GH2 Philip Bloom Christmas Shootout

[Danielvilliers]

Whoa, someone is talking about lens investment like the $ 500 slrmagic 12mm f 1.4 or $ 600 for a Tokina 11-16 2.8 zoom being too much investment when they intend to invest something like $ 15 000+ dollar in a scarlet. I think if you intend such an investment to buy and resell a lens for a loss of $ 100/200 won't be that tragic. The Tokina in Nikon mount would fit any apsc size/s35 mm camera if lens investment is important. It is also dope for movie shooting, Duclos has a cine mode for it and that tells you about the quality of the glass.

I hope that the troll who has derailed this thread is happy. Again and again...

1. Hey the gh2 sensor is too small

answer the crop is about 1.86 (multi aspect ratio sensor larger than m43 size in 16.9) compared to canon 1.6 (smaller because it is the 3.2 crop of the full sensor and the 16.9 video crops more from the top and bottom).

2. Hey no fast wide lens.

answer You have the $ 500 12mm 1.4 slrmagic, $ 700 12mm 2.0 Olympus and the Tokina 11-16 zoom for about $ 600. The equivalent Canon 24mm on Canon is about $ 1500.

3. The DR is lower because it is smaller chip, look here http://www.personal-view.com./talks/discussion/1795/dynamic-range-test-between-gh2-and-7d/p1 for a test against the 7D rated at 11 stop at Zacuto test (only .2 stop lower than the 5d).

4. Hey how abou the low light

Look here and the example there and make your own conclusion http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?267504-Is-the-gh2-the-new-low-light-high-ISO-DSLR-king

Is the gh2 perfect, no... as Yoclay said there are some problems. For me the noise is fine, at first it annoyed me a little bit, but with time I don't find it disturbing and as such as the film I watch. In higher ISO it takes another dimension because it is really film like. The banding is another thing, I would like to test a little more, I am not sure it bands more than the other 8bit dslr and camera, or because it is so detailed that the lack of graduation shows more than in the others where it is smeared.

I think we should write a faq so as we do not have to write these thing time and time again, so that we can direct people to it every-time it surface. I think we have enough troll who always try to derail discussion, we just have to direct them to it and continue to contribute constructively.

 

[TheDingo]

1) Do you see people requesting Canon to build a 4/3 sized camera?

No. For the last 3 years people have been begging Canon to produce a video DSLR that has much less Moire / Aliasing. So far Canon has not listened. Hopefully they will in the future. The C-300 is a start.

I sold all my Canon gear 1 year ago because I could not live with the poor video image quality. Now I shoot with the GH-2 and mostly buy Nikon AI-S glass, with a few m4/3 specialty lenses to fill the gaps.

2) Do you see people requesting Panasonic to build a APS sized camera?

Not from GH-2 owners. Only from Canon APS-C owners, who imagine this giant crop factor between the sensor sizes, when in reality the sensor size difference is a non-issue.

35mm Full Frame still photo sensors in cameras like the Canon 5D MK2 and Nikon D3 are designed for still photo work, and have too shallow DOF for video work. Unless you are after the myopic look of that one episode of House MD, that was very effective in creating a claustrophic feeling of being trapped under rubble, you are not going to be shooting with fast glass wide open with the Canon 5D MK2, where wide open shooting works well with the m4/3 sensor cameras, as they have a built in 2-stop advantage. This advantage becomes a much bigger deal when you have to light on location, where 4,000 watts can light a large set when shot with a m4/3 camera sensor, but it takes 16,000 watts of light to achieve the same DOF at the same ISO when using a 35mm Full Frame Still Photo camera sensor.

*** NOTE : I emphasize "Still Photo" camera, because many people confuse the huge size difference between the 35mm Still Photo format and the 35mm Motion Picture format. They are definitely not the same.

So; where is the demand at? And which of the 2 scenarios is most likely to happen at some point in the future?

Neither.

Olympus / Panasonic will stick with the m4/3 sensor size and the advantages it brings to the table. Better m4/3 video cameras will keep coming, and eventually the m4/3 lens line will get properly fleshed out. ( boy they are dragging their feet on this one )

Canon / Nikon / Sony will stick with the APS-C sensor size, and eventually issues like aliasing and moire will get sorted out.

