GH4 I think I've talked my friend into a GH4

TheDingo said:
The 7D Mk2 is a competent choice when shooting stills, but it's a "dog" when it comes to shooting video. Pretty much anything from Nikon, Panasonic, Sony is better than Canon for video. ( with the exception of the 5D Mk3 )



You're looking at their high-end f/2.8 kit lens, where the 14-42mm ver II or 14-45mm Panasonic kit lenses are excellent choices at $300 or less.

I would recommend that your friend starts with one of the kit lenses ( even one of the $300 lenses ), then buy a Metabones Nikon G mount adapter ( about $130 ) along with a used Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AI-S lens. ( about $150+ used )

Beyond this, it all depends on what his budget is...
Click to expand...

Ha ha! I have a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 I could give him! I bought it for my HV-40 with a letus mini years ago which of course I never use anymore. So all he needs is the Nikon adapter!!! Great! Thanks!
 
For me my next camera will be the Panasonic LX100, call me crazy but there is something I like more about the image than the GH4, I think it's the lens on the LX100 that does it..... and damn, all that for $899.00!
 
The 14-140 is a great all around lens. I agree with this 100% I purchased that as my first lens and have used it the most when I travel or want to pack real light.
 
Start him off with a solid prime like the Olympus 25mm f/1.8. It has great quality wide open, delivers shallow DOF, and the field of view should be wide enough for the music videos he does.
 
astromann said:
This type of brand war is pretty unproductive.
The reality is both the C100 and the GH4 are capable of producing a great image in the right hands. (there is a difference in price tho)
There are many users who own both cams and intercut them in post and they look very similar...and thats to discerning DP's.
If someone who has skills and knows what they are doing films and does a good edit of a final vid in either camera and plays it to a viewer...I can almost guarantee they are not going to say wow this looks great...and that is crap.

Brand wars are kinda pointless ...its really just saying my camera is better than yours.
Reality is ...at this level it comes down to the user more than the brand.
Click to expand...

Yes of course that is true---we all know that "it's the operator, not the camera..."
However my initial comment wasn't meant to start a brand war, just to clear up what seemed to be a misconception that the GH4 was a "beginner's" camera or some nonsense like that.
Nearly all the stuff that is being put out by all of these camera manufacturers these days is fantastic gear, and most of it is capable of truly professional results with proper care. (Think what we were using just a few years ago!)
The Canon's are great cameras, but sometimes people seem to blindly think that they are the "leader" in VDSLRs for reasons that don't actually play out when the cameras are tested. Yes they are fine (better than fine---they're great cameras in many ways), but the GH4 easily is better than the 5D and certainly the 7D and T2i/T3i/whatever on many counts, not all, but many---and for the price you just can't beat it---no other camera comes close for that price.

As for cost of lenses, if he doesn't need AF and stabilization, (I assume he will be doing 100% tripod shots if he is recording guitar playing) then the m4/3 format offers the most options---you can mount just about any lens that you have, like, or want, on them---from dirt cheap to megabucks. INCLUDING Canon glass if that is your cup of tea :-)

Speedbooster: IMHO who needs them? They are super cool and helpful in certain situations but totally optional. Now they do convert a m4/3 camera to a FOV closer to FF, so if that's really what he wants, then you might have him consider one (or maybe later down the road).

As for other primes---there are tons of manual focus primes out there that are great. I would start with a 50mm and a 20mm or so. That combo will give the best bang and versatility for his buck.

I second the recommendation for the Panny 20mm f/1.7---it's a really great little lens. Price is reasonable. I have one and highly recommend it.

I don't think an LX100 would be a good suggestion. The video quality is good, but you limit yourself in so many ways with the controls and fixed lens. For someone who is willing to go with a DSLR style camera, then I don't think it would be a good idea. For a second camera or something a small deal like that is great, but I don't think it's a good choice as a primary shooter because of the inherent limitations.
 
Last edited:
Michael Thames said:
.... and for close ups I'm sorry you simply can't beat the FF look and mojo colors of the 5D3. The GH4 is an excellent camera but these statements that it is better than Canon are tiresome, as it does somethings very well but not everything, I'm a fan of FF sensors for portraits shots an interviews.
Click to expand...

FF vs non-FF is a preference thing and very subjective. m4/3 and especially APS-C are closer to the look of 35mm film but in reality who cares---it's more about getting the look you want. FF is not "better" it's just different. In my opinion, the "FF look" is a temporary fad that will fade in popularity over the next few years. That's only my opinion, and if somebody likes FF better then more power to them, but it really is preference. But since your friend can't afford a FF camera anyway, then it doesn't really matter in this case.

I think he will be very happy with a GH4 and the Nikkor 50mm. And if he has a bit more to spend, a 20mm f/1.7 or similiar will give more flexibility.
 
