Pros and Cons -- GH1 vs Canon 7d

>They do minimal feature extraction and just dump video into the H.264 stream very lightly compressed.

I think I see a lot of mud with the GH1 when filming landscapes with tons of not so crisp details (I think is shows as mud). It shows here:

http://vimeo.com/8398302

>This is fine if you want to buy expensive flash cards and burn a lot of hard drive space.

Maybe the GH1 is even limited by the SD card throughput rate they support. Mixing quality with arguments of cost/space is just plain silly. In terms of price, size and weight the GH1 is the king. But this does not help if the quality limits you.

On the other side the GH1 shows way less disturbing aliasing/moire and is way better suited to capturing video then all the other HDSLRs. Then in low light the Canon 7D and 5D2 win again.

Right now for me the mud is a main issue. Not sure it is a show stopper though. Likely related to the bit rate.
 
I really think upping the bit rate to the max spec - 24mbit, would greatly improve these mud issues. I don't understand why they didn't do it in the first place when this is the max birate on every other avchd panasonic video equipment. U
 
> 24mbit, would greatly improve these mud issues.

I would hope so. It may also not show this much with small sensors as they have less soft out of focus areas.
 
What in particular do we miss?

Do you really believe a higher bit rate would not be better? If so, please point to an argument.

Clearly AVCHD is a very capable Codec but I am sure there are many parameters that control the quality in the end.

Uwe
 
I like the 7d, just my personal choice!
N.gif
 
ustein said:
What in particular do we miss?

Do you really believe a higher bit rate would not be better? If so, please point to an argument.

Clearly AVCHD is a very capable Codec but I am sure there are many parameters that control the quality in the end.

Uwe
Click to expand...

I cant read the article for you, read the post I linked to.

I find it bizarre how unqualified people regurgitate false assumptions as fact. If you read what Lisa was saying, we dont know how by simply increasing the bitrate would affect performance. Its not a simple firmware upgrade. These 7D vs GH1 threads are becoming useless now. If the 7D is a better all round camera, its ok. GH1 users can deal with not having the best camera on the market. Its amazing how the pride for a good purchase has suddenly become more important than the pride for a great film or video.

I'm not happy with mud or rolling shutter... but at the same time, I didn't sell our Sony V1. If you are a pro and the mud is unacceptable, spend more. If you aren't a pro, the quality is more than sufficient. If the 7D does a better job, buy it. But for gods sake... lets stop this compulsive obsession.

If this seems like a whiney rant, I apologize, but I've seen too many of these posts to hold back.
 
Blackout said:
Read that article and I have to tell you, being an expert in compression technology for over 10 years, the article is a bunch of crap. It makes ** few ** semi valid points but then states some GLARING errors.
Click to expand...

Please tell me how you're an expert in compression technology?
 
1. I have both the GH1 and 5D2

2. Have no emotional bias at all. Love the GH1 handling.

3. > If you aren't a pro, the quality is more than sufficient.

I am not a pro filmmaker but a pro still photographer. Using 12-24MP digital cameras let me not enjoy mud (pro or not).

4. Did you read this reply:

"Liza, being a pro compressionist at a major DVD house, I am going to have to disagree with you on some points here. While you have got it right with the GH1 having a better processor than the 7D or some of the like, this DOES NOT result in a higher quality image as far as the compression goes. The 40 mbit codec of the 7D is still vastly superior and this can be scientifically proven with various compression tests. No don't get me wrong, I still choose the GH1 because I like the look better, but no matter HOW good it's processor, it IS being limited by the 17mbit codec. The processor can only be as efficient as the space it has to work within, and 17mbit is NOT ENOUGH SPACE for many a detailed 1080p shot. You act is af upping the bandwidth to 24mbit would not help the image quality, and this is flat out false, unless panasonic has some new secret way of implementing avchd encoding that is truly foolish."

And I think what he says makes a lot of sense.
 
ustein said:
1. I have both the GH1 and 5D2

2. Have no emotional bias at all. Love the GH1 handling.

3. > If you aren't a pro, the quality is more than sufficient.

I am not a pro filmmaker but a pro still photographer. Using 12-24MP digital cameras let me not enjoy mud (pro or not).

4. Did you read this reply:

"Liza, being a pro compressionist at a major DVD house, I am going to have to disagree with you on some points here. While you have got it right with the GH1 having a better processor than the 7D or some of the like, this DOES NOT result in a higher quality image as far as the compression goes. The 40 mbit codec of the 7D is still vastly superior and this can be scientifically proven with various compression tests. No don't get me wrong, I still choose the GH1 because I like the look better, but no matter HOW good it's processor, it IS being limited by the 17mbit codec. The processor can only be as efficient as the space it has to work within, and 17mbit is NOT ENOUGH SPACE for many a detailed 1080p shot. You act is af upping the bandwidth to 24mbit would not help the image quality, and this is flat out false, unless panasonic has some new secret way of implementing avchd encoding that is truly foolish."

And I think what he says makes a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

I didn't read that response. Could be correct, I don't know. I would assume being a compressionist at a DVD house is quite different to being a GH1 technician. This is over most of our heads. If a 24 megabit upgrade was possible, it would be wonderful... but I'm certainly not expecting anything. My camera has done great on a few jobs.

Regarding needing a digital camera without mud for your pro still photography... you have the 5D2... why would you even use the GH1 for professional still photography?

Also, please realize my previous post was not directed AT you in any way, but was a rant that trajected off your post.
 
