Lightwars - Low light video GH1 versus 5D

[commanderspike]

In a nutshell, this is the root cause of my dilemma. How can I keep the GH1 when the 5D outperforms it so much in terms of colour and detail on wide shots in standard lighting. Not dim - that's a no contest - but just normal indoor lighting and natural light.

5D:

GH1:

On the other hand how can I justify the 5D's poor usability and higher price when outdoors, the GH1 often matches the 5D in terms of detail & colour and even outperforms the 5D in terms of frame rate, moire and rolling shutter.

And then there are lenses to consider.

And size / weight.

And the screen.

And viewfinder.

Good grief I think my head my explode with this dilemma.

And I know content is king and that many would say 'just go out and shoot!'. But this decision on the camera will effect the look of all my subsequent work, and is a hefty investment for a amateur film maker who doesn't do stuff for commercial gain.

 

[Rory_B]

Wouldn't it make more sense to compare 2 cameras with the same lens if possible.

I doubt it would make a HUGE difference.

Also detaching the lens to use on the other camera and then being able to back up far enough to get the sam FOV would be a pain in the ass, but the quality between a Zeiss 28mm and an EFS Zoom lens is pretty big in terms of colour, sharpness, and micro-contrast in a lot of situations.

Not saying the macro-blocking won't be there anyways, just commenting on the trying to make the variables in a camera test as close as possible.

 

[commanderspike]

Wouldn't it make more sense to compare 2 cameras with the same lens if possible.

I doubt it would make a HUGE difference.

Also detaching the lens to use on the other camera and then being able to back up far enough to get the sam FOV would be a pain in the ass, but the quality between a Zeiss 28mm and an EFS Zoom lens is pretty big in terms of colour, sharpness, and micro-contrast in a lot of situations.

Not saying the macro-blocking won't be there anyways, just commenting on the trying to make the variables in a camera test as close as possible.

I just can't get the GH1's colour anywhere close to the 5Ds. I can't get saturated reds or oranges. Greens have a yellow tint. Purples look blue. Tried every WB and custom WB combination I can think of but the 5D just wins every time for colour.

I just tested my Leica 25mm F1.4 on the GH1, which costs £600.

I attached to my 5D a Contax Zeiss 50mm F1.7 (not the better F1.4), which cost me £50 on eBay.

The 5D beat the GH1 for both sharpness and colour, and we all know that Leica is the best 4/3rds lens you can get for both sharpness and colour :bath:

Now that Leica is an amazing lens. But the fact that it costs you 12x more to get a fast portrait (50mm equiv.) lens on the GH1 says a lot about the cost argument GH1 versus 5D.

GH1 in UK is £1100 with lens. 5D body is £1600. With the 5D you'd save £500 in lenses after a month or 2 of purchases.

Of course, if you want a image stabilised super wide zoom then the argument is completely reversed! So it really does depend on your needs.

 

[Rory_B]

One advantage of a 5D is that you could rent it out to pay towards the cost. Granted you say you're an amateur, but there's plenty of people out there who would love to have a spin with your lenses and that camera.

The day I bought the 5D I had it rented out for a commercial shoot the same day. So the financial advantage if you insure the equipment and rent it out is quite nice.

 

[commanderspike]

Thanks dude, I may take up that option if I can find insurance, but the film making industry and general demand for cutting edge cameras like the GH1 & 5D in the UK is not what it is in the US or Canada. Did you insure yours?

-------- 5D with Contax Zeiss 50mm F1.7 @ F2 --------

-------- GH1 with Leica 25mm F1.4 @ F2 --------

The red on the doll is so strong on the 5D it goes beyond my Mac's screen gamut. On a plasma TV it looks incredible, bathing the back wall and sofa with a warm glow. On the GH1 the colour is not 'wrong' and it's not a white balance or exposure issue. It's just paler.

I am not sure if the legability of the gold pattern on the red doll is worse on the 5D because the red overwhelms an LCD laptop screen or if the exposure needed to be adjusted. That's the other thing with the 5D - it's a lot more critical on your exposure and focus skills than the GH1 is. Shallower DOF and more colour gamut, more dynamic range, require better handling by the operator. The GH1 is much easier to handle.

