Newbie needs help: GH13 or GH2?

L

longcipher

Active member
I've been reading these forums and watching Vimeo footage. I look like Alex from Clockwork Orange at this point when he's in "treatment."

I have a finite amount of funds to spend (about $1900) and want to spend it wisely.

Is a hacked GH13 better than a stock GH2? I'd like to also get some kind of shooting rig. I have access to Leica glass, so with an adapter I'd have a nice little rig.

So - now I need the definitive word -- which is the better camera? What is the most cost effective solution? I am open to your advice.

I will not be shooting weddings/bar mitzvahs, etc -- I will be shooting personal projects and some corporate work which calls for more of an artistic look.

I have a lot of experience shooting 16mm and HD, but I've never done the DSLR thing -- the images on Vimeo are blowing my mind and I want to jump in.

Thanks for your advice.
 
You're probably going to get a bunch of personal opinions... both camera's have their strengths.

Since you're doing some corporate work, I'd lean toward the GH2. Not having to do a pulldown removal (or risk losing a shot with native checked on the hack), no chance of FPN, and the zebra-bar type setting all make it pretty great for that kind of stuff.

I still pull out my GH13 when I'm shooting something crazy and handheld outside, but because of the horrendous FPN (I get it on anything 3 stops underexposed on any ISO), I stick mostly to my GH2 and I love it.

But that's not the definitive word, that's just my experience. I know Blackout has a pretty killer GH13 with little to no FPN... but most aren't that lucky.
 
Thanks, A. I should tell you that what most interests me about the hack is the 40mbps. But the GH2 footage looks comparable, at least on Vimeo - and with the variable bit rates - the average seems to be 22-24 anyway.
 
Yeah, I use the 40mbps hack. It's pretty great. I haven't had a codec breakdown since I loaded it on the GH1. But I can't tell how you disheartening it is to light an interview, set the ISO to 160, and notice banding popping up in the background.
 
seeing as how it might be close to impossible to even get a hold of a hackable gh1, you should probably just go gh2.
i did loads of corporate stuff on an hmc150 which uses the same codec as the gh2 and the 24mbps was great. i'd say its probably equivalent to the crappier version of avchd on a gh1 at 40mbps.

the only real con to the gh1 is the stupid banding, but most of my work has plenty of light and i almost never run into this problem.

the gh2 has no problems with lowlight or underexposure, better audio, live external monitoring and that handy zoom/crop feature....oh, and focus peaking! that last one alone would be worth it to me, being able to more easily see what is in focus on the lcd would be great.
 
Thanks, guys (or girls) for the answers. The GH2 certainly sounds like the way to go. I have shot a lot of stuff on the HMC-150, so I understand how that codec holds up under color grading. I guess I'll let some ebay seller take me for a ride and overpay for a GH2. =) I'll be sure to post some examples here after I've gotten past the initial camera tests of shooting my kids, trains, and flowers.
 
just remember that with the gh2 you can only shoot 24mbps at 1080_24p. 1080_60i and 720_30/60p are all 17mbps.
 
averan said:
just remember that with the gh2 you can only shoot 24mbps at 1080_24p. 1080_60i and 720_30/60p are all 17mbps.
Click to expand...

True. =(

A bit off-topic, do you all think spending up to $1900 on this package is a good idea? If you had $2k to spend, what would you buy? Again, keeping in mind that I want to shoot more in a film mode and less ENG. I looked at the Sony NEX VG10 and it seems terrible. I can't find one thing on Vimeo that gets me excited. I do see a lot of GH13 & GH2 that does. Perhaps that answers my question?
 
I'd get the GH2 w/14-140 lens if you can afford it. It's a great walkaround lens, and is stabilized. I use it all the time for outside shoots that are run and gun. For other stuff, I have some used Nikon primes and an adapter that get a lot of use.

But again, that's just my opinion because it' fits my shooting style. You might never need a stabilized zoom lens... and if so, put that money toward the lenses or equipment you actually do need.
 
Well, one up front problem of many digital cameras is that even though a video will technically have 1920x1080 pixels, it'll have the actual human eye equivalent to around 640P or less (meaning you have to resize the file to a smaller size/use a complex sharpening method to make the file look at all realistic and clear to the viewer) and this why everything on Youtube and Vimeo looks outstanding - those sites downsize the videos to 480P (even when you click HD) and this has an extremely positive effect on them compared to viewing the files at full 1080P on a 1080P monitor, projector, or television. The Canon's are very bad at this whole issue (my T2i seems to resolve exactly 540P in 1080P mode) and I'd bet that the GH's are a bit better at it, but not by much. I'd say you'll get 720P out of the 1080p files. Should be enough for commercial work.

