enjoy!
 
James Fisher said:
I don't think you can go wrong with a GH2, GH3 or GH4 so I'd balance your budget in favour of lenses for stage 1 of your GH romance =)

Given your requirements (you mentioned IS, AF, 24-70mm range, and a walk around lens for photos too) then I think hands down the best choice is the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8. It's absolutely fantastic if you can afford it and perfectly fits your needs. If your budget is tighter then go for the 14-140mm f/3.5-f/5.6. Very sharp, IS, AF, just struggles in lowlight.

If you want something a little bit special then as a 2nd lens I would got for the Voigtlander 17.5mm or 25mm. I have the 25mm and it is hands down my favourite lens ever. Fully manual, but such a joy to use for filming and photos and incredible lowlight and beautiful rendering. If you can't stretch to the Voitglander then the Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4 is also a beauty for your lowlight work!

Welcome and enjoy!
Click to expand...

when using either 25mm that you kindly mentioned, what is the sweet spot f/setting?

how difficult is it to keep an interviewee in focus at wide or near wide open?

do you ever find yourself using a variable nd even indoors to soften the background?

thanks in advance to those who know and care to share.

be well.

rob
smalltalk productions/nyc
 
Hi Rob,

The sweet spot for the Voigtlander 25mm is f/1.4 - 2.8. I film weddings so if for example I'm walking backwards filming confetti I would generally use it at f/2.8 to help keep things in focus. You'd probably find it quite easy to keep an interviewee in focus at 1.4 and 2 on sticks, 2.8 if you're handheld. Saying that, I film first dances at f/1.4 and below and don't have too much trouble keeping focus, but I'm generally not as close with the 25mm during a first dance so it's easier. I use 0.95 when I really need the light, or want that dreamy/glowy effect.

I sometimes use a variable ND indoors when I'm near a window so that I can use the larger apertures.
 
mcbob said:
First wanted to mention the "dark side/light side" thing... best to lose that mentality, it's what makes people put so much emotion into their tool choice that they can wind up making the wrong decision and compromising their project. Personal opinion there, for whatever it's worth. 60D is still a great camera for a great many things (though IMO one-man-band video production isn't really one of them).
Click to expand...

Oh I know, it was just a dumb joke. I'm thankful for the experience I've gained with the 60D. I wouldn't be here wanting to transition away from it if I hadn't spent years learning on it first. :) I've just finally crossed the disillusionment line with Canon, and I don't think there's any going back (until I can get a C-series, maybe).

The Metabones Speedbooster is the best option with your lens set. The slight modification necessary to make the 17-55 work involves removing a few screws, and is totally reversible. If you choose to sell those lenses, your preferred working focal ranges hint towards a Panasonic 12-35/2.8, Olympus 12-40/2.8, or Olympus 4/3 14-35/2 . Natively, you can mount MFT/m43 lenses regardless of manufacturer. Any other lens requires an adapter, including 4/3 lenses, Olympus OM, etc... just check the lens mount before buying. There are lens adapters for nearly everything available.
Click to expand...

So I've been looking into this more and more. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

The reason I've been having so much trouble finding a EF-S to MFT adapter with iris control is because 1) EF-S is proprietary and not licensed to 3rd party and 2) the aperture control in Canon lenses is 100% electronic. Which means a few things:

A) If I want to use my 17-55 workhorse with IS, I have no choice but to physically modify it and purchase a $400-$600 active adapter.
B) The few passive EF to MFT adapters out there with iris control are not actually controlling the physical lens blades, they are providing their own?
C) I can use cheap adapters but the lenses will always be wide open & require NDs (selling my 60D, so I'll have no Canon body to trick the lens with).
D) This scenario is unlikely to change as Canon is unlikely to ever license EF-S to third parties.

Now I understand why everyone recommends Nikon lenses (except for G mount) -- they come with built-in mechanical aperture control rings. So even cheap passive mount adapters are fine because the actual lens aperture is controllable no matter what. Are there any other lens systems, besides Nikon, with built-in aperture control rings?
 
blazer003 said:
On the GH3 vs GH4 front, I can only say that I had the GH1, GH2, but skipped the GH3 and went to the GH4. I sold my GH1 to help pay for the GH4. Here was my thought process.

GH1 - Good before hacked. Lots of detail, but got blocky and mushy in high detail situations. After hack, phenominal except in low light where fixed pattern bands were an issue. Audio input had to be attenuated with a patch cable unless I was using my Senheiser G3s where I could attenuate on the receiver. Had to get an adapter to go to the 2.5mm mic input. Really good onboard mic as well for ambiance and close subjects. Screen and EVF were decent, but left something to be desired.

GH2 - Bought to be my #1 camera along side my GH1 in order to relegate my HD Canon HV-20 and 30 to backup duty and not have to use tapes. Better image and color, similar DR. Also good onboard mic but now had level control and no longer needed attenuation cable. Stock AVCHD 24Mbs codec held up much better than stock GH1, but still would lose integrity in too highly detailed scenes. Once hacked, amazing detail in every situation. Should mention that with well known settings both GH1 and GH2 hacks were rock solid. Screen and EVF res was better, but not amazing.

GH3 - Quality was good, but IMO, not better than hacked GH2 in anything I saw. Having headphone jack and 3.5mm audio input would have been nice. Upgraded screen, but a lot of complaints about the EVF. If it would have had focus peaking I would have gotten it, that's what it came down to.

I would have loved to have kept my GH1 but I needed to justify having it and couldn't when the GH4 arrived. It's resale value was still good so I let it go with the thought I may buy one again down the road if I found myself missing it too much for 3 camera shoots (very rare as I have pretty much stopped doing weddings) but have been thinking more and more that the GX7 will be camera #3, or another GH2 depending on price.

GH4 - Everything I ever wanted and more. Honestly. I have had this camera for 7 months and there is almost nothing I don't love about it. Resolution, image Q in the colors, gradability, even low light performance is good for everything I do. The wifi app I use a lot (as there is I do a fair bit of in front of camera work as a one man crew in a studio). When I'm out and about filming with manual lenses the increased EVF and screen resolution is great, but most of all... focus peaking. That's the primary thing I miss every time I film with my GH2 now. I wanted it on the GH3, and when I got it on the GH4, I was a happy man. I use AVCHD 24M 1080p @24 when I don't need extra res and the scene isn't insanely detailed (though I've never seen it break down, I can't think of a time I've really pushed it on detail) and save space. I use AVCHD for 60p less detailed, and MOV for 60p more detailed. Sure, I wish 96fps was a little sharper, but it is still very usable for all my projects. People are so impressed with the slow mo, they really don't care that it's a tiny bit soft, IMO. It really is a complete package.

Lenses:

For all lenses on GH4: Do best when shooting 1080@60p due to not as much resolution to process and more frames to analyze for focus (as well as probably higher shutter speed giving less blur in the motion). 1080@24p and 180+ degree shutter (50 or below SS) and it struggles sometimes to find focus, especially high motion scenes due to motion blur. AF is almost useless in UHD or C4K @24p and not much better at 30p in my experience.

My Lenses:
Lumix 14-140 F4.0-5.6: Original version with Good all around lens with great range. Wish it was faster aperture. Dim to dark indoor scenes are not this len's friend. Will force you to the 3200 ISO range. Still, incredibly versatile in any decent-brightly lit situation. Fast auto focus motor if the camera can find focus.
14-42 F3.5-5.6: Use very occasionally when I decide I want that extra 0.5 of light to my 14mm shots. Also use this in my underwater bag housing for my GH2 because small size fits lens tube nicely. Sometimes a bit soft on long end. Not a bad lens, but not great.
Lumix 20mm F1.7 (oringinal version): Great optical quality, tiny lens. Focus motor is pretty slow. Stills it's not a problem, but for video, autofocus is a no. Hard to get used to manually focusing reliably, especially before GH4 and peaking. Good focal length, but often wish I had something wider with same or better aperture speed.

Metabones speedbooster MD-M43: Worth every penny IMO. My Minolta MD lenses give me the more vintage look while still being incredibly sharp, where as my Lumix lenses are very precise, but sometimes too surgical looking for narrative shots. Gives extra light and makes gives closer to FF look when I want it.
Click to expand...

Great information, I really appreciate you taking the time to share it all. Do you shoot a lot of video with those lenses? Any examples I can see with them?
 
Bruce Foreman said:
Here's my experience: Had 7D, T3i, and 60D with 2 "L" zooms (17-40 f4L & 70-200f4L), 24mm, 28mm, 50mm EF primes, the 18-55 & 55-250 zooms. Saw Bruce Dale's "Summer Morning" short shot with "stock" pre-production GH2 and 14-140mm "kit" lens and was stunned by it's detail so sold off all Canon stuff and converted to a couple of GH2's and "native" m4/3 lenses, haven't looked back yet.

Upgraded to GH3's and now have a GH4.

I feel I lost NOTHING in sharpness quality by replacing Canon glass with Panasonic Lumix and Olympus m.Zuiko lenses. The "native" m4/3 glass CAN seem to be too sharp but I'm well used to using a bit of diffusion when I want something a tad softer.

The GH3 EVF is not the best (a bit of step down from the GH2 - they made the optical design part smaller and some folks feel they can't use it) but I can use it and even see focus in it, especially when using the magnified focus assist. The GH4 EVF is a PHENOMENAL IMPROVEMENT over that in the GH3 and the LCD is even better, couple that with the 4K resolution and that makes the GH4 the best way to go IMO.

Lenses: Lumix 14mm f2.5, Olympus m.Zuiko 25mm f1.8, and Olympus m.Zuiko 45mm f1.8 makeup a great starter kit of "fast" glass primes. The Lumix 14-42mm (ver 2) f3.5 to f5.6 would make a pretty good "walkaround" lens (I use the older 14-45mm f3.5 - 5.6 that used to come with the GH1 for that, but those are only available used and prices are around $250 now on those.

For longer "reach" I have the Lumix 45-200mm f4-5.6 and am very happy with that one. An Olympus m.Zuiko 9-18mm f4-5.6 takes care of my ultra-wide needs and I've succumbed to a couple of other lenses like the m.Zuiko 75mm f1.8 along the way.

I didn't try to go for all those lenses within a short time span, took my time and purchased several of them used over about a 3 year span. A good place to watch for used bargains is the "buy/sell" forum on mu-43.com, I've had good luck with my purchases there (this site - dvxuser - and that one are the main two I watch for anything having to do with m4/3 topics.

If budget is a consideration watch both sites for bargains on "lightly used" GH3's. It's probably mostly eyeglass wearers who have the most difficulty adapting to the GH3 EVF. I was highly myopic with astigmatism and still managed to adapt well enough but I'm very adaptable, after cataract surgery with astigmatism correcting implants (no longer have to wear glasses!) it got even better.

I've seen used GH3's go for $600 or so.

Good luck
Click to expand...

I'm considering the GH3. The standard mic/headphone jack plus the improved IQ (stock) and better battery life all make it seem like a good step up from the GH2.

Thank you for the lens suggestions, I will definitely look into them.

One thing I've thought more about is weight. When I had my 60D and 17-55 on my shoulder rig, it was heavy. When I had the GH2 and 45-200 on it -- it was significantly less heavy. The more I think about it, the more mounting these Canon lenses, especially the 17-55, on the lightweight GH cameras seems counterproductive. Are Nikon lenses just as heavy? I've never used them. Which lens systems are typically the least heavy?
 
As mentioned get a couple really fast native lens for that special shallow depth look when needed. People say MFT doesn't have the "look" but it does with the right lens.
 
James Fisher said:
I don't think you can go wrong with a GH2, GH3 or GH4 so I'd balance your budget in favour of lenses for stage 1 of your GH romance =)

Given your requirements (you mentioned IS, AF, 24-70mm range, and a walk around lens for photos too) then I think hands down the best choice is the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8. It's absolutely fantastic if you can afford it and perfectly fits your needs. If your budget is tighter then go for the 14-140mm f/3.5-f/5.6. Very sharp, IS, AF, just struggles in lowlight.

If you want something a little bit special then as a 2nd lens I would got for the Voigtlander 17.5mm or 25mm. I have the 25mm and it is hands down my favourite lens ever. Fully manual, but such a joy to use for filming and photos and incredible lowlight and beautiful rendering. If you can't stretch to the Voitglander then the Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4 is also a beauty for your lowlight work!

Welcome and enjoy!
Click to expand...

Thank you for the suggestions, I appreciate it.
 
I appreciate everyone's responses here. I feel like I'm diving into something all over again, like I was when I first began researching DSLRs over camcorders.

The MFT mount and the various lens systems that can be adapted to it is like a whole new world of possibilities, which means a whole new world of information. I never once considered adapting any other lens type to my 60D, no need, but it's clear that will change once I transition to a GH camera.

In order to even afford the GH4 and Speedbooster, I'd most likely have to sell all my lenses anyway. So it seems like that is a useless option for me currently. Another option would be to go with a GH3 and Speedbooster and keep my 17-55 at least, and then move to GH4 when funds permit. Or I could just sell it all, get a GH4 and something like the Panasonic-Leica 25mm 1.4 and a cheap MFT zoom and add lenses/adapters when funds permit.

Of those three, I feel like the last option is probably the best. I don't own a Canon lens that is just SO great that I absolutely HAVE to keep it. The Sigma 70-200 is probably the best, but it's also the one that will bring in the most money. And down the road, if I stayed with Canon and had the funds, I'd probably want to upgrade all the lenses I have anyway. I've been eyeing the Rokinon Cine primes, for example, which are also available in MFT mount. No point in getting those in a EF mount and then Speedboosting them for a MFT mount (well there is some benefit optically of course, but not enough to justify stretching my budget for it). And if I ever return to Canon down the road, it'd probably be with something like a C100 mk2 -- which means I'd be in a position to purchase better lenses than what I currently own anyway.

I think I'm going to just sell it all and embrace a GH camera and MFT mount. I still have a lot to learn about the various native and adaptable lenses, but it feels like figuring that stuff out would be less stressful than trying to force myself to hold on to a Canon lens just because I've been used to it for a couple years.

Thanks for allowing me to work it out for myself here on the forum. I'd still love any resources on more information regarding the various native lenses and adaptable lens systems and the quirks therein.
 
Another 25mm prime option is the SLR Magic 25mm f/0.95. Some comparisons that I read said that it held up very well to the Voigtlander, even beating it on sharpness. Quite a bit cheaper than the Voigtlander too. Do some research on it and look at the comparisons and reviews to see if it would suit you. The Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4 is a nice auto lens. If you want one jack-of-all-trades wide zoom lens look into the Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8. Then add its sister later, the 35-100 f/2.8. Good luck and enjoy the Micro 4/3 world!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top