Panasonic GH1 and the future

commanderspike

commanderspike

Carbonite Member
Well, the GH1 turned out to be a real game changer for me, and it seems to be gaining in popularity with the mainstream. It's advantages as a video camera are well documented now, so what does the future hold?

I'd be interested to see what Canon & Nikon need to do, to overcome the head start Panasonic has with the mirrorless Micro 4/3rds format. The technology these mighty camera giants have invested might need substantial reworking to create a mirrorless GH1 competitor.

I have many questions to throw in the ring:

When do you think we'll see Canon & Nikon's answer to the GH1, or indeed Sony's?

I am also interested to see what happens to the camcorder and pro video market now.

It seems like a no brainer to use some of the GH1 technology, especially the sensor, in a traditional video form factor, like the Sony EX1. Because doing away with the stills capability mean you don't need 14 megapixels on the sensor. Can you imagine how good the GH1's sensor would be with a lower pixel pitch? Only 2 or 3 megapixel effective is needed for 1080p. The sensor technology seems to have an edge of the competition too. The GH1 already performs at a similar level as the APS-C size sensors at high ISOs yet is smaller. For a CMOS sensor, rolling shutter is especially decent - in 720p mode anyway.

And how will Panasonic handle the full frame competition when the likes of the 5D MII sensor gets a better integrated video mode and AVCHD?

And can AVCHD ever begin to cope with fast movement from such a large sensor? I guess we need the processors to catch up.

When Canon brings out a more video orientated full frame DSLR, will the GH2 or GH3 abandon the Micro 4/3rds format and go full frame? It sure as hell makes lens design easier - a super wide 7 to 14mm is a hell of a lens to make, compared to a full frame 24-70mm which doesn't need to go to extremes.

I know this is all speculation, but I think we have some exciting times ahead, when the competition starts to hot up. Who will be first out of Canon, Nikon & Sony to change the game like Panasonic have done with the GH1?
 
Last edited:
commanderspike said:
W


Because doing away with the stills capability mean you don't need 14 megapixels on the sensor.

Only 2 or 3 megapixel effective is needed for 1080p.
Click to expand...

No No you want a dense sensor.

If the 14MP or ? is used right, it shows up in the final product. Plus no one is going to make a mainstream 3MP APS or full frame sensor for video. No less than 10MP should be the line drawn. In time they will offer large frames like 3K 4k and on in video mode to be competitive.

This makes me laugh; in my photography circles I used to hear some say a few years ago " what's this 20MP pixel crap" "its over kill" yada yada yada...... I used to look at them and think just imagine if Kodak capped the micro film grain structure to a limit of resolving only 1500LPH.....

One of the reasons that the GH1 beats the pants off the HPX170 in core image resolve and dynamic range is that large dense senor. In it's core, that sensor is capable of resolving 2300 LPH in vertical and horizontal; unlike the HPX170 it cant barely even leap 800 LPH in its core and doesn't have the GH1's smooth Dynamic range or highlight roll off . Almost no video camera has that core image to start off with. Always start at the highest quality if possible; then work your way down. It's logical!



Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
Anamorphic DSLR Lens Test Images... links:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1638289&postcount=97
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1637705&postcount=84
Facebook & Myspace:
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Pappas/573417404
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
http://www.PappasArts.com
 
Last edited:
For resolving power & dynamic range yes, BUT...

Low light performance would be better if the pixel density was at a native 1920x1080, wouldn't it? Because larger photosites = more able to capture light, accurately.

Or does the downscaling average out high ISO noise so that's its almost invisible?

The Canon 5D MII has a double the number of photosites but 4 times the area, and it's only that little bit better than the GH1 for video in low light. Ok it's not a small margin, but it's not a HUGE one.

A sensor like the GH1's in a stand-alone video camera, optimised for just video, would surely have some tricks up it's sleeve.
 
Just take a HPX 170, yank out it's small sensor. Stick in the GH1 sensor and slap the m4/3 mount infront and allow full HDMI out. Add a field video recorder of your choice. Bang you're there.
 
I believe you ideally want an image sensor with at least 2 or 3 times the resolution of full HD (1920 x 1080) because of the Bayer filter in CMOS cams (used to create color).

That, plus making the sensor big so the photosites are relatively sensitive.
 
I don't see the advantage of a mirrorless non-optical viewfinder. Maybe I'm missing something.

I also don't see why they would move in the direction of video without stills with a DSLR body. The whole point is that it does both well. People invest, for the most part, because of price and lenses. Not shape and size. If any of the companies want to compete on the lower end market, they need to make interchangeable lenses on a large sensor a standard. That's been true for a while, and I think it beats out anything else the hybrid cameras have to offer.
 