The sad thing however is that Canon do have the most money-saving stock of lenses next to Nikon, you can get a 50mm 1.8 and 18-135mm IS for less than $500 in all, yet that sort of duo would cost you well over $1,000 with the GH's. I'm going to say that the lack pf moire, aliasing, and quality loss will make it worth it, as a Canon user I feel like the Canon video technology is simply horrid and has pushed back video technology to the early 90's.

What's weird is that when you resize the Canon files down to 540P, most of the aliasing goes away, so I figure in most cases that half of the resolution of the vids are "false" information (aliasing and the camera "guessing" thing") while the other half is detail. Since the GH's have much less moire, I'd say the GH's "guess" much less, so the overall quality should be higher in the entire picture.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone in this thread ever watched footage from a HDSLR or even an AF100 projected onto a screen? I agree that crushing everything down to Vimeo size makes things look fantastic. My intention is enter the documentary I am about to make into festivals. If it gets picked up - how would the GH2 footage look blown up?
 
longcipher said:
Has anyone in this thread ever watched footage from a HDSLR or even an AF100 projected onto a screen? I agree that crushing everything down to Vimeo size makes things look fantastic. My intention is enter the documentary I am about to make into festivals. If it gets picked up - how would the GH2 footage look blown up?
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly the great DSLR shootout had all the major DSLRs (Canons, Nikons and even the GH1) at the time blown up on a 40ft screen and they looked great from those that were there...and the GH2 resolves more detail than all of them so it should be fine :)
 
HDSLR footage looks great on a big screen. Black Swan has some 7D shots mixed in (subway shots) so if there are still theaters playing it in your area, you can check out how it looks.
 
I saw Black Swan. Obviously, the subway footage stuck out like a sore thumb, but, all in all, it didn't look too bad.

Thanks for all the replies so far - this is a great forum.
 
I have both the HMC 152 (pal hmc150) and the Gh13 (with 40mbps hack) and the gh13 blows it away for resolution and detail. Even the GH13 720p is better than the HMC 1080.

I don't have the GH2 yet just waiting for stock.

The GH13 is my play thing, the GH2 will be my work thing and my HMC will be ..... in the cupboard.
 
I think I am going to try my luck with a GH2, based on all of your advice. Honestly, I don't know what my options would be otherwise.

Panasonic HMC40 is terrible in low light.
Sony NEX VG10 is an enigma wrapped in a mystery.
Canon models don't seem to be as video/shooter friendly as the GH2.

This time next year we'll have many more choices.
 
+1. GH2 shows audio meters while recording. That's a big plus. It's useful even if u do dual audio recording.
 
Snapper123 said:
Well, one up front problem of many digital cameras is that even though a video will technically have 1920x1080 pixels, it'll have the actual human eye equivalent to around 640P or less (meaning you have to resize the file to a smaller size/use a complex sharpening method to make the file look at all realistic and clear to the viewer) and this why everything on Youtube and Vimeo looks outstanding - those sites downsize the videos to 480P (even when you click HD) and this has an extremely positive effect on them compared to viewing the files at full 1080P on a 1080P monitor, projector, or television. The Canon's are very bad at this whole issue (my T2i seems to resolve exactly 540P in 1080P mode) and I'd bet that the GH's are a bit better at it, but not by much. I'd say you'll get 720P out of the 1080p files. Should be enough for commercial work.

The sad thing however is that Canon do have the most money-saving stock of lenses next to Nikon, you can get a 50mm 1.8 and 18-135mm IS for less than $500 in all, yet that sort of duo would cost you well over $1,000 with the GH's. I'm going to say that the lack pf moire, aliasing, and quality loss will make it worth it, as a Canon user I feel like the Canon video technology is simply horrid and has pushed back video technology to the early 90's.

What's weird is that when you resize the Canon files down to 540P, most of the aliasing goes away, so I figure in most cases that half of the resolution of the vids are "false" information (aliasing and the camera "guessing" thing") while the other half is detail. Since the GH's have much less moire, I'd say the GH's "guess" much less, so the overall quality should be higher in the entire picture.
Click to expand...

This is absolute poppy cock.

I have five to 10 videos up that can be played full screen 1080p on vimeo ond youtube that look absolutely stunning at full screen full 1080p not the window 480p mode.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top