Reviewed: Canon 7D vs. Panasonic GH1

Wow, this was an excellent read and basically sums up everything that I think about both cams. Thanks Barry. Spot on.

The way these cams are “right now”, if I had the money, I would own both for their strengths. But, as your article suggest, I chose one for my particular need.
 
Barry-

Once again, thank u for doing the heavy lifting. As I have mentioned before, we are all better off because of your efforts to provide this forum with top notch analysis.

So much of my business is talking head interviews. On top of that, I'm still delivering sd dvds to my clients.

Because of my particular needs, I'm leaning towards the GH1 because of 720p being "good enough" for my down convert to 16x9 sd dvds. So I'll learn to run double system audio but at $800 for a GH1 body and several dollars more for 35mm lens, I'm sure I can create a sweet looking interview image.

Thoughts?

YMMV

Be well

Rob
 
That setup can deliver gorgeous results, so long as you watch out for things that cause aliasing artifacts (certain patterns or fabrics, or thin-rimmed glasses). And you might want to invest in an inexpensive prime lens, a 50mm/1.4 should be easily available for under $50 and would make for a nice portrait look. The stock lens is plenty sharp, but at f/4 it doesn't really provide for that hyper-shallow depth of field look that makes certain interview shots so attractive.
 
Barry_Green said:
That setup can deliver gorgeous results, so long as you watch out for things that cause aliasing artifacts (certain patterns or fabrics, or thin-rimmed glasses). And you might want to invest in an inexpensive prime lens, a 50mm/1.4 should be easily available for under $50 and would make for a nice portrait look. The stock lens is plenty sharp, but at f/4 it doesn't really provide for that hyper-shallow depth of field look that makes certain interview shots so attractive.
Click to expand...

barry-

thanks for the quick feedback.

your suggestions are exactly in line with my thinking-720p will give me 16x9 qnd plenty of pixels to down convert for the standard def dvds. a 50mm/1.4 or 1.7 decent glass prime along with a 28mm/2.8 and even a 85mm/2.8 would give me plenty of options.

would you know what the multiplier factor is with the gh1?

and then there is the whole double system audio and i'm good to go.

lastly, how will final cut pro play with pannie's 720p codec from the gh1? i thought i remembered reading that it's a flavor of jpeg or something. care to explain further?

as mentioned, thanks. if you are ever in nyc, i owe u a cup of decent coffee!

be well

rob
 
Thanks for another very informative article, Barry.

Just curious why you chose Zeiss lenses over Nikon or Canon.
 
Sumfun said:
Thanks for another very informative article, Barry.

Just curious why you chose Zeiss lenses over Nikon or Canon.
Click to expand...
Because the construction quality and the optical quality are the most like true cinema lenses, at the most affordable price. The ZF lenses are the exact same glass that's used in the Zeiss Compact Primes PL-mount lens set. I actually considered getting a set of CP's, because I'm tired of dealing with the goofiness of still-camera lenses that were never designed for cinema work. But the $27,000 price tag for a set of four was quite off-putting, and the PL mount would make them unable to be used on something like a Canon or Nikon body.

The ZFs, on the other hand, are 1/4 the price and have the identical same optical characteristics as the Compact Primes. The focus rings are exquisite, designed more for cinema use than the typical short-throw SLR focus ring. My 85mm lens has a 270-degree focus travel, it's just perfect. The Nikon mount makes them adaptable to pretty much any camera out there, whether Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, or Red. And after the Duclos modification, the iris ring becomes comparable to a cinema lens iris ring as well, and with standard gearing and standardized fronts, they pretty much overcome all the hassles of still lenses and deliver the visual quality of cinema primes. The only major annoyance left is that they focus backwards, because Nikon lenses focus backwards, but a follow focus with reverse gear will fix that.
 
Barry_Green said:
Because the construction quality and the optical quality are the most like true cinema lenses, at the most affordable price. The ZF lenses are the exact same glass that's used in the Zeiss Compact Primes PL-mount lens set. I actually considered getting a set of CP's, because I'm tired of dealing with the goofiness of still-camera lenses that were never designed for cinema work. But the $27,000 price tag for a set of four was quite off-putting, and the PL mount would make them unable to be used on something like a Canon or Nikon body.

