Let Me Show You The Power Of Canon Stills

Status
Not open for further replies.
BTW, for those who don't get it... I use my GH1 for landscapes, but I've still put over 30K stills on my 7D with wildlife, weddings, etc. The AF, response time and shot to shot speed on my 7D, 1Dm2 and 1Ds are still years ahead of the GH1, but I don't need any of that when shooting landscapes.

It's only a tool, if it gets the job done, I'll use it.
 
MattinSTL said:
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.

(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).
Click to expand...

He didn't actually say that the shots are his :)

So far, I can track down at least two different photogs for the pics on Flickr in the 1st set, and that's just a quick sampling. In the 2nd set, you can still see the Copyright Sig on two of the pics, and they're from two different photogs.
 
Kin Lau said:
BTW, for those who don't get it... I use my GH1 for landscapes, but I've still put over 30K stills on my 7D with wildlife, weddings, etc. The AF, response time and shot to shot speed on my 7D, 1Dm2 and 1Ds are still years ahead of the GH1, but I don't need any of that when shooting landscapes.

It's only a tool, if it gets the job done, I'll use it.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm still not understanding (I don't claim to be much of a still photographer), but I was under the impression that when shooting landscapes, the wider the better. Therefore, I'd assume a full frame sensor (or at least a less cropped one) would always be a wiser choice than the almost 2x crop of the GH series.

If you owned it as your only camera for other reasons, I'd understand. I've seen beautiful video shot with it, but if you own both sets of cameras I simply don't understand why you wouldn't use the tool more suited for the job.

In my head I'm picturing:
Kin Lau, standing atop a mountain, holding a 7D after taking pictures of wildlife, notices how beautiful the landscape is. In a moment of inspiration, Kin brings up the viewfinder to eye level, then stops...
"WAIT! Why should I use this 7D when I have a GH2 in my backpack! After all, the image quality is almost as good, and for these kinds of things the advantages of the Canon are almost negligible. Who needs that!" And proceeds to put the 7D away, laughing to themsleves all the while muttering "I can't believe I almost used the 7D on THAT!".

Obviously my little dramatization is not what actually happens I'm sure, but you can see why this preference has me scratching my head. ;)
 
Kin Lau said:
BTW, for those who don't get it... I use my GH1 for landscapes, but I've still put over 30K stills on my 7D with wildlife, weddings, etc. The AF, response time and shot to shot speed on my 7D, 1Dm2 and 1Ds are still years ahead of the GH1, but I don't need any of that when shooting landscapes.

It's only a tool, if it gets the job done, I'll use it.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough I would have thought the opposite would be better. The 7d for landscapes and the GH1 for wildlife. The 2x crop means you telephoto would reach twice as far.
 
Actually, the Canon's record around 480P-640P videos at all times, and the Panasonic's when hacked or if it's a Gh2 records what I'm guessing is more around true 720P, also without moire. There's almost a 10 year difference in the quality of Canon's video and the quality of Panasonic's video. When dealing with stills, Canon indeed has 18MP and I doubt anyone would argue that it's not the best for extremely professional purposes - sadly, these extra MP's also have a direct impact on the moire of the Canon in video mode. As a personal taste, I don't take photographs professionally, only video, so I want the lowest MP's possible with the best video possible, it makes it easier for me. Also, I like a very vintage look to my photos (good noise pattern, nothing 'ultra shiny') and I feel like Panasonic, as well as Olympus, somehow do this aesthetic almost naturally. It's all just a preference that would enable me to do what I want.
 
Snapper123 said:
Actually, the Canon's record around 480P-640P videos at all times, and the Panasonic's when hacked or if it's a Gh2 records what I'm guessing is more around true 720P, also without moire.
Click to expand...

You just can't help trolling, can you? This wasn't even the topic of the thread. Also, moire is a real issue on all of these cmos sensors, including the GH2. It may be LESS of a problem, but still exists compared to a full sized camcorder alternative.
 
I tend to hike with my camera(s) in hand. Especially with wildlife and birds, you don't have time to setup. The size and lightness of the GH1 means I can have it readily available at all times. On a recent 7hr hike up and down the Wilcox Pass in Jasper, I could take advantage of the fact that there's something to shoot literally around every corner, both wildlife/birds and landscapes/scenics. One advantage to having two cameras, is that I don't have to change lenses, losing an opportunity. Then there's the elements and environment... you don't always have the option of picking up something after you drop it a few hundred feet :)

As for the crop factor, the GH1/2 is 2x, the 7D is 1.6x, so the difference is really minor. AF speed however is day vs night, as is the 18 shot buffer in the 7D. The VF freeze/blackout in the GH1 is also no good for fast action... the AF in video is great, but I find I cannot track a moving target in stills mode. I take one shot, and the VF freezes/blacks out for far too long.

