New 4/3rds (not micro) DSLR from Panasonic...the answer to all our problems?

13th Judas said:
so, you are the troll she's talking about :laugh:
Click to expand...

Yep,

The troll who she calls a Canon DSLR fanboy, despite the fact I shoot with a Sony and a Panasonic and she knows it. When she had an Xacti, she recommended that camera to EVERYONE, and back then she called me a Sony zealot for rebuking her theory that the Xacti could produce images in the range of the EX1.

I don't think she works for Panasonic. She's a home hobbyist and says she works in processor technology. Maybe that's true, maybe not. But she knows less than zero about Video.

She couldn't seem to wrap her head around the fact that having a focus puller be able to see the camera output was proper and necessary. Citing the fact that the GH1 has facial recognition unlike the crappy Canon and could keep the actor's face in focus automatically. She even noted that the GH1 was superior because you could zoom it while shooting and you can't do that on the Canons. Of course I offered video proof to the contrary, but she glossed over that of course....

There are a lot of folks out there doing good work on the GH1. Many professionally or as serious hobbyists. "Liza" is not one of them.
 
Ian-T said:
Whoa Ben B...calm down man. He gave an opinion. The fact is Ben Panasonic did "fumble" with the GH-1. It's not to say that all the other camcorders don't have their issues. But if it were not for the codec the GH-1 would have been the new "HV20" (IMO). Everything else about it is great. But...I can't look past the faulty codec (coupled with the fact that you have to still remove pulldown).

I got a 7D .. I love it. But it is "fumble" too. Like in any marriage...it's my compromise.
Click to expand...

Panasonic didn't fumble any worse than the 7D is a fumble with its shortcomings... They're all haphazard crap machines that people are buying under the impression that "it needs some finessing".

How is one or the other a fumble more so? The 7D is just as much a fumble as the GH-1 in that case.
 
Point taken. But the thought behind my comment is that (according to many folks) the Panasonic was touted as more than just a stills camera. And in just about every way it is ergonomically set as the "hybrid" that it is touted to be. They got everything right except...for what I consider the most important part,,,and that is the codec. As far as the 7D is concerned there is a consensus that its video mode was just an afterthought. I would expect there to be compromises (and there definitely are).

Both are still "good enough" to get the job done. Maybe not to Red One owners...but for the many folks using these tools (even in professional environments) they are a slam dunk.
 
Not saying I didn't contribute to the failure here buuuutttt....

Let's get back on topic with this thread please. What are your thoughts on features that you would like to see included in the rumored 4/3rds DSLR that has both a liveview and optical viewfinder.
 
Ian-T said:
But if it were not for the codec the GH-1 would have been the new "HV20" (IMO). Everything else about it is great.
Click to expand...



The new HV20? It's better than a HV20 as it stands now. The HV20 is not a standard to measure up to. The GH1 is way ahead of that fixed lens, micro size senor, bad/noisy in low light camera as it is. I haven't touch my HV20 since I got the GH1 when I run out the door to get shots...




Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
http://www.PappasArts.com
 
Last edited:
PappasArts said:
The new HV20? It's better than a HV20 as it stands now. The HV20 is not a standard to measure up to. The GH1 is way ahead of that fixed lens, micro size senor, bad/noisy in low light camera as it is. I haven't touch my HV20 since I got the GH1 when I run out the door to get shots...




Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
http://www.PappasArts.com
Click to expand...
LOL...I'm strictly talking popularity (I remember it got camcorder of the year). Not performance.


But FWIW I sold my HV20.

@Ben B...my thought is for a better codec. That would be stellar.
 
Peter J. DeCrescenzo said:
And yes, it's pretty funny if her reaction to Barry's very level-headed GH1/7D comparison article was "The GH1 wins!", since the entire point of his article was "use whichever cam is most appropriate for your project & budget".
Click to expand...

But in the end what she says makes sense ("The GH1 wins!"), and helps illustrate a point. People that don't know what they are talking about (please feel free to include me if you are one of the many that knows far more than I do) or those that are not looking close enough (such as the audience who is wisely focused on content and execution) will invariable notice more issues with the 7D than the GH1. Obviously this is something that is limited to projects shot by the "wrong" hands, by people that are seemingly unaware of the issues and do nothing to tame them or avoid them. What I mean is that when the 7D goes on an LSD trip, if you are dumb enough to let it, but if it does and it starts flashing techno lights all over the blinds of a window in the distance, or your subject's plad shirt... what is the audience going to notice most? Since the GH1 sticks to the black and white brand of weirdness, mostly, it will go unnoticed more often than the 7D weirdness, again, if shot by a blind guy.

Since most of us are not visually impaired and care enough to avoid or reduce crazy color monsters in our work then "The GH1 wins!" only applies to her and others who just press the big red button and off they go.

FYI, I went on a far too careless ramble here. I will post it anyway cause it might start an other facet of this conversation that I feel is lacking in a big way. I can only hope someone will share their carefully constructed (and hopefully objective) opinion on the matter of color reproduction/interpretation/mojo.

[PERSONAL opinion]I would actually say that the 7D wins, hands down... [/PERSONAL opinion]

There is an other factor that people don't talk about though, and that is color reproduction. Why don't I see you guys talk more about it? So many know hordes more technical bits and things than I, but color is being largely left out. And there is nothing you can do to avoid it, or modify the whole thing with a simple filter.

IMHumbleO, Canon's color is better.