This is what happens when I underexpose the GH1 slightly. Instead of the colours getting deeper they simply get darker and the detail on the black bottle disappears.

-------- GH1 with Leica 25mm F1.4 @ F2.8 --------

 

[philiplipetz]

Someone loan CommanderSpike a 7d so he can repeat these tests with it.

 

[Ben_B]

Luckily I have access to light kits, etc, and would never shoot indoors in like a house (especially at night) without one. Being in school does have some perks That said, my Gh1 was able to get a decent image, no banding, in a very dark house that my friend lives in (all the lights were on but they never seem to do much) his HVX with the adapter and the same glass? Not so much. Naked? GH1 still better. I know the HVX is bad low light but when you talk about these cameras low light performance you really have to remember how crappy some other equipment can be in the same conditions.

 

[commanderspike]

Someone loan CommanderSpike a 7d so he can repeat these tests with it.

Hello Philip, took your advice about Quicktime crushing the 5D's colour gamut and dynamic range and this happened:

-------- GH1 is on the left, 5D on the right --------

Notice how the silky gold pattern on the bright red doll suddenly becomes visible on the 5D shot compared to the frame grabs in the previous post.

The difference in FCP 7 is even more pronounced when the 5D is allowed to shine.

Not looking good for keeping the GH1 now. It feels painful, like a break up with a girl. I'll miss you babe....

 

[commanderspike]

GH1 still better. I know the HVX is bad low light but when you talk about these cameras low light performance you really have to remember how crappy some other equipment can be in the same conditions.

Very much so. All relative. GH1 is still high end. It's always worth bearing in mind especially if you're a GH1 owner that the GH1's sensor is still wicked. It just doesn't quite go to the same level of 'wicked' as the 5D, which is cranked up to 11. What other camera comes with a 35mm 'monstro' size sensor for shooting video at this price or indeed ANY price?

That said, it comes in a body designed for shooting stills, and that is a pain in the ass.

 

[Isaac_Brody]

Not looking good for keeping the GH1 now. It feels painful, like a break up with a girl. I'll miss you babe....

Does your girlfriend read your posts? I hope not. rogar-Shock(DBG):

And is there a teaser for tomorrow's episode of "Commanderspike as the camera turns?"

 

[Ben_B]

Very much so. All relative. GH1 is still high end. It's always worth bearing in mind especially if you're a GH1 owner that the GH1's sensor is still wicked. It just doesn't quite go to the same level of 'wicked' as the 5D, which is cranked up to 11. What other camera comes with a 35mm 'monstro' size sensor for shooting video at this price or indeed ANY price?

That said, it comes in a body designed for shooting stills, and that is a pain in the ass.

Which is why you're keeping your GH1 and you know it

The 5D is a crappy to use machine that is good because of its specs...specs get better all the time, specs are what get changed when new products get rolled out...specs are what don't require the years of R&D that was put in to create a good mirror-less system like the Gh1 has and that gives you a great EVF, etc.

Specs improve over time...but I'd rather not break my neck while waiting for the next big thing...which, if it's from Canon, will continue the neck breaking trend.

 

[Rory_B]

Very much so. All relative. GH1 is still high end. It's always worth bearing in mind especially if you're a GH1 owner that the GH1's sensor is still wicked. It just doesn't quite go to the same level of 'wicked' as the 5D, which is cranked up to 11. What other camera comes with a 35mm 'monstro' size sensor for shooting video at this price or indeed ANY price?

That said, it comes in a body designed for shooting stills, and that is a pain in the ass.

Are you planning on sticking to 30p or converting to 24/25p.It takes forever and then some, so that's another thing to consider.

As for my 5d2, I sold it and bought the 7d. Going to insure it though. Doesn't cost much per month. Cover my lenses and computer too, in the event of a disaster I'll have the money to replace it all.

The commercial I rented it out to was a French one shooting Canada. We had another German commercial for Mercedes that used a 5d2 as well as a b/c cam.

