Need Advice

S

sharry

Well-known member
Hey all... I was planning on buying an AF100 a few months ago but couldn't because of my budget. I can't still buy it. I want to buy my first camera though I have been working on rentals before but now it seems to get a one. I have no choice but for DSLRS. Obviously if I had a proper budget I would've moved on to a proper camcorder. But as of now I am willing to buy a dslr because of their outstanding quality. I am a narrative filmmaker: indie shorts and features. Which would be the best DSLR and why?

1. GH2
2. 60D
3. 7D

Now I will be using the Nikon AI primes. Which would be the best DSLR for me?
 
there are at least three recent threads that cover this in great detail. the search tool at the upper right is your friend ; )

here is a recent one that addresses MANY 60D vs GH2 questions:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?260331-Need-help-making-a-DSLR-purchase-decision

what that thread doesnt mention is the 7D. but the only major differences (FOR VIDEO) between the 7D and 60D are:
- 60D has an articulating screen. the 7Ds screen is fixed
- the 7D will send HD out via HDMI while recording. the 60D (and all other canon cameras except one other very high end model. 1DmklV i think) sends an SD signal out HDMI when recording.
so unless you have a NEED to live monitor externally, there is little if anything to justify a 7D over a 60D for video purposes. but if you NEED that feature. the 60D is an absolute non-option in my book.

i recently did extensive side by sides with a 60D, 7D and GH2 (and a hpx170+sgblade adapter) and decided that the GH2 was best suited to my overall needs. mainly due to canons propensity for moire issues in day-to-day situations and my familiarity with old nikon glass

the biggest downside to the GH2 (as michael will mention below) is the painful lack of native m4/3 fast lenses. there are few new panasonic (lumix) options and a hand full of third party offerings on deck. but they wont be available probably until end of year at the earliest. so right now, if you want nice looking fast glass with a GH2 youd be best advised to get a m4/3 to ________ adapter. of course doing this means no autofocus, no IS and no electronic aperture control. but for what youre doing, i cant imagine that being a huge issue ; )
 
Last edited:
For me the biggest deciding factors were:

Overall "look and feel" of the footage (I really think the Nikon DSLRs have the most sort of "mojo" for my tastes, but they're non starters for many other reasons);

Availability of glass - especially fast, wide glass - the micro 4/3 cameras are somewhat limited in this area. (And I have a sack of Nikon glass).

Canon and the GH bodies are well-established with hundreds/thousands of pages of documentation and advice online. Canon bodies are very "familiar" feeling, if you've shot SLR (film or digital) in your career - the GH stuff kind of startled me with its small size. I'd try to get your hands on one and see how it feels.

Canon vs. GH: there's mac vs. PC level flaming going on with that discussion; the Canons have a look that's become very accepted by clients; GH owners feel the image is more pristine. I don't imagine you can go wrong with either choice; aesthetically, I've always liked the Canon look - that's just me.
 
Having used them all extensively in the making of our feature-film, I can say without hesitation that the image from the GH1 (hacked and even un-hacked when shot knowing the limitations of the camera when un-hacked) and the GH2 deliver a more solid and indeed and a more "pristine" image than any of the Canons, but you also have to be much more familiar with their quirks than you do with the Canons. So, it does take more work to get a great image out of a GH series camera than it does with a Canon. However, the benefits are huge...aliasing is much less of an issue as is moire, and I find the image sharper.

Re: availability of glass, it's true that there is way more Canon EF glass than m4/3 glass, but you can adapt almost anything to work on a GH camera, and that's almost it's biggest selling-point. If you were only going to use modern, m4/3 glass, I'm not sure I'd recommend the GH cameras. The lenses are fine, but if you are doing narrative work I'd highly recommend putting together a kit of vintage primes rather than going with m4/3 glass, the slightly lower contrast of vintage glass in general is very complimentary to the way the GH cameras render an image.

People don't talk about the EVF of the GH cameras that much, but I absolutely love the EVF on the GH bodies as it makes pulling focus much, much easier than with the Canons. I used the fold out LCD for monitoring, but when pulling focus I'd use the EVF, it's really, really sharp on both the GH1 and GH2 and even without MF assist you can tell when an image is in focus or not even at wide open apertures. If you aren't always going to have external monitoring available, I'd go with a GH body, you will be much more confident that your shots are in focus at larger apertures than you might be with a Canon if you don't have external monitoring.

Now, if you can only have one camera and you need it for both stills and video, and you do both a lot, you've gotta go with a Canon 60D or better. The GH bodies are flimsy and nothing even approaching pro-build quality, even the Rebel series is more solid than the GH cameras. If you've already got a bunch of good Canon EF glass, then also, go with Canon. All these cameras are good with pros and cons, but there is no question in my mind that the GH bodies deliver a noticeably better video image when used correctly and within their sweet-spot.