AND I LOVE PANA'S COLOR.

I've always been a big fan of the Pana mojo, still am. Well, since the DVX really, when I decided I'd put on a Pana fan-boy shirt for what they did with the introduction of 24p at the price point.

Considering that Canon has far greater sales than all others in the Pro DSLR market (right?) and that so much of the professional photography in big magazines and now websites is being handled by Canon bodies... all that money is flowing into their RD dept (they have more resources available at least, but you get the point I hope).

So if the 7D went green and purple on you, many in the audience would likely raise their finger at the screen and say "huh??" (even if just for a second, but the damage is done!). But, again, that only applies to people who do nothing about it, so... you might have other factors that are more important... factors that remain, even regardless of higher bit-rate codec introduction in subsequent models!

IE: COLOR!!! (not pissed, just trying to get you guys talking about it)

I dunno... well I know a lot, but I am no rental house, working DP, or day-job-shooter with his own kit. I don't need to focus on everything technical because that is not what I make my bread and butter...

...but with my current pixel peeping knowledge, I'd say that if you avoid color weirdness, which should be easy with a filter and a little brains, the 7D is hands down better, just cause of color.

Other factors to consider, hard-drive space (but the 7D files are tiny already), and the swivel screen!!! (get a f-ing clue Canon!), and the ability to get PL lenses mounted on the GH1 without the need for a dremel tool.

I hope I am not leaving other big considerations (but I might! I don't have a GH1, or know much about it).

Since color is one of those things that can get very close to the psychological blurry line between objective and subjective, not because it is unquantifiable, but because it is such a direct link to our emotions, like music... and, we can't ignore the existance of egos... a conversation on color reproduction is BOUND to be hard to conclude... but...

...blah blah blah... please teach me something about color.
 
Last edited:
Peter J. DeCrescenzo said:
Liza, here's a hint: "No B-frames."
Click to expand...
7D and 5D don't have B-frames either. They just have 2x to 3x the bandwidth to make up for it, and while it makes larger file sizes, it does usually work pretty well. I've had the 7D codec fall apart, but it took handheld telephoto footage of a huge flock of birds to do it.
 
Hi Barry: Sorry if I was unclear. My point was that none of the DSLR cams do B-frames, and that's apparently a big reason why their video codec implementations are weak compared to many video cams. And in the case of the GH1, a relatively low data rate, too.
 
ok...everyone's knocking the "weak" 17mbs the GH1 utilizes, but i must ask this question...and i'm serious....what's the exact mbs that would be acceptible to those of you who are hung up on this?

when all is said and done, and you have shot 1080p, removed pulldown (which admittedly, i'm bummed to have found out after i bought it), and rendered a proper file for proper Blu-Ray....what deficiencies do you see? i suppose it's largely footage-specific, but if you like to shoot action, wouldn't you have chosen a different camera than the GH1 for shooting 1080p?

reading the tech-specs on the GH1 before buying it suited my needs to the extent that i sold my XHA1 to buy it, as i am not a professional (whatever that is, as everyone seems to be one nowadays)... it was an economic decision for me.

but back to my original question....i'm yet to read a complaint about this camera from someone who OWNS it, and USES it, and has been universally SURPRISED by any shortcomings that weren't known BEFORE purchasing it.

How many of you are expecting to take your GH1 footage and show it in HD quality on a ginormous screen? If you are, you bought the wrong camera.

This is all my opinion.
Don't damn me.
 
I don't know much about codec and I've been following Philip Bloom's site and he's shown his 7D and 5d footage on theater screens and the videos look amazing. I'm wondering shouldn't the GH1's footage fare decent. I know the Gh1 uses 17mbs and the 7d uses 43mbs or something like that, but their video format are different. Those codec can't be compared because of the different video format, or can they? Like I said, I don't know much, but love to learn. Thanks!
 
7D has almost no codec artefacts. It has severe aliasing in certain situations but the codec holds up very well. AVCHD in the GH1 is not as reliable. It can break up and loose definition.
 
editman said:
7D has almost no codec artefacts.
Click to expand...
That is very much not true.

It's the exact same codec as the GH1. It has more bandwidth, which makes it more resilient to breaking up, but it can suffer the exact same issues as the GH1 does. It just takes more to make it happen.

In general, I think the 7D's codec is plenty good enough for a $1700 camera. I wouldn't find it acceptable in a $7,000 broadcast camera, but for a $1700 DSLR it's fine, and it's definitely better and more robust than the GH1's.

To skinny: it's not about the megabits, necessarily, it's about what you do with them. 17 would be plenty, if they'd just implemented full AVCHD, including B-frames and ideally multislicing too. But they didn't. So using the implementation they have, you'd need 50mbps to get good performance out of it -- which is the way Canon does it.
 
rundavids said:
I'm wondering shouldn't the GH1's footage fare decent.
Click to expand...
No, it should be amazing.

I know the Gh1 uses 17mbs and the 7d uses 43mbs or something like that, but their video format are different.
Click to expand...
Not really, they're pretty much exactly the same.

Those codec can't be compared because of the different video format, or can they?
Click to expand...
They definitely can be compared because they're exactly the same. The only real difference is a) bandwidth, and b) the stupid 24p-within-60i pulldown system.
 
I think Panasonic will get it right the next time around (higher data rate, no pulldown and HDMI out). Those additions will kick everyone else (in their current config) to the curb.

Ohh...and Picture Adjustment would be nice too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top