Let Me Show You The Power Of Canon Stills
- Thread starter DADASALAM
- Start date
- Status
MattinSTL
Sound Modulator
The title of this thread caught my eye, but the assortment of pictures has me scratching my head. There's a few absolutely STUNNING shots mixed in with "normal pictures". The two nighttime city-scapes and the frog are flat out amazing pictures... the cat is about 9/10... the yellow flower on blue bg is 9/10.
I own a t2i w/ good glass, but I don't know if this thread proves how great that cam is or how much MORE important the photographer is, then the camera.
(being straight-up here... don't read that the wrong way, but you have shots there that could be in Nat-Geo... then some snap-shots that could have come from any cam).
I own a t2i w/ good glass, but I don't know if this thread proves how great that cam is or how much MORE important the photographer is, then the camera.
(being straight-up here... don't read that the wrong way, but you have shots there that could be in Nat-Geo... then some snap-shots that could have come from any cam).
The Panasonic GH1 _doesn't_ have poor stills... I have the 7D, 1Dm2, and 1Ds, guess which camera I use for my landscapes... the GH1.
In fact, I know some professional landscape photographers that use the GH1 or GF1 instead of the 5D and Nikon D3 - and they actually have used all of those cameras.
In fact, I know some professional landscape photographers that use the GH1 or GF1 instead of the 5D and Nikon D3 - and they actually have used all of those cameras.
M. Gilden
Canon DSLR Moderator
Interesting- any particular reason you prefer the Panasonic for stills? This is the first I've ever heard of it. By all accounts I would think the lens selection and higher resolution of the Canons would be more desirable for landscapes, especially if you have all of those models at your disposal.
wow what? kin lau please wake up dreams ended
if anyone has 1DS and go for panasonic?
it was funniest joke i have ever heard
canon with high end glass and ultra wide lenses and L lenses?
with this body with ultra wide L lenses you go by panasonic?
i think you are in dream wake up please
i think you can compare gh1 with powershot s95
)
if anyone has 1DS and go for panasonic?
it was funniest joke i have ever heard
canon with high end glass and ultra wide lenses and L lenses?
with this body with ultra wide L lenses you go by panasonic?
i think you are in dream wake up please
i think you can compare gh1 with powershot s95
)
thisisapocalypse
Well-known member
The Canons definitely beat out the Pannys at high ISOs, but at lower ISOs the Panny images (like the GH1) are wonderful, totally good enough for pro use and there's the added benefit of being able to choose from more options of vintage glass...and again the person behind the camera is much, much more important than any other factor.
thisisapocalypse
Well-known member
wow what? kin lau please wake up dreams ended
if anyone has 1DS and go for panasonic?
it was funniest joke i have ever heard
canon with high end glass and ultra wide lenses and L lenses?
with this body with ultra wide L lenses you go by panasonic?
i think you are in dream wake up please
i think you can compare gh1 with powershot s95
I'm pretty sure the GH1 still image quality will beat out a 1Ds (mark 1) in almost every aspect. It's not a pro body for sure, nor does it have quite as much in terms of wide options, but IQ-wise I'm almost positive it would beat out a 1Ds (mark 1).
Aaron De Pry
Active member
What is this a war? since when do you have to choose sides? Each camera is what it is... Is Panasonic's still performance on par with canon's? not quite. Can you still take good stills with it, absolutely. Is the canon's video on par with Panasonic's? not yet. Can you still make good videos with it? sure thing. I have a hard time believing that people are using the gh2 in a professional photography capacity, but I would hardly call its IQ poor. I can take some comparison photos if you guys would like to see.
It is about the photographer (or videographer) and not the camera because you can have the best camera and the best lenses in the world and still take bad pictures. I have a 7d that I use for all my stills and a couple GH2's for video. It all works out perfectly in the end.
It is about the photographer (or videographer) and not the camera because you can have the best camera and the best lenses in the world and still take bad pictures. I have a 7d that I use for all my stills and a couple GH2's for video. It all works out perfectly in the end.
Aaron De Pry
Active member
Shame it is all wintery outside other wise I would have shot some still outdoors. I took these with the gh2 iso 160, shutter 160, Ziess 50mm @ f 2.8, and set @ wb 4500k. I focused about two feet from the subject. The image record mode was set to RAW + Jpeg. This image has no correction applied to it and this is a copy of the Jpeg (not a converted RAW). The subject matter is pretty boring but it does the job.
Same settings and lens as first shot but focused from three feet from the subject.
I have a few more samples that I can toss up and I can e-mail raws to anyone who wants to compare. I can also toss the lens on one of my canon's to match the shots for a direct comparison. But the purpose of this still is to illustrate that the GH2's stills quality isn't "poor". Let me know if you want full res copies.
Same settings and lens as first shot but focused from three feet from the subject.
