if you had to buy today...

wgzn

wgzn

Veteran
i dont have a LARGE call for DOF / "filmic" work. but it does come up about 3 times a year

i recently sold off my brevis rig that i used with my hpx170 with the intent of buying a 5Dmkll.

now i see a lot of buzz around a "hacked gh1" compared to a 7D. the few clips i saw on line, the hacked GH1 looked WAY better than the 7D. but ive not seen any side by side with the GH! vs 5D.

the one thing i liked about the hacked GH1 is the frame rate flexibility that you dont get from the canon offerings.

any thoughts on the subject?
 
If you can buy a hacked GH1, get it. Current one's are not hackable. If I had to buy a DSLR tomorrow, I'd buy a T2i. Here's why:

1. The lenses I would buy for it, would be just fine for anything I might upgrade to later.
2. It's about $700 with rebates
3. I can sell it in a years time for 2/3 what I paid for it. You couldn't RENT a camera that cheap for a week
4. It makes nice images within it's capabilities. Don't shoot fine detail with it. But that's true of the 5D, 7D, etc.
5. Did I mention it costs $700 NEW!?


I'm not real big on buying cheap. I am real big on ROI. Yes, the 60D has a flip out screen and the same sensor. Yes the 7D has HD out while filming. Both are very nice. If those features are worth it to you, buy one of them instead.

If you are not in a hurry, wait a couple months and see how things shape up with the new AF100, whatever Nikon plans to release early next year, and see if Canon has any updates for Q1 2011. But if you're in a hurry, the T2i can be had for very little money, gives you the same image and 95% of the features of the other two, and if you sell it off for $500 in February, you've essentially rented a shallow DOF specialty camera for $17 a week. If you make any money with the thing, the cost of having it goes down to nearly nothing.
 
part of my problem is that i also do some still photography. so i sold my trusty nikon d200 (and a couple very nice lenses) with all my other brevis gear. so just getting an af100 wont solve my problem. yeah. i could probably buy an af100 and a mid range still DSLR. but i figured since both DOF stuff AND still photos are such a small part of my business. if i could unite both into one device. that would be convenient...
 
wgzn said:
if i could unite both into one device. that would be convenient...
Click to expand...

That is essentially what I've done. I haven't shot on the EX1 since June. Everything has been on the T2i. Indoor sports, outdoor sports, everything. I've got an interview series coming up soon, and I'll shoot that on both. Wide on the EX1, tight on the DSLR. To be honest, I've shot more stills with the thing than video. It's been terrific.
 
To be honest, Perrone is on the money, but don't sell it after. Why?
Because the capacity to go multicam is invaluable.
If you buy the next 5D, you will probably have better video and a second set of focal lengths without ever buying a new lens.
If you buy the AGF100, you will probably have better video and a second set of focal lengths without ever buying a new lens.

AND, you can begin working on your projects NOW.
 
I echo what Perrone has said.

I have a 7D and have had jobs doing both still photography and video with it. It is so good at both for the relatively low price and the size.

The T2i lacks a second DIGIC IV processor that allows the 7D to output HD during recording for monitoring and to take up to 8 fps stills with about 15-20 frame buffer. The 60D is just as awesome as the 7D with the same sensor, 1/3 ISO stops, manual audio for whom it matters, and the articulated screen for crazy shots either still or motion, but it too does not have that extra processor, which is why it is much cheaper.

Again, if you wanna get shooting DSLR style NOW, grab the T2i today. If you have another $500 (at most) to blow and would like a little more control in your exposures and the use of an articulated LCD (say, if you are doing macro photography or want to be able to see your video during awkward shots without using an awkward monitor), get the 60D. Or get a T2i and use that money on some good lenses to cover both your still and motion work!

Pre-welcome to the club!
 
does the lack of full size sensor (5dmkll as opposed to 7D) not cause anyone any unhappiness?
 
Can an SDHC card (priced within reason) keep up with shooting 5.7 fps continuous RAW with the 60D (or even 3.7 fps with the t2i)? That's a crapload of data per second.
 
wgzn said:
does the lack of full size sensor (5dmkll as opposed to 7D) not cause anyone any unhappiness?
Click to expand...

Not really for me at least (GH1 owner and I've shot on the others.) The sensors in all these cameras are still many times larger than video cameras.
 
another of my concerns with the GH1 is the lack of lenses (relative to the selection for canon)... anyone?

i know it sounds like im trying to talk myself out of this. but i raced into the 5D idea. only to wind up feeling let down... just want to identify any roadblocks this time
 
Last edited:
wgzn said:
another of my concerns with the GH1 is the lack of lenses (relative to the selection for canon)... anyone?
Click to expand...