Last edited:
mcbob said:
"pick a lens, any lens..."
Click to expand...
I'm waiting for my GH4 to arrive next week. I'm getting the 12-35 Panasonic as the standard because it takes advantage of the camera's electronics the best and also weather sealed. The OM 12-40 is nice but not as electronic dedicated as the native Panasonic. I have a Canon 70-200 f4L which should be ultra sharp and I getting a Metabones smart adapter before a speedbooster to take advantage of the 4K 2.3 crop on long shots and the additional 2.4 crop mode which will give me an 1,100mm fixed aperture zoom in 1080p I believe.
My question is will Canon EF-s lenses work on the Metabones smart adapter? I know they may hit the glass on the speedbooster, but there is no glass in the smart adapter
 
lvlinux said:
Yes of course that is true---we all know that "it's the operator, not the camera..."
However my initial comment wasn't meant to start a brand war, just to clear up what seemed to be a misconception that the GH4 was a "beginner's" camera or some nonsense like that.
Nearly all the stuff that is being put out by all of these camera manufacturers these days is fantastic gear, and most of it is capable of truly professional results with proper care. (Think what we were using just a few years ago!)
The Canon's are great cameras, but sometimes people seem to blindly think that they are the "leader" in VDSLRs for reasons that don't actually play out when the cameras are tested. Yes they are fine (better than fine---they're great cameras in many ways), but the GH4 easily is better than the 5D and certainly the 7D and T2i/T3i/whatever on many counts, not all, but many---and for the price you just can't beat it---no other camera comes close for that price.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply.
Yep...As I was posting that comment I was thinking (jeez my comment is boring and how many times has this been said?) so yeah its a kind of redundant comment in many ways.
However it is like one of those arranging and producing music comments (Less is more..) its been said to death, but its one of those things that always applies and we often forget, its a kind of never changing truth.

Thats audio tho, the film world is different, the newer breed of cams are changing things quickly, but yeah there is no way even a GH2 (used one for years) will compete with a GH4 (had one for quite some time), or a
GH4 will compete with an A7S in low light, neither will a 5D Mk3 compete in detail to either of those cameras, but it has a beautiful image for sure.
I guess my point was that in good conditions.... especially the C100, GH4 or A7S will be very close and in good hands they will all do the job amazingly well...as many have said, so really its these newer cams NX1, GH4, A7s
that have leveled the playing field more.
So its exciting times for camera/ film buffs for sure.
In regards to lenses...yeah totally agree the 20mm f/1.7 is a great lens and not too expensive, you have to hold it steady tho LOL!! or use a tripod or a rig maybe, but in 4K if you down convert you have the option to crop and stabilize...which is pretty cool.
I also agree with your comments about the GH4, I have read this and that about noisy sensor, lack of dynamic range etc..having used it daily for many months, I dont have a problem even in high contrast shots in bright sun and dark shadows or even up to 1600 ISO ( a no no in many books)
I have had absolutely beautiful images in all these conditions from this Cam with little or no noise and very few blowouts..and I love it, but I did spend a lot of time tweaking and comparing the profiles and learning the exposure again and again (the screen is not totalluy accurate) there is a learning curve, and once you have a bit of a handle on it, its an amazing little beast!!
 
Last edited:
I believe he bought a GH4 today..... he can worry about the lens later. Thanks to everyone for all the great suggestions for lens. I'll give him my Nikon 50mm to get started. The reason I mentioned the 7D was because he really likes the 5D3 I have..... I know the 7D isn't a 5D3 but similar Canon color.

On another note, if you put two brand new cameras in front of me a GH4 and a 5D3 and said take one for free. I'd without doubt take the 5D3. GH4 better you say...... better covers a lot of territory..... GH4 better in the detail yes of course, but not better in low light and SDOF..... also, the 5D3 colors are better right off the bat.

For the money tho the GH4 is the camera to get.

Astromann, yea if you are shooting out doors then you don't need to worry about the ISO. Shootin indoors, in natural light, or at night is a different matter..... 1600 ISO is quite limiting.
 
Michael Thames said:
Astromann, yea if you are shooting out doors then you don't need to worry about the ISO. Shootin indoors, in natural light, or at night is a different matter..... 1600 ISO is quite limiting.
Click to expand...

Hi Michael.
Thanks for your response.
Yes I do know indoors 1600 ISO can be generally quite limiting, however I have shot a babies face indoors at 1600 ISO on the GH4 (12-35 at 2.8 1600 ISO and even using low level auto dynamic too )
this was indoors in lowish natural light (I have used the Gh4 in multiple situations daily for months...so I know this camera pretty well)
Some of the footage at higher ISOs has been beautiful, personally I was amazed how nicely the babies face came out, especially at 1600 ISO I was expecting plenty of problems, but it was really nice...this was earlier in the piece too when I did not
know how to use the camera as well as I do now, but I still had a better idea than some of the reviewers out there.
However that said I normally like to stay at 800 ISO on the GH4 or lower, just that its easier generally...you definitely have to be more careful at 1600 ISO, but for me it is definitely useable at 1600.

As far as colors go...I do agree the 5D mk3 has beautiful colors...but I can get the Gh4 to look pretty much exactly how I want it to in post with the standard color and exposure tools, 3rd party plug ins and LUTS I have,
but I cant add detail to a soft image, so the GH4 is far more valuable for me...but others needs are going to be different.
Not saying the 5D Mk3 is not good, its obviously a great camera. just not for me, horses for courses.
 