All my long glass is also EOS mount, and prior to the new 100-300, there really wasn't much available for the GH1, adapted lens from regular 4/3 were hard to find, expensive and not fully compatible for video.
 
please stop the fighting because the canon is not our father company and the panasonic is not your father company

i only said 550d + 15-85 + 50mm ~ 1450$
and panasonic gh2 + 14- 140 ~ 1750$

i said everyone want the superb and professional stills and excellent video quality is better to go by canon
but some one nedd the superb video and good still will go for gh2

with the price of canon (Professional DSLR) + Professionaland high optic quality of 15-85 you can get superb stills and excellent video not superb video and it is better ho does professional stills
but some one are only videographer and needs superb video it will go by panasonic with good stills

when we compare price with professionality in stills and lenses and bodies canon is much better

and gh2 is for whom have a lot money and the video graphy is the highest priority and need superb video

but every professional videography need post processing on pc and if you post canon samples on the pc you can reach the superb
and here i can go with canon because for superb stills and .............
 
Kin Lau said:
I also have medium format and large format gear,
Click to expand...

What medium and large format gear do you shoot with? I know it's not really an option when hiking, but I used to shoot with a 4x5 field camera and a Pentax 6x7 and nothing has come close to those in terms of resolution.
These days I hike and climb with a 60D in my hand.

The flowers at the top are very tiny. Each individual flower is only about 5 or 6mm across and this is not a macro lens.
60D / Tamron 17-50 non VC.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3450.jpg
    IMG_3450.jpg
    58.2 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_3597.jpg
    IMG_3597.jpg
    102.5 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_3542.jpg
    IMG_3542.jpg
    122.9 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
While I agree a modern Canon or Nikon has an edge over the GH2/1 as a photographic tool...to say that it's ability is poor is just a bad choice of words. Everybody go to Flickr or other photo site and see the work done on any number of cameras, there are some STUNNING photos taken with everything from a GH1 to a Nikon D700 or Canon 5DMK2, even some lowly point and shoots. The photographer's eye is way more important than the camera. It's kind of like saying the Canon has poor video....flat out FALSE.
 
To begin your topic and picture posting make no sense. (not saying this with an evil tone but as a friend)

First off stills have different settings then what you are going to use for shooting video. I'm sure some of those stills were shot at different shutter then what you would normally shoot with video.
Example 1/5th of a sec for long exposure.

So your pics are irrelevant to video to a certain extent other than the overall look of the lens.

Compare video to video.
 
draven4 said:
To begin your topic and picture posting make no sense. (not saying this with an evil tone but as a friend)

First off stills have different settings then what you are going to use for shooting video. I'm sure some of those stills were shot at different shutter then what you would normally shoot with video.
Example 1/5th of a sec for long exposure.

So your pics are irrelevant to video to a certain extent other than the overall look of the lens.

Compare video to video.
Click to expand...

i think you dose not read the topic subject . the subject is canon stills . we know gh2 has better video in some situations
 
ROCKMORE said:
What medium and large format gear do you shoot with? I know it's not really an option when hiking, but I used to shoot with a 4x5 field camera and a Pentax 6x7 and nothing has come close to those in terms of resolution.
These days I climb with a 60D in my hand.
Click to expand...

I have a studio type 4x5 - it looks a lot like the Calumet with a few Schneider lenses and a SG Super Graphics as my "field camera". Medium format is mostly a Kiev 88 system, several 6x6 and 6x9 folders, TLR's and a Baby SG that takes 6x9 sheet film. It's mostly fine grain B&W film that I shot. I still have some Polaroid PN55 in 4x5 sheets.
 
Oh you're right. I apologize.

As for using it for stills and video... I do it all the time when I travel and love it.
I have no experience with the Panny GH2 though I've heard good things.

The video posted is supposed to show what though? Hollywood what or how?

The video to me looks soft. I would guess a kit lens was used or bad compression. In addition to that looks like their shutter speed was up too high.
 
BTW Dadasalam... when you post pictures and video that belong to others, it's polite to state the source.
 
I agree with the above... and I noticed the different names on the bottom of the stills... and my point was that in that first row of stills there are some amazing shots and then some fairly "pedestrian" shots. (no matter who took them...)

As for everything else... yeah... everybody likes different cams for different reasons. It's nothing to be disrespectful about... (speaking of that... everybody be cool to each other or we gotta' punt you off).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top