I have a few more samples that I can toss up and I can e-mail raws to anyone who wants to compare. I can also toss the lens on one of my canon's to match the shots for a direct comparison. But the purpose of this still is to illustrate that the GH2's stills quality isn't "poor". Let me know if you want full res copies.
M. Gilden
Canon DSLR Moderator
Just to be clear, no one is saying the GH2 is a terrible still camera- only that the Canons are better. I think the OP meant to say "poorer", not "poor". Panasonic wouldn't have made it a DSLR if the idea weren't to be some kind of half decent camera.
But, comparing these pictures with some of the shots on the first post, most notably the frog and the night time cityscape, I'd have to say he's got a point. The images from Canon look incredible.
The childish behavior is simply unnecessary. If you have a honest question, ask it like a grownup.
If I want short DOF, I go for the 1Ds, 1Dm2 or 7D. In landscapes, stopping down to F11 or F16 is frequently done for deep DOF, and then you end up with diffraction. The smaller sensor of the m4/3 system is a reasonable tradeoff.
Unless you're printing 11x17 or larger, you simply won't see the extra megapixels. The extra lbs on your shoulder will be keenly felt as you're hiking up into the mountains- I've hiked 10km's with a 300/2.8 + 2xTC + 1Dm2, so I'm not afraid of a little weight _if_ it's worth it. I also have medium format and large format gear, but the longer and more complicated setup times just aren't worth it for me _most_ of the time. However, I still use them when the occasion allows for it.
Why do I use the GH1 for landscapes when I have a 7D? The 7D usually has a 300/4IS L or 400/5.6L mounted to it, so it's far more convenient to use my GH1 as the landscape and otherwise non-telephoto camera and videos. Quality wise, it's as good as the 7D in the lower ISO's. If I'm working from the car, then I have a 300/2.8 on the 1Dm2, 15-30 on the 1Ds, 400mm on the 7D and GH1 + 14-140. I will still reach for the GH1 for landscapes shots most of the time.
Sadly, most people are just blinded by advertising and specs. It's a real eye opener to see pro-photogs pick a shot from a digicam like the G10 over a shot from a Hassy H2 + P45+ digital back.
Here's a good read from a pro-photog who uses the GH1 and now GH2 http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/panasonic_gh2_revisited.shtml
Another landscape photog's review of the GF1 http://www.davidclapp.co.uk/blog/reviews/43-panasonic-gf-1-in-the-landscape.html
Check out the GF1 in EJ's equipment list (he speaks very highly of it in the Naturescapes forums) - http://www.ejphoto.com/Equipment.htm
G10 vs H2 + P45+ back http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
If I want short DOF, I go for the 1Ds, 1Dm2 or 7D. In landscapes, stopping down to F11 or F16 is frequently done for deep DOF, and then you end up with diffraction. The smaller sensor of the m4/3 system is a reasonable tradeoff.
Unless you're printing 11x17 or larger, you simply won't see the extra megapixels. The extra lbs on your shoulder will be keenly felt as you're hiking up into the mountains- I've hiked 10km's with a 300/2.8 + 2xTC + 1Dm2, so I'm not afraid of a little weight _if_ it's worth it. I also have medium format and large format gear, but the longer and more complicated setup times just aren't worth it for me _most_ of the time. However, I still use them when the occasion allows for it.
Why do I use the GH1 for landscapes when I have a 7D? The 7D usually has a 300/4IS L or 400/5.6L mounted to it, so it's far more convenient to use my GH1 as the landscape and otherwise non-telephoto camera and videos. Quality wise, it's as good as the 7D in the lower ISO's. If I'm working from the car, then I have a 300/2.8 on the 1Dm2, 15-30 on the 1Ds, 400mm on the 7D and GH1 + 14-140. I will still reach for the GH1 for landscapes shots most of the time.
Sadly, most people are just blinded by advertising and specs. It's a real eye opener to see pro-photogs pick a shot from a digicam like the G10 over a shot from a Hassy H2 + P45+ digital back.
Here's a good read from a pro-photog who uses the GH1 and now GH2 http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/panasonic_gh2_revisited.shtml
Another landscape photog's review of the GF1 http://www.davidclapp.co.uk/blog/reviews/43-panasonic-gf-1-in-the-landscape.html
Check out the GF1 in EJ's equipment list (he speaks very highly of it in the Naturescapes forums) - http://www.ejphoto.com/Equipment.htm
G10 vs H2 + P45+ back http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
Aaron De Pry
Active member
Good point, he probably did mean "poorer". The images in the first post seemed to be collected from a broad portfolio of work, these were just two quick samples that I took around my house as a demonstration. Anyways I don't use my gh2's for stills, like I said in the my other post, I use my 7d so no worries. The Canon's do have better IQ, I just feel like people are making a lot of assumptions about a camera, that as far as I can tell, they have never used.
- Status