The ZFs, on the other hand, are 1/4 the price and have the identical same optical characteristics as the Compact Primes. The focus rings are exquisite, designed more for cinema use than the typical short-throw SLR focus ring. My 85mm lens has a 270-degree focus travel, it's just perfect. The Nikon mount makes them adaptable to pretty much any camera out there, whether Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, or Red. And after the Duclos modification, the iris ring becomes comparable to a cinema lens iris ring as well, and with standard gearing and standardized fronts, they pretty much overcome all the hassles of still lenses and deliver the visual quality of cinema primes. The only major annoyance left is that they focus backwards, because Nikon lenses focus backwards, but a follow focus with reverse gear will fix that.
Click to expand...

Barry-

After a quick Google search, I read the following:

"Some years ago Zeiss licensed Kyrocera of Japan to use the name Zeiss on some lenses made for the Contax brand of cameras. Life was good.

Contax went out of business in 2005, ending the need for these lenses. As soon as the agreement expired in 2006, Zeiss looked for something to do with the Japanese manufacturing capacity.

Zeiss decided to put these former Contax mount lenses in Nikon mounts instead, and that's how we get these ZF lenses. These are new lenses made in Nikon mount.

This lens is not made in Germany and it is not made in a Zeiss factory. It is made in Japan by Cosina, the same company that made the cheap FM-10 for Nikon and many other inexpensive lenses and cameras for third-party makers for many decades."

http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/zf50.htm

Thoughts?

Be well

Rob
 
You can probably find a hundred reviews about the ZF lenses on the web. One of them (Ken Rockwell's) is negative. Every other review I found is gushing.

Rockwell's review is hostile from the opening sentence. Using phrases such as "the cheap FM-10" and "manual focus went obsolete 20 years ago" are just hostile and fuddy. Reading it, it sounded like he had a chip on his shoulder from the beginning. Now, I don't know or care what he prefers, but what I wanted was excellent performance, beautiful imagery, and the slickest, sweetest manual focus I could get, and the ZF has it. Oh, and it also happens to have gorgeous build quality overall, and stellar performance, and really has nothing in common with a "cheap FM-10".

I was initially bothered by Ken Rockwell's review, and frankly it made me hold off on buying any of these lenses for quite a while. But after something like a dozen other, screamingly praising reviews everywhere else, I took the gamble. I got the 50mm because it was the cheapest, and ... it's the cheapest. It's my least favorite. If anyone was going to complain about any of the ZFs, it would be this one. But even so, if you stop it down a couple of stops, it begins to become wonderful. So I no longer put any stock in that review. Besides, what he wanted is not what I want -- he wanted a lens he could "focus with one finger" and that had autofocus. I wanted a lens that delivered cinema-worthy results, for a lot less than the Compact Primes.

Secondly, the ZFs are not the same lenses as the Contax ones were. The optical design is different, and reviews have shown the ZFs to outperform the older Contax designs.

Third, pick one up and hold it -- you'll be able to tell the difference between a ZF and any other SLR lens. It does exactly what I want -- gorgeous image rendering, beautiful solid delicious construction quality, and heavenly manual focus with massively long focus throw.

Fourth, lenses are a matter of preference, some like and prefer the warm/soft Cooke look, others prefer the Leica look, I happen to crave the Zeiss look of super-sharp and ultra-contrasty.

Fifth, I repeat -- Zeiss now sells the same glass to the cinema world as the Compact Primes, where each lens is rehoused in a PL housing with proper cinema focus and throw, witness marks for the focus and iris, and standardized fronts. Those lenses cost upwards of $4,000 each, and a complete set of seven costs over $27,000. The glass is the exact same in the ZFs. For $250 apiece you can get these lenses modified to perform much more like cinema lenses, so for 1/3 the price you're getting cinema-ized versions that perform like a professional cinema lens set...

In any case, any of these SLR lenses are massive overkill for SLR video use. If you want to buy a lens for shooting HDSLR video, a cheap 50mm will be just as sharp as a ZF or other premium stills lens.
 
Last edited:
Thank you so much for your article Barry. It was a very neutral, balanced, informative perspective. We should REQUIRE that everyone in the DVXUser community read this.....so we cut out all of the "background noise".

Thanks again for all you do for our community!
 
Barry_Green said:
You can probably find a hundred reviews about the ZF lenses on the web. One of them (Ken Rockwell's) is negative. Every other review I found is gushing.