By the time scarlet ships both panny and canon should have full frame 1080p24 vDSLRs with proper audio using AVCHD, p2, cineform or something else.
The GH1 is good now but not 6 months from now
 
J Davis said:
By the time scarlet ships both panny and canon should have full frame 1080p24 vDSLRs with proper audio using AVCHD, p2, cineform or something else.
The GH1 is good now but not 6 months from now
Click to expand...

Six months from now, those new camera's won't be anywhere close to $1499 and by then you could probably get a GH1 body for about 1k..
 
Psynema said:
Six months from now, those new camera's won't be anywhere close to $1499 and by then you could probably get a GH1 body for about 1k..
Click to expand...

or maybe half that as there will be a GH1a or GH2 etc where you won't need two system audio.
 
Keep in mind that Panasonic has far more experience in video than does Canon and certainly Nikon. Canon does make some great prosumer video cameras, but not in the hybrid league of the GH1. Nikon has very little video experience period.
 
Yet they were first to market. Looking at it a different way: Nikon doesn't bear the weight of a pro video department...
 
J Davis said:
By the time scarlet ships both panny and canon should have full frame 1080p24 vDSLRs with proper audio using AVCHD, p2, cineform or something else.
The GH1 is good now but not 6 months from now
Click to expand...

Wow.....Thanks!

That's about when PannyIdiots Direct will deliver my June order for the GH1! Grrrrr! :-EI

Kidding aside the GH1 has passed the line of just good. There will be films/projects being shot on it for years from now! People still use DVX100's for crying out load; that 7 years old and SD...
 
Expect body only will be a bit cheaper than 1k assuming they're not subsidizing the price of the kit lens slightly or inflating it too much sold alone. The 14-140mm lens is $900 alone...so maybe the body will be closer to $600-800...yes, a few hundred less than the lens :)
 
One thing I would like to see in the future is on-body image stabilisation like on the Olympus EP-1, so I can use my FD & Zeiss Contax lenses with full image stabilisation.

But I'm guessing on-body IS won't work in movie mode, right? I seem to remember reading this about the EP-1, but any technical reason why they couldn't get this to work? :undecided
 
J Davis said:
By the time scarlet ships both panny and canon should have full frame 1080p24 vDSLRs with proper audio using AVCHD, p2, cineform or something else.
The GH1 is good now but not 6 months from now
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with two system audio if the image holds up imo. Scarlet has shot themselves in the foot with so many design changes and delays. If you can get a comparable image for a fraction of the cost then the deciding factor should not be the audio system in camera. Having a two system usually means you have more control over your audio with better quality in these price ranges.
 
Cassius said:
I don't see the advantage of a mirrorless non-optical viewfinder. Maybe I'm missing something.
Click to expand...

It allows the body to be thinner, thus allowing a wider variety of lenses to be adaptable.

Cassius said:
I also don't see why they would move in the direction of video without stills with a DSLR body. The whole point is that it does both well. People invest, for the most part, because of price and lenses. Not shape and size.
Click to expand...

The only reason I'm interested in the GH1 is video. The fact that it takes stills just means it's cheaper because I can sell my dSLR to offset some of the cost.
I would pay 3x the price of the GH1 for a standard video camera that had its sensor.
 
I most say that the gh1 is the game chAnger that scarlet was going to be. The video version should be amazing! We wall want to do professional work but we don't want the problems of a professional workflow.
If panny makes the video version with it's typical video features attached it will be the perfect mix of prosumer
 
commanderspike said:
But I'm guessing on-body IS won't work in movie mode, right? I seem to remember reading this about the EP-1, but any technical reason why they couldn't get this to work? :undecided
Click to expand...

The Pentax K-7 has in-body image stabilization and it works with any and all old manual lenses you want to use. Maybe IS is more effective in lens than in-body but Canon and Nikon dominate the still world and they've chosen to do IS in lens - that's the current game.

This does provide some advantages like having the IS specifically designed for the particular focal length of the lens. But photographers usually want IS for zooms and you don't see it in primes. And of course nothing can help your old FD lenses or Nikon AI's. Maybe Panasonic is outside of the still world enough to change the game but I wouldn't expect to see a Canon or Nikon go that route - but who knows - the entire game is changing for everybody. What would an in-body image stabilization Canon get when you then put an IS zoom lens on it? Is that some kind of super-stabilization or would it not work at all?

It seems to the average indie film guy sitting on a whole bunch of manual lenses in-body image stabilization would be really really cool bonus for all of those lenses. Now that we're shooting video with DSLRs it would be nice to have IS on all lenses old or new and particularly nice to have it with primes - which usually don't have it whether the lens is brand new or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top