With the Canons, you don't have to think as much (although you still have to think a lot!) because they will give you a little bit more latitude. Canon high ISOs are much better, and they're pretty much all useable to one degree or another if the situation demands it, whereas with the GH1 you're gonna want to stay at ISO 400 or under and not much higher than that even on the GH2...that said, the ISOs do appear to be underrated on the GH bodies when one compares them with the Canons. You also get much longer record times with the GH bodies, you don't have to worry about them overheating either.

So, if you are starting from scratch and want to do narrative filmmaking only with one of these cameras, I'd seriously suggest going with a GH body.

Only caveat is with regard to the 5DmkII. To me this camera is best used as a B-Cam because shooting FF35 all the time is neither necessary nor preferable for a long project, however it can do things that none of these other cameras can with regards to low-light, wides and shallow DOF, but it's not necessarily what you'd want *all* the time. The image quality is great, still not technically as good as a GH camera IMO for video, but what it lacks in that regard it makes up for a million times over by what it can accomplish from a compositional standpoint. I think a rig of a GH1/2 + 5DmkII and vintage glass gives you a setup that can do just about anything, but if you can only have *one* camera and you just want to do video, GH series hands-down (unless you'll be shooting in environments where the lesser build quality may jeopardize the camera, but if you're going to be on controlled set-environments, I'd have no hesitation about a GH body.)

I still don't know what people mean by the "Canon look." Shoot flat and the GH image will be more natural, robust and detailed than the Canons and with color-grading you can take it just about anywhere you want. I find that whatever "look" I get is just my own and it doesn't have anything at all to do with the camera, I still compose, set focus, light and determine exposure using the same principles and that has way more to do with your look than anything else...the only time this isn't true is when I run into moire/aliasing with a Canon, which is not part of "my look" -- that's all Canon, but I choose not to put my Canon in situations where that will happen. I also don't put an unhacked GH1 in situations where I need a 5DmkII at ISO 3200 with a 50/1.2.

It's all about using the right camera + lens for the shot, there's no one-size fits-all solution, but the GH cameras do more well I believe than the Canons do with regards to video. This makes sense since the Canons are designed first and foremost to be good stills cameras for professional use (talking 7D and higher models) and there's nothing wrong with that, these cameras can't be everything to everyone, the 7D and higher models would still be worth what they cost to me (as I do pro stills work) even if they didn't have video at all. They are AMAZING stills cameras and the video feature is gravy IMO.

The GH cameras feel more like video cameras to me than stills cams. I buy GH cameras when I want a camera for video and I'm not thinking about stills. I buy Canons when I'm thinking about what I want for stills, not video. The fact that there is overlap, and some very good overlap is all just a nice bonus.
 
Last edited:
@wgzn Sorry. I shoud have searched the forum. Ill keep that in mind in the future. Thanks.
@Michael Thank you for your reply.
@thisisapocalypse Thanks for your detailed reply.

How can Gh2s flimsy body be a problem. I mean in HMI lighting or on hot shooting day what might happen? I do shooting alot on actual locations as compared to studios and sets. And yes I have no use for stills. Primarly looking for filmmaking. I was thinking of going with GH2 with manual nikon ai primes.
 
i dont think the GH2 is in any danger of physical threat from day to day field use. i mean its not poorly built or anything.
its just small, light and feels hollow. whereas most other $1000 DSLR bodies are a bit larger, heavier and feel much more solid. and i think many of us just like our tools to feel like tools and not something our mom would carry ; )
 
then the gh2 may be better for you since its primarily for video and the canons overheat....BUT i have only had it overheat twice in having my 7d for a year and a half and i live in Jamaica (hot!). Other users have had worse experience.
 
What have you guys have to say to the Sony A33 and the A55? Especially in comparison to the Canons and the GH series?
 
sharry said:
What have you guys have to say to the Sony A33 and the A55? Especially in comparison to the Canons and the GH series?
Click to expand...

Wait for the next round of DSLR cameras or buy a traditional video camera, this is why :
Canon good for stills, video Moire, aliasing
GH2, I like 30p at a high bit rate and only offers 24p and 60i, Not many lenses yet.

Sony a65 and a77 only offers 60p, 24p and 60i not 30p so 60p for everything, not for my taste.
Lenses : SAM lenses look flimsy, and sharpness in discussion, Carl Zeiss, fine but 3 lenses $ 4-5000
third part lenses Sigma, Tokina, Tamron if you like them

So let see what Canon comes with next, mean while buy a proper video camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top