...I'll add my own question to the debate: Where are the fast APS-C wide angle prime lenses ?

Where are Canon/Nikon/Sony's APS-C equivalents to the: Olympus 12mm f/2.0 or the Voightlander 25mm f/0.95 ??? ...I want to shoot a 15mm wide shot at f/2.0 using my Canon T3i/60D/7D, so what lens do I use ???

 

[Barry_Green]

I've heard the comparison of the CP.2 50 to the ZF.2 50, but never to the old ZF 50. So maybe the CP.2's are based on the old ZF's or a combination of the old and new depending on the focal length.

ZF glass and ZF.2 glass and CP glass and CP.2 glass are all exactly the same.

The difference between ZF and ZF.2 is the presence of electronic controls for the Nikon mount. The ZF lenses are a true "dumb", mechanical mount. The ZF.2 adds electronic connectors that let the camera set the iris, and communicate EXIF data to the body. But the glass is identical.

Between ZF and CP, the CP lenses are strictly PL mount, have the true cinema housings, and a 14-blade iris, but are otherwise the same glass as the ZF's, and there are no electrical contacts of course.

Between CP and CP.2, the only substantial difference is that the mounts are interchangeable on CP.2's. Other than that, the glass is identical. You will note that the 85 and 50mm are now rated to T2.1 on the CP.2's instead of T1.5 on the CP's. That's (IMO) just stupid, and one reason I prefer my CP's over the CP.2's. They took away the extra stop of sensitivity out of the 85 and 50 so that they could "standardize the T-stop" on the basic lens set, so now the 28, 35, 50 and 85 are all T2.1. Well, fine and dandy, but all they did was lop off the ability to open the lens up more. They didn't change the glass, they just took away a stop. I can stop down my 50 and 85 to 2.0 and guess what, they're identical to the CP.2 at that point. Difference is, when necessary, I can open them up to 1.4, which a CP.2 owner could never do. And, truth be told, I don't frequently do that because at wide open the Zeiss glass does introduce some purple/green fringing and the contrast goes a little soft; the lenses definitely benefit from being stopped down a little. I guess I just resent the idea that they took away capability and gave a bogus reason for it.

18 would be better, but I've heard terrible things about the CP.2 18 and ZF/ZF.2 18, plus it's pretty slow.

As an owner of both a ZF 18mm and a CP 18mm, I can't imagine what you're hearing about it that's "terrible" -- they are excellent lenses, brutally sharp. A little slow, yes. Especially compared to the Red Pro Prime 18mm which opens up a full two stops more. But other than speed the 18mm is great.

 

[Kholi]

As an owner of both a ZF 18mm and a CP 18mm, I can't imagine what you're hearing about it that's "terrible" -- they are excellent lenses, brutally sharp. A little slow, yes. Especially compared to the Red Pro Prime 18mm which opens up a full two stops more. But other than speed the 18mm is great.

*two full stops at the expensive of being four times heavier than the camera + PL mount together. It is NOT comfortable to try and shoot with those ridiculously heavy beasts off of a tripod or nice shoulder mount.

I think Zeiss Superspeeds could be a good alt in PL flavors, but, they're going to be dreadfully soft wide open. Still, though, they're tiny... what's the widest in an MKII set again? It's not 16/T.13 is it? 18 if I remember right...

 

[Erich Ocean]

my xxxxxxx god. the driftwood gh2 beats them all , easily.

If you ignore the jello, the GH2 does pretty nicely especially given the cost.

I can't ignore the jello though.

P.s. I own both a GH1 and GH2, so I'm not just going off of Internet tests here...

 

[Mike@AF]

You CAN use m4/3 glass on Scarlet X in 3K mode or lower...

There aren't any mounts to put a m4/3 lens on a Scarlet.

 

[Mike@AF]

There is no mount for this, and you would not get electronic lens controls. Red is supporting full electronic lens controls for Canon L and Nikon.
I really prefer fully manual lenses and will use mostly PL or C-mount glass on a GH2. It is this easy adaptability that makes the GH2 a practical low cost option for me.
I will probably get the 14-140 Kit lens, but won't invest in 4/3 glass for the most part. Probably look for a PL solution for wide and fast.

Just because the mount allows for electronic control of a lens doesn't mean you have to use a non-manual lens. The Nikon mount will be electronic, but you can use any Nikon fully manual lens with it. I'll be able to use my Zeiss ZF lenses with it.

 

[Mike@AF]

*two full stops at the expensive of being four times heavier than the camera + PL mount together. It is NOT comfortable to try and shoot with those ridiculously heavy beasts off of a tripod or nice shoulder mount.

I think Zeiss Superspeeds could be a good alt in PL flavors, but, they're going to be dreadfully soft wide open. Still, though, they're tiny...

And a lot more expensive.

what's the widest in an MKII set again? It's not 16/T.13 is it? 18 if I remember right...

Pretty sure it's 18 T1.3

 

[Mike@AF]

ZF glass and ZF.2 glass and CP glass and CP.2 glass are all exactly the same.

The difference between ZF and ZF.2 is the presence of electronic controls for the Nikon mount. The ZF lenses are a true "dumb", mechanical mount. The ZF.2 adds electronic connectors that let the camera set the iris, and communicate EXIF data to the body. But the glass is identical.

Between ZF and CP, the CP lenses are strictly PL mount, have the true cinema housings, and a 14-blade iris, but are otherwise the same glass as the ZF's, and there are no electrical contacts of course.

Between CP and CP.2, the only substantial difference is that the mounts are interchangeable on CP.2's. Other than that, the glass is identical. You will note that the 85 and 50mm are now rated to T2.1 on the CP.2's instead of T1.5 on the CP's. That's (IMO) just stupid, and one reason I prefer my CP's over the CP.2's. They took away the extra stop of sensitivity out of the 85 and 50 so that they could "standardize the T-stop" on the basic lens set, so now the 28, 35, 50 and 85 are all T2.1. Well, fine and dandy, but all they did was lop off the ability to open the lens up more. They didn't change the glass, they just took away a stop. I can stop down my 50 and 85 to 2.0 and guess what, they're identical to the CP.2 at that point. Difference is, when necessary, I can open them up to 1.4, which a CP.2 owner could never do. And, truth be told, I don't frequently do that because at wide open the Zeiss glass does introduce some purple/green fringing and the contrast goes a little soft; the lenses definitely benefit from being stopped down a little. I guess I just resent the idea that they took away capability and gave a bogus reason for it.


As an owner of both a ZF 18mm and a CP 18mm, I can't imagine what you're hearing about it that's "terrible" -- they are excellent lenses, brutally sharp. A little slow, yes. Especially compared to the Red Pro Prime 18mm which opens up a full two stops more. But other than speed the 18mm is great.

Well, if the CP's are the same glass and same image I'll have to start looking for a used set. I agree, I'd rather have the T1.5 speed just in case I need to open up. Want to sell yours?

The comments about the 18mm I've heard is that it's softer than it should be and the color doesn't match well with the rest of the set.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

True enough, but it's a bit more complicated. Most indie folks don't buy just the GH2 - like all DSLRs, it's too limited for video. So you must spend a bit more $ to bring it up to speed. That's where you start chipping away at the AF100 advantages.

Actually, by spending all of that money to make a dslr a real video camera, you JUSTIFY the extra expense people pay for the af-100

Take the ND filters - spend a few bucks and get the Heliopan... not quite as convenient as built-in, but it does level the field.

Not when I have to screw it on and off every lens when you change them. Internal wins every time

The XLR inputs and headphone jack - not really relevant if you do separate sound not to camera... which you should anyway if you want quality audio,

Why would I want an external audio recorder when the AF-100 records fantastic quality audio internally?

So I would say, it's getting harder and harder to justify an AF100 if you are on a super tight budget and literally every dollar counts. I think the GH2 is a tremendous competitor.

You just negated this part of your argument by adding all of the things you have to add to the GH-2 to give it the feature the AF-100 has out of the box.