Well, to answer two questions in 1...

First the idea of a lack of a full frame sensor is silly. My sensor is nearly the same size as the piece of film that records most of today's feature films. The 5D sensor is approaching the size of an IMAX frame. I don't need that, and it causes more problems than it's worth in my view. I have to actually light my sets differently to accommodate it, and I'd rather not do that all the time. I've been gaffer on one 5D shoot, and DP on another. I'd rather shoot with the 7D all day every day. Just the other day, I showed someone how at 5ft, with a 50mm lens on the T2i (same sensor as the 7D) at F2, I had about 3" of depth. I could not put my subjects eyes and ears in focus at the same time. At F4, where I like to shoot, I could get the whole head in focus, and at 5.6 I could have enough depth to let the person lean in or back a bit. The 5D cuts that depth WAY down. I don't want to deal with that all the time. With the 7D/T2i I can set a nice 40-50FC on the set and have a comfortable shoot where we get focus 90% of the time. On the 5D it's shoot, review, shoot, review, and maybe do 8-10 takes to get it right. Especially when you're handheld like the director I've been working for prefers to be.

I know many people prefer the 5D touting it's low light features and so forth. I don't shoot my movies in the dark, and I prefer the overcrank features of the crop cameras. And the good monitoring of the 7D if I can get it. Just my personal taste.

As to your second question, the GH1 can use a wider selection of lenses than the Canon cameras can. So your fears are unfounded. Every lens that will fit on the 7D/60D/T2i will also fit on the GH1. The GH1 can also handle PL mount, Canon FD, and others that simply cannot be used (or not without major surgery) on the Canon DSLRs.
 
Uh oh. I got posted

Here's the thing. Hacked GH1 is the sharpest, but it also has some serious issues with banding in low light. In terms of raw resolution, the canon video mode is much closer to 720p on the Panasonic, and the FHD 1080p mode is unrivaled. However, the colorimetry of the canon video mode can be more pleasing in some situations.

Still, its a pain to even get out the ol' 7D anymore after getting used to the ergonomics of the hacked gh1.
 
yeah. the thing i disliked most about the 5D was the ergonomics. maybe it was because i wasnt used to it (but i read several articles from people saying they NEVER got used to it) or maybe its because im an old school nikon guy. but i just really disliked the whole feel of the 5D experience.
 
either way. i can pick up a GH1 on the used market for $700 or so. i think we've all already wasted $700 in time in this discussion. im just going to get one. and if i dont like it. it will be a nice paperweight.
 
There is a lack of lens variety in the GH-1 system, but variety doesn't make necessity. What they offer is more than sufficient for me- especially where I value compact size.

The 14-45mm, 45-200mm, 25mm 0.95 will be my standard workhorse, they're all 52mm threaded too.
 
My preference is the 7d because it has a 720 output to a monitor

On 'small' chips, compared to FF35 (5d) - yes I think it can be a 'problem' something like a 20 2.8 on a 5d is very cheap

to get the same look as a 20 at 2.8 you are going to need a very costly lens considering that most zooms are not sharp open and many lenses barrel in a way that a 20 2.8 doesnt

People my say that S35 is cine size, but to get a cinema look you need both the chip lens and also the set, many indy sets are smaller and need wider lensing than a typical holywood set

but overall I vote 7d, also the 60d is very nice if you dont want an external monitor

S
 
morgan_moore said:
My preference is the 7d because it has a 720 output to a monitor
Click to expand...

Agree

morgan_moore said:
On 'small' chips, compared to FF35 (5d) - yes I think it can be a 'problem' something like a 20 2.8 on a 5d is very cheap
to get the same look as a 20 at 2.8 you are going to need a very costly lens considering that most zooms are not sharp open and many lenses barrel in a way that a 20 2.8 doesnt
Click to expand...

Yea, true.

morgan_moore said:
People my say that S35 is cine size, but to get a cinema look you need both the chip lens and also the set, many indy sets are smaller and need wider lensing than a typical holywood set
Click to expand...

And yet, most indie sets are shot VERY tight. It's not because they can't get lensing. It's because big sets can't be controlled. You need to dress it, light it, and block it. So yes, there is a whole lot of 20 and 24mm in Hollywood. And practically NONE in (no budget) indie stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top