Rockwell's review is hostile from the opening sentence. Using phrases such as "the cheap FM-10" and "manual focus went obsolete 20 years ago" are just hostile and fuddy. Reading it, it sounded like he had a chip on his shoulder from the beginning. Now, I don't know or care what he prefers, but what I wanted was excellent performance, beautiful imagery, and the slickest, sweetest manual focus I could get, and the ZF has it. Oh, and it also happens to have gorgeous build quality overall, and stellar performance, and really has nothing in common with a "cheap FM-10".

I was initially bothered by Ken Rockwell's review, and frankly it made me hold off on buying any of these lenses for quite a while. But after something like a dozen other, screamingly praising reviews everywhere else, I took the gamble. I got the 50mm because it was the cheapest, and ... it's the cheapest. It's my least favorite. If anyone was going to complain about any of the ZFs, it would be this one. But even so, if you stop it down a couple of stops, it begins to become wonderful. So I no longer put any stock in that review. Besides, what he wanted is not what I want -- he wanted a lens he could "focus with one finger" and that had autofocus. I wanted a lens that delivered cinema-worthy results, for a lot less than the Compact Primes.

Secondly, the ZFs are not the same lenses as the Contax ones were. The optical design is different, and reviews have shown the ZFs to outperform the older Contax designs.

Third, pick one up and hold it -- you'll be able to tell the difference between a ZF and any other SLR lens. It does exactly what I want -- gorgeous image rendering, beautiful solid delicious construction quality, and heavenly manual focus with massively long focus throw.

Fourth, lenses are a matter of preference, some like and prefer the warm/soft Cooke look, others prefer the Leica look, I happen to crave the Zeiss look of super-sharp and ultra-contrasty.

Fifth, I repeat -- Zeiss now sells the same glass to the cinema world as the Compact Primes, where each lens is rehoused in a PL housing with proper cinema focus and throw, witness marks for the focus and iris, and standardized fronts. Those lenses cost upwards of $4,000 each, and a complete set of seven costs over $27,000. The glass is the exact same in the ZFs. For $250 apiece you can get these lenses modified to perform much more like cinema lenses, so for 1/3 the price you're getting cinema-ized versions that perform like a professional cinema lens set...

In any case, any of these SLR lenses are massive overkill for SLR video use. If you want to buy a lens for shooting HDSLR video, a cheap 50mm will be just as sharp as a ZF or other premium stills lens.
Click to expand...

Barry-

I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts. I imagined/hoped that you were familiar with the Rockwell review of the ZF lenses.

I believe you have addressed the issues that any dvxuser would consider when they were looking for glass to be used with the GH1.

Be well

Rob
 
Great to hear your thoughts on this. Now if I can just find that body only GH1 . . .

Justin
 
You pretty much came to the same conclusion I did. I can't see one better than the other and I'm also keeping them both until something better comes along.

Future cameras from both Canon and Panasonic will be very interesting indeed.
 
Great article, Barry, as usual. I've been strugglin' with myself for some tryin' to decide between the GH1 and the 7D and, finally, it was the 7D. I know I'll miss some of the GH1 features (especially, the smaller form factor and the articulated screen) but I already have some nice L glass and I would like to use my SmallHD for monitoring, so, these have been decisive factors in favor of the Canon.

One thing -- In your article you say that "still-camera lenses aren't parfocals, they don't hold focus at all" and insist in this affirmation later when you says: "Already I've mentioned that you don't have parfocal lenses, meaning you can't zoom in, focus, and zoom back out". Well, this is not the case. Or, it's not correct in all cases. Most of still zoom lenses are not parfocal -a lot of cheap or variable aperture ones-, but some of the best ones are. I can´t talk about other brands, but these Canon lenses are parfocal:


  • EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
  • EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
  • EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
  • EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
  • EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
  • EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
  • EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
  • EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
  • EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
  • EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
  • EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6
You have this information provided by Chuck Westfall from Canon USA here: http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/30_parfocal.stm

I know for sure that my Leica-R 28-90 2.8-4.5 ASPH and 80-200 4 are parfocal too.
 
Thanks Barry for the informative and non-biased information. Would really love to have both but am confident on going with the 7D as my main cam.
 
As a professional video camera to replace an HPX170 or EX1, which one would I use? Neither. No possible way. They aren't ready for that. Way too limiting, and the potential image artifacting that happens because of the extreme aliasing they both use, means that for me, as my own choice, I would not risk my reputation or my paycheck by using one of these instead of a professional video camera.
Click to expand...

Well, my decision is made. Thanks again Barry.

Peter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top