 

[VMT]

Wow. That article really shows the extent of the crop factor on the GH2. I'll have to get some seriously wide and seriously fast lenses if I ever get one. The guy who wrote that article really loves his camera though; almost to the point of seeking validation.

Seems to me that Canon DSLR users are the ones seeking validation. They can't accept that another supposedly inferior DSLR has better IQ. [edit: GH2 isn't a DSLR]

However, looking at videos online you get a sense that shallow DOF is harder to attain, and the colors and the overall 'look' doesn't have the same 'mojo' as the canons.

If your interest is purely shallow dof, then you need a full sensor with the fastest lens, why bother with any cropped sensor cam?

"look" and "mojo" are subjective. Some swear by Panny mojo, others by Canon. I have owned cameras by all three major manufacturers, and it's not because of brand mojo or whatever, it's the particular utility of the camera.

Now maybe the DOF thing is simply that people have moved past it, or maybe that they simply don't have the choice of lenses for the M4/3.

DOF was never a "thing" for pros. It's always been just another creative choice among many. It's a look that was sought after only because it was not widely accessible until DSLR HD came along.

The myth that m43 has no good lenses need to die. Only non-m43 users seem spout this over and over again. The reality is m43 can use most any lens that ever saw a ray of light.

The fact is that I thought long and hard about getting GH2, but eventually settled on a Canon. The main reason being that I have a collection of lenses that would work better with the more standard sized Canon sensor, but would be unacceptable cropped with the M4/3.

makes sense that if you have canon EF lenses to go with a Canon if you want to maintain most of the electronic functions of your lenses. but the difference in crop factor between APS-C and m43 is hardly "unacceptable."

That said there seems to be more and more lenses available for the M4/3 format, but I imagine that a number of people would be reticent to invest in glass for a niche sensor size that is not supported by the majority of manufacturers.

I wouldn't call m43 a niche format. Panny and Oly are major players, as well as some of the third party m43 lens makers. the other brands got their own formats, There's definitely a place for m43 in a market already crowded with different formats and sensor sizes. I for one would not buy another full size DSLR ever.

 

[Kholi]

Have to agree with Matt... I prefer internal ND to external all day long, and I am not a fan of matteboxes, either. I'd rather tape some black foil on the lens and go about my business.

Second the internal audio recording. Second Sound system is old hat, WAY old hat. Old moldy old hat.

Maybe people should just call it what it is, though as it was said earlier: for some people, a great base image is much more important and they're willing to work around that. I'm one of them. If the Af100 looked like hacked GH2 footage it would be the DSLR killer that everyone wants. I'd be using that (curse word) ALLLLL de time.

 

[Alpha Beta Omega]

The AF100 is on the bottom of the food chain of these camcorders and still the only one with internal LCD/EVF/XLR/ND/1080p60.

Resolution is interesting. GH2 should have the highest resolution because it uses good down scaling and it has an OLPF optimized for stills in higher resolution rather than 1080 output. The AF101 on the other hand is the only camera that's immune to moire and that is because it has the strongest OLPF out of these. When I use the AF100 everything I need is on the cameras body and I never have to worry about moire or aliasing. Just happy shooting.

As for the hack on the GH2 I'm satisfied with the Samurai running at full PRORES quality out of the AF100.

 

[Barry_Green]

When I use the AF100 everything I need is on the cameras body and I never have to worry about moire or aliasing. Just happy shooting.

Exactemundo.

 

[TheDingo]

The banding is another thing, I would like to test a little more, I am not sure it bands more than the other 8bit dslr and camera, or because it is so detailed that the lack of graduation shows more than in the others where it is smeared.

...Even the mighty Canon C-300 shows banding under certain conditions: C-300 video "Out of Tunes"

I think we are stuck with minor banding issues from time to time, until everything switches to 10-bit recording.

 

[Mike@AF]

Actually, by spending all of that money to make a dslr a real video camera, you JUSTIFY the extra expense people pay for the af-100

Not if the GH2 records better images. This is debatable and subjective, but with the hack the GH2 records intraframe and higher nitrate.

Not when I have to screw it on and off every lens when you change them. Internal wins every time

A lot of professional cameras don't have built-in ND's. Red doesn't have it, Alexa doesn't have it, etc. Sometimes you use a matte box which needs to swing out when you change lenses. Sometimes they even use clip-on/clamp-on matte boxes with professional cameras on professional movie shoots. If you need grads then the internals won't get used for that and you still need a matte box. There's also polas, softening filters, etc.

Why would I want an external audio recorder when the AF-100 records fantastic quality audio internally?

Because an external recorder will record better quality audio than any camera's internal recorder, even when both are at 16-bit 48KHz. There's no camera that will record better audio than my 788T. You are also limited to only 2 mic inputs on cameras. External recorders offer better quality, more capability, and more flexibility. Even the H4n records better quality audio than cameras.

You just negated this part of your argument by adding all of the things you have to add to the GH-2 to give it the feature the AF-100 has out of the box.

Not really if you end up with better quality, more features, more capability, etc. Again, it is debatable and subjective, but the GH2 holds up pretty well against the AF100 and even other more expensive cameras in my opinion.

 

[Cory Braun]

Have to agree with Matt... I prefer internal ND to external all day long, and I am not a fan of matteboxes, either. I'd rather tape some black foil on the lens and go about my business.

Second the internal audio recording. Second Sound system is old hat, WAY old hat. Old moldy old hat.

Maybe people should just call it what it is, though as it was said earlier: for some people, a great base image is much more important and they're willing to work around that. I'm one of them. If the Af100 looked like hacked GH2 footage it would be the DSLR killer that everyone wants. I'd be using that (curse word) ALLLLL de time.

What's your opinion on the FS100? From PB's test it seems to be decently sharp, and has XLRs (but no NDs).

 

[Mike@AF]

The AF100 is on the bottom of the food chain of these camcorders and still the only one with internal LCD/EVF/XLR/ND/1080p60.

Resolution is interesting. GH2 should have the highest resolution because it uses good down scaling and it has an OLPF optimized for stills in higher resolution rather than 1080 output. The AF101 on the other hand is the only camera that's immune to moire and that is because it has the strongest OLPF out of these. When I use the AF100 everything I need is on the cameras body and I never have to worry about moire or aliasing. Just happy shooting.

As for the hack on the GH2 I'm satisfied with the Samurai running at full PRORES quality out of the AF100.

Exactemundo.

And that is why I still have my AF100... for now. I really need to do some tests between the AF100 and hacked GH2, along with the results of Bloom's shootout and the upcoming Zacuto "Revenge" shootout that was announced (if it happens soon). But so far, being that I was generally pleased with what I shot with just the GH1 (hacked and unhacked), and what I've shot with the GH2 (unhacked), I'm very close to selling my AF100 and sticking with my GH2 until I get a Scarlet.

 

[Mike@AF]

Have to agree with Matt... I prefer internal ND to external all day long, and I am not a fan of matteboxes, either. I'd rather tape some black foil on the lens and go about my business.

Matte boxes definitely get in the way in some situations, but there are times when they are a must. ND grads, soft grads, filters like that that you needa matte box so you can adjust the placement of the grad. They are also good for protecting the lens when you're running around with the camers (assuming the matte box isn't clamped onto the lens). There's many functions of the matte box that makes them a necessity. To me, internal ND filters are more of a convenience. I'm almost always going to shoot with a matte box whether there's internal ND's in the camera or not.

Second the internal audio recording. Second Sound system is old hat, WAY old hat. Old moldy old hat.

There's a reason it's still around. External recording = better sound quality. And it's not a small difference in quality either.

Maybe people should just call it what it is, though as it was said earlier: for some people, a great base image is much more important and they're willing to work around that. I'm one of them. If the Af100 looked like hacked GH2 footage it would be the DSLR killer that everyone wants. I'd be using that (curse word) ALLLLL de time.

Agree 100%.

 

[Mike@AF]

What's your opinion on the FS100? From PB's test it seems to be decently sharp, and has XLRs (but no NDs).

I think the advantages of the FS100 are sensor size, lowlight performance, and it appears to be sharper than the AF100 at times. Other than that it's not a better codec in my opinion and no SDI out (though the GH2 doesn't either). I also don't like the design of the camera body. Seems a bit weird to me.