 

[commanderspike]

I'll be sticking to 30p unless converting to 24p makes an amazing difference and produces footage that moves the same as true 24p, which I doubt it does

30p is okay. I prefer 24p obviously. But you don't see some of the pro work that's been done with the 5D and go... oh it looks rubbish, because it's 30p! It looks frankly amazing half the time.

I know what Ben means by neck breaking. It's also knee breaking when you have to get down on the wee soaked ground in Manchester to peer at a flat back screen of a camera like the 5D.

But honestly...it image quality is worth breaking a neck for. Well... not really... but you get my point.

May yet keep GH1, not decided yet. Head hurts.

 

[Barry_Green]

Okay, well I'll sell both and save myself another $1500, spend it all on lights and shoot with a Flip HD then.

I simply cannot understand why you compare a $2700 product (with no lens) against a $800 product (with no lens) and expect them to be directly comparable. One costs 3x as much!

Even if you factor in the Canon 18-135 in a kit, you're still talking about $3,000 vs. $1500. Does that just not matter to you?

........

Here, I'm going to make a serious suggestion -- a very serious suggestion, that could very well solve all your dilemma. Sell the 5D and buy a 7D, and then keep both the GH1 and the 7D. Seriously. That way you have all the GH1 goodness for all that you want it for, and for those times when you're just convinced that the Canon will be better, you have it too.

MSRP - GH1 body + 7D kit including lens = $2800.
5D body - $2700.

You could have both... then you wouldn't have to ever agonize, except over which you want to use for which particular shot.

You've said you prefer 24p -- you'd have 24p. And 30p. And you'd have the GH1's superior 720p. And you'd have the GH1's great ergonomics, flip screen, and c-mount lenses for stealth. And you'd have the big ol' Canon 7D for everything that you love about Canons. And it'd have a bigger sensor so you'd still be able to extract more width out of your shots -- not as much as the 5D, true, but still it'd be closer...

How is this anything but a win-win? It's the plan I'm going with, I think it's going to save you a lot of heartache and hassle...

 

[ydgmdlu]

I second that suggestion, Barry. I really believe that it's the most sensible thing to do. But commanderspike has emphasized that there are only two main attractions of the 5D for him: superior image quality and full frame. Nothing else really matters (including price), and to lose either of those things would be non-negotiable for a Canon DSLR. At least that's my impression from reading his posts here. So not only does the 7D not have a full-frame sensor, which is a major minus in his book, but he believes that the 7D produces a significantly lower-quality image than the 5D (though users of both have uniformly declared the difference in image quality to be pretty insignificant). It doesn't make much sense to me, especially when you run the numbers, but your needs and my needs are different from his. So who am I to try to tell him otherwise?

 

[Ozpeter]

In terms of colour, the 5D samples in this thread seem to be very wrong - obvious pink emphasis - and running them through photoshop's auto colour corrector backs me up. The 5D "5dcrop.jpg" sample then become much more like the GH1 sample (though the 5D oriental doll sample seems to be beyond fixing). I have no axe to grind here (as I couldn't dream of affording the 5D!) but in terms of the posted samples I'm puzzled about the Commander's enthusiasm.

 

[commanderspike]

I second that suggestion, Barry. I really believe that it's the most sensible thing to do. But commanderspike has emphasized that there are only two main attractions of the 5D for him: superior image quality and full frame. Nothing else really matters (including price), and to lose either of those things would be non-negotiable for a Canon DSLR. At least that's my impression from reading his posts here. So not only does the 7D not have a full-frame sensor, which is a major minus in his book, but he believes that the 7D produces a significantly lower-quality image than the 5D (though users of both have uniformly declared the difference in image quality to be pretty insignificant). It doesn't make much sense to me, especially when you run the numbers, but your needs and my needs are different from his. So who am I to try to tell him otherwise?

I have listened to both your's and Barry's suggestion and think I need to explain:

- GH1 has benefits over both 5D and 7D that we all know about. It's a great camera to use and has a great kit lens.

- I am a big fan of Contax Zeiss lenses. 85MM F1.4, 28mm Distagon, 135mm Planar T*, etc. They can only be realised to their full potential on a 5D, as can many other classic 35mm, EOS, or Canon L lenses.