Last edited:
The GH4 looks pretty damn clean at ISO 1600, not sure why people say the GH4 can't handle low-light.
You can always ask for more but common... This looks pretty decent to me for most normal low-light situations such as indoor or in the city at night.

 
Last edited:
I did a test last month comparing low light performance of GH4 and C100. You could find my thread few pages back. If you're shooting in 4K, or croping from 4K, both 1600 and 3200 looks quite good to me. The only limitation I run into with high ISOs is when I have to shoot slowmotion at 1000+. To be honest is looks quite grainy and dynamic range isn't there. So i won't shoot slowmotion indoors in low light(ish) conditions. 4K looks way better in the same conditions.
 
@Divide
Yep this has pretty much been my experience too.
Its like the whole low light and dynamic range thing in relation to the Gh4 has been beaten up out of all proportion online.
Not saying its perfect, there is obviously room for improvement, but for me its perfect 95% of the time.
 
divide said:
The GH4 looks pretty damn clean at ISO 1600, not sure why people say the GH4 can't handle low-light.
You can always ask for more but common... This looks pretty decent to me for most normal low-light situations such as indoor or in the city at night.
Click to expand...

Just about every online review I've seen says it can't go above 1600 ISO. In Phillip Bloom's review he clearly states the GH4 is not a low light camera. It can't do everything! It's a great camera for certain conditions but I wouldn't risk using it in challenging low light situations the way you can with the 5D3 or the C100.
 
Michael Thames said:
Whoa..... three GH4's for sale in the marketplace just on the first page alone....... what's up with that?
Click to expand...
I bought mine used when the A7S debuted. The NX1 is out now... so maybe that. Or something else. People change cameras like boomers change diapers these days... less expensive the camera to begin with, easier to swap.

Did the same with my AF100 years ago... waited a few months after its introduction, people groused about the highlights and blah blah blah, the marketplace filled, I got a cheap barely-used camera. Been using it successfully for 3 years.

Judging by the grousing over the magenta cast, I'm banking on acquiring a very nice slightly used FS7 in several months. With the quickening depreciation, new cameras are as bad an investment as new cars. Both work fine used.
 
Noise is subjective and beautiful to one person is unacceptable to the next. It is really about points of comparison. Compared to some FF cameras the GH4 isn't as sensitive. Compared to some other cameras it is a low light king.

It really depends on ones obsession with noise free images and how much of the other aspects of image quality they are willing to sacrifice to have less noise.

I also think it is silly to compare m43 to FF as if we are some kind of stills shooters. We are film makers and we should be comparing to super 35mm since those are the sensors being used to make some of my favorite movies and movies that have inspired me ever since I was a kid. super 35mm and other 1.5x crop sensors are one stop faster which helps but it isn't an earth shattering amount of extra light. Especially when you factor in how well made m43 lenses are. We have m43 lenses shot at f2.8 that can stand up against FF lenses at f5.6. If you look at the sweet spot of lenses FF lenses tend to peak at f5.6 whereas m43 tend to peak at f4. That right there makes up for that one stop difference in sensor sizes.

Shooting wide open with FF tends to not give the best optical quality and it really sacrifices quality. m43 may not have as sensitive of a sensor but it has more flexibility in optical quality and can open up lenses a lot more before the optical quality goes down. Some m43 lenses are even mind blowing sharp and have an even center and edge quality ratio wide open at f1.8. This is something the low light focused reviews don't really take into consideration. They compare f5.6 to f5.6 and tell us FF is better. Well duh of course it is. What we really need to look at however is the overall optical quality. If m43 at f2.0 can look as detailed and even as FF at f5.6 which one now has the advantage? I guess it depends on if one cares more about optical quality or shooting in the dark without lights. I myself am starting to shift towards trying to use the sweet spot of lenses or at least using a better part of the lens in the case of m43. Some of those lenses look more detailed at f.18 or f2.8 then all of my adapted lenses at f5.6.
 
Truth. There might be downsides to the crop, but there are upsides as well... for instance, rolling with a f1.2 or f0.95 lens and still having useable depth of focus. If you can open up two stops more, then you can also gain down two stops. I don't need ISO1600 if I can shoot practically at f1.4 or above, unless I'm spelunking at midnight on a cloudy winter solstice under a new moon.

I shot a portion of a demonstration video in a photographic darkroom this past weekend. The results were good. It'll do.
 
Last edited:
^^What Thomas said above.

Personally I think that higher ISO on the GH4 is pretty decent. The noise that is present looks less digital and more like film grain to me. I "could" complain about the 96fps being soft but hey, it can shoot at 96fps. I can live with it not being 100% sharp. Slow-mo is kind of surreal for me anyway so the softness does not take away from the fluid motion created in my eyes.

I've said this before but geez! We are all getting a little spoiled here. Look at what sub-$2,000 cameras are doing now and compare that to 3 years ago. It is mind-boggling!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top