Last edited:
The 7D and GH1 are both such good cameras really, sure there are pros and cons to each but either one is really nice for filmmaking in this price range.

I chose the GH1 because it can take any lens out there which meant the ability to buy good fast primes in every focal length I need.

If I had the money to buy these fast lenses in EOS mount, I'd probably go that route because the lenses are so nice and it's a good solid platform for the future...if I already had a bunch of good EOS lenses, I'd have probably gone for the 5D or 7D, but as I said, the kind of money it would take to get an equivalent set of what I've been able to put together across Contax Zeiss, Nikon, and Canon FD primes would cost...I dunno, 3-4 times what I spent, I think that was my biggest consideration, although the LCD implementation on the GH1 beats out the 5D and 7D any day of the week and is extraordinarily helpful.

Just look at some of the test videos that intercut GH1, 5D, and 7D footage...in most cases its nearly indistinguishable, and one over the other is not going to "make or break" any of us using $1500-3000 cameras for film projects - we're lucky to have anything near this quality in this price range and worrying so much about marginal differences in codecs (using marginal here with its economic definition, not saying the differences aren't relevent) is an exercise that I think ultimately will not make too much of a difference. All are very capable, all are good enough, and all are close in performance, if you can make a great film with the GH1, you can make it with the 7D or the 5D, and vice versa - I think what your intentions are for your lens outfit should be the most important factor when choosing between these cameras.

I am only speaking about using these for filmmaking (because we're on a video forum, not a still photography forum).

This focus on "mud" is just so intense, and I've got news for you - make a great movie, and even if you do have one or two shots that have faults due to the codec, if you're biggest weakness in the film is a few blips in with the codec, you are in great shape, will have a great film, and the audience will forgive you, and probably not notice.

All in all, if folks started half as many threads about how to do lighting, audio, shot design, script writing, etc., as they do over gh1 vs 7d, and "mud" issues, we'd be seeing a lot more good projects.
 
Last edited:
Agreed with all of the above. Either camera can do wonders. Get one of them, and start making stories that blow people away. The techy in me will always get hooked in a tech debate but the actor / director in me is happy to have this amazing level of quality for so cheap. You are getting better than hvx200a hpx170 quality for under $1300! It's astounding!

If you do any pro work you can pay for this camera in one gig.. then who cares, buy the next one when it comes out. I just did a shoot for a fashion designer for $800. One day, made back more than half the price of the camera and being that I had come over from mostly dvx100 stuff, everyone was absolutely blow away out of their seats with the gh1 1080p quality. I was careful with the shoot, shot on a tripod and did slow moves, and everything came out sharp and incredible delivered on a blu ray.
 
themartist said:
Please tell me how you're an expert in compression technology?
Click to expand...

Martist, I have worked in encoding at various companies as my 'day job' for over 10 years. Worked on every codec there is from the early days of mpeg1 on cds to hd-dvd winmedia hd, VTASC on the video toaster flyer,mpeg2-4, hddvd, and now the various mpeg2 & avchd blu-ray specs.

I know what I am talking about believe me and the chic who wrote that article is dead wrong. Love the GH1 all you want - I love it to, but don't try to fool yourself into wording that the codec is actually better than the 7D in terms of visual quality. That's just silly. It's not. 40mbits is A LOT more space to put detail data. The 7D does not turn into the weird mud streaks when it gets moved in 1080 24p in a high detail scene because it has space to put the data. The GH1 doesn't have the space so it HAS to turn some detail into a more simplified streak of color, it has no choice in the matter the codec can not do any better. I still prefer the gh1 look but you better KNOW I am wishing for a codec upgrade.
 
Last edited:
Here's the deal on the GH1 vs. 7D codec: they're pretty much exactly the same in all ways, but the GH1 tops out at 17mbps, the 7D tops out at 50mbps. More bandwidth = more resilient imaging and more resistance to "mud" (which is a hugely overblown issue in most cases anyway). So yes, the 7D does win the "codec" challenge -- although the GH1 does things the 7D doesn't, such as record in lower-bandwidth modes for longer record times, record continuously more than 12 minutes, gets far more recording per card or per gigabyte (1/3 the space = 3x as much footage in the same space), etc. So even though the 7D's codec is more robust, it's still not an absolute case of one being "better" than the other, it's all down to "better for a specific purpose".
 
Barry_Green said:
Here's the deal on the GH1 vs. 7D codec: they're pretty much exactly the same in all ways, but the GH1 tops out at 17mbps, the 7D tops out at 50mbps. More bandwidth = more resilient imaging and more resistance to "mud" (which is a hugely overblown issue in most cases anyway). So yes, the 7D does win the "codec" challenge -- although the GH1 does things the 7D doesn't, such as record in lower-bandwidth modes for longer record times, record continuously more than 12 minutes, gets far more recording per card or per gigabyte (1/3 the space = 3x as much footage in the same space), etc. So even though the 7D's codec is more robust, it's still not an absolute case of one being "better" than the other, it's all down to "better for a specific purpose".
Click to expand...

+1! It's really nice to get 2hrs of 1080 footage on a 16gb card with the GH1.
 
Maybe I'm kookoo but isn't what Barry just said pretty much exactly what I said?
In any case codec issues and all, like I said, I bought the GH1. Even with the codec issue I can work around them and all the other features are good. If they up the codec via firmware if that's even possible that would be fantastico, if not here's hoping the next generation of camera does and then you can bring your lenses with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top