- I need a fast 50mm equiv. option. On the GH1 you can use the 20mm F1.7 pancake or Leica 25mm F1.4 and both are rather expensive compared to the Zeiss 50mm F1.7 on the 5D.

- Body only Mark II cost me £1500 new (in Taiwan) and GH1 with kit lens is £1000. Yes body is cheaper but I cannot envisage having a GH1 without it's kit lens, because the kit lens with AF tracking & wide super zoom capability is one of the main advantages of having a GH1 over a Canon in the first place. So the difference is actually £500 and when you factor in the GH1's 20mm Lumix or 25mm Leica fast portrait which has to be very-wide to achieve 50mm equiv. with shallow DOF and super expensive, so the cost difference is minimal.

- Lastly to get a super wide lens on the GH1, I have a Canon 10-20mm EFS lens. It'd go great on the 7D (16mm equiv.) and is a 20mm equiv. on the GH1 which is just about wide enough for a 'super' wide (I like very wide close up shots Terry Gilliam style) but that lens is worth £450. On the 5D you can get a 20mm F1.8 Sigma or 17-35mm Sigma F2.8 for less than half that cost.

The decision isn't just about the camera, it's the whole package. Lenses are just as important.

I haven't been able to find a decent cheap c-mount lens for the GH1 so that's one advantage wiped out right there. Most are going for £400+ now.

However this thread is purely about image quality. It's a test to see how much image quality you have to sacrifice over Canon to go with the GH1.

If that sacrifice is worth it to you - and it will be to many, then that's great. But I am a lot more interested in talking about image quality than I am about lights, talent and personal needs. So let's keep the thread on topic.

Can someone please do a test like this with the 7D and 5D at ISO 1600 in a dark alley way, so we can verify the various claims once and for all. Philip Bloom says 5D ahead, Kholi say's it's even. I don't know which respected pro to believe the most.

PS
Just to show how fickle I am with regards to allegiance to one make of camera, the 7D with 15-85mm F3.5 IS is now £1500 in Taiwan. That may change my decision altogether :laugh:

 

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo]

[Responding to commanderspike]: I simply cannot understand why you compare a $2700 product (with no lens) against a $800 product (with no lens) and expect them to be directly comparable. One costs 3x as much! Even if you factor in the Canon 18-135 in a kit, you're still talking about $3,000 vs. $1500. Does that just not matter to you? ...

:thumbsup:

Meanwhile, back 3 months ago ...
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1693082&postcount=37
:violin:

 

[commanderspike]

In terms of colour, the 5D samples in this thread seem to be very wrong - obvious pink emphasis - and running them through photoshop's auto colour corrector backs me up. The 5D "5dcrop.jpg" sample then become much more like the GH1 sample (though the 5D oriental doll sample seems to be beyond fixing). I have no axe to grind here (as I couldn't dream of affording the 5D!) but in terms of the posted samples I'm puzzled about the Commander's enthusiasm.

Both the Canon and Zeiss lens have a tendency for looking warm, that's true. Blue's can often be purple, and pinks & oranges can often be too saturated. But this can be adjusted in camera.

However at the same time the GH1 has a tendency to render stuff with a yellowish / greenish tone. Cannot be adjusted in camera. Even the warmer white balance has a purple / yellowish tone.

If something is 'too much' it can be toned down, but if something is too little (i.e. rendering of warm tones on the GH1) it cannot be built up to the same standard as if it had been toned down from too much. Something I've only noticed since owning both side by side.

None of that slight bias from each camera changes the fact that the Canon hold's onto all colours - whether it be green, blue, pink and yellow spots, greys or duck-egg-blue... when you turn down the light they still exist. I am not bashing the GH1 I am just telling you like it is :violent5:

More tests to come, because I wanna be sure that the findings so far have been accurate and that I'm not making a mistake letting go of the GH1.

 

[commanderspike]

:thumbsup:

Meanwhile, back 3 months ago ...
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1693082&postcount=37
:violin:

Yo. Please see long-winded post above for explanation of my reasoning on cost. It's all in the lenses and personal needs and rather boring :violin: