GH2 Should I be surprised that an HPX 250 looks better than the GH2?

A

AdventMediaProductions

Active member
So I was finally able to take out my new GH2 and my HPX 250 on a shoot yesterday and after reviewing the footage, I really liked what the 250 was giving me. To me, the 250 seemed to handle both low light and intense lighting situations better, was able to produce pictures with a little bit more detail, and heck it was a lot easier to focus with and to choose my DOF with in my opinion.

Having said that, the GH2 was at a slight disadvantage because I was using it all stock including the stock 14-42MM lens. Even though it wasn't necessarily as good as the HPX-250 in my opinion, it still produced great images, I just liked the 250 better.

So here are my questions:

Should I be surprised by this? Since I've been reading forums all I have been hearing about is DSLR filmmaking and how it is supposedly a lot better (at least in terms of picture quality) than the traditional video camera, and in my experience the video camera did a lot better this time around.

Would getting higher quality glass help even the playing field between the two cameras?

What do you guys think?
 
Both can produce nice video and I plan to add a GH2 to work with my HPX170 for wide shots and ultra closeups . However, if I had neither I would get the HPX250 and be happy just with it since it produces such a great image. The 250 is like a 170 on steroids.
 
Last edited:
Well the hpx costs 5x as much!! So that's part of the reason. The gh2 is a consumer camera that is hacked to be pro-sumer. Just Keep that in mind. But the better glass you get, the better your image will be. Another reason to have the gh2 is because of the shallow depth of field it can get along with great looking portraits.
 
No, you shouldn't be surprised at all. DSLR shooting is a lot better than anything else you can get for $600. People like the ability to have shallow depth of field, sometimes something you might be looking for. It's better for mobility and efficiency. It's better than what people who have no experience with professional cameras have used in the past. But if that discussion convinced you that it's better than anything you aren't going to the right forums or paying attention to television and film productions.
 
Cassius said:
No, you shouldn't be surprised at all. DSLR shooting is a lot better than anything else you can get for $600. People like the ability to have shallow depth of field, sometimes something you might be looking for. It's better for mobility and efficiency. It's better than what people who have no experience with professional cameras have used in the past. But if that discussion convinced you that it's better than anything you aren't going to the right forums or paying attention to television and film productions.
Click to expand...

For consumers who have never used professional quality equipment I can certainly see why they are so popular, and I do agree with the advantages created in DOF, mobility, etc. Having said that all I have been hearing about are productions using DSLRs, both professional and independent productions. Of course, as a film student all that people ever really talk about are DSLRs or basically the RED cameras. Traditional video cameras like the HPX-250, HVX200, etc. are almost never mentioned even though they are great cameras, and in my opinion and are a lot easier to work with than either DSLR's or the Red cameras.

I just thought that it was interesting after reading all of the hype about DSLRs that I found them to be fairly underwhelming given the hype (though they are awesome given their price and everything else considered).
 
Bottom line. it all boils down to who's hand the tool falls in. in good hands the playing field can be leveled with doth these cams. I personally shoot narrative type projects, so the 250 or anything else that lacks control over depth of field would not even be an option for me, and i don't care how good the uality is.
 
all else being equal (which it isn't), ~24mbps AVCHD vs. ~100mbps AVC-Intra... no, you shouldn't be surprised at all.
 
Their both tools, Both have strengthes the other doesn't. I like a traditional camera over a dslr anyday, thats just me. If I have the space, I can get a shallow dof from a camcorder, but as I said, I need wayyyyy more room than I would if I were shooting a gh2 with a 24mm 2.8 wide open. But If I were shooting low light, it's a no brainer. dslr every time. (unless a large sensor camcorder). You will hear a lot that a camera is a tool, there's no such thing as one cam fits all, unless compromise is made. The price point alone is enough to justify the image difference. Especially coming from one company.
 
Well the 250 is a 'real' camcorder, for video professionals. GH2 is a stills camera with a video mode. I think one of the reasons some people opt for the GH2 in some situations rather than a pro level video camera, is that it produces a unique cinematic / filmic image which is not present in high end camcorders, and quite frankly it doesn't need to be. Another reason is that due to the hack, it's capable of capturing detail on a level that until recently, you had to spend 10k to get. Compare GH2 Sedna A (the patch / hack) footage blown up beside the 250, and it will be an unsettling wake-up call. This is all great, but like everyone knows, you have to jump through hoops to get what you want, and is in no way a substitute for the convenience of a dedicated camcorder like the 250.

I don't think anybody should be surprised that it does a WHOLE lot of things WAY better than the GH2 could ever hope to do.
 
Worst lens panasonic makes and the stock bitrate is simply not the same camera as the GH2 with Driftwood hack and legacy glass. Borrow my PL mount for the GH2, attach a 50mm superspeed, hack the thing right, set up for an interview and run both cameras. Then decide. We've chosen the GH2 frequently compared to the EX1 or HVX running next to it (even though audio is running into those bigger, 'better' cameres.
 
dcloud said:
yes it would look really good with 1920x1080 x 3 chips(RGB) vs bayer
Click to expand...

+1

This and the 4:2:2 AVC-Intra 100 are why it looks so much better.

While it's true that a GH2 in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing can look better than an HPX250 in the hands of someone who doesn't, it is also true that an HPX250 in the hands of someone who knows what their doing will look a lot better than a GH2 in those same hands.
 
Don't mean to split hairs, but I don't think this is true.

"it is also true that an HPX250 in the hands of someone who knows what their doing will look a lot better than a GH2 in those same hands."

Depends on what it being shot, what is needed.
 
I'm not even a fan of non-hacked GH2 in comparison to Canon Footage, so this doesn't surprise me. Especially with that stock lens.

Like Cos said, drop a hack and different glass, then we'll see what happens. xD
 
+ 100 on working with the kit lens! There's absolutely NOTHING good I can say about a gh2 with the stock lens. even the most enthusiastic dslr shooter will tell you to put that things on ebay right away, and get some good glass before you pass judgment.

I've worked with full size camcorders for years, and would only go back if a client specifically requested a larger cam. Otherwise dslr video (and the GH2 especially) have too much going for them.
 
How are soft canon lenses better,the14-42 is always used as an excuse i have 8 lenses and tried many more and the 14-42 can resolve as much video as any,how could it take photos otherwise,the GH2 may not match the big cam but dont blame the lens.
 
I don't know what the OP was shooting, but I don't see it always being an either/or contest. I thought these 2 cameras could make a very powerful combo, with each stepping up where the other showed it's weakness.
As much as I love the form factor of the GH1/2, there are certain situations like shooting sport events, where a camera designed for the task, is going to be the better tool. If you then need to shoot some b roll with a certain look, then the smaller camera can then step up to shine.
 
It doesn't surprise me that the HPX250 was giving you better lowlight performance than the stock lens at all. It really does stink inside, IMO. Outside, it fares better but it's still noticably worse than the Panny 20mm 1.7. Haven't used the other popular lenses, but from what I've seen, many of them are better still.

One thing I will say...after shooting many many hours of footage for work on the HPX300... is that AVC-Intra 100 still absolutely smokes even the best GH2 hack as far as codec is concerned. Color correcting is way better. The gentle transition between gradient type backgrounds is also much much better. Basically the opposite of the crappy banding that rears it's ugly head with the GH2.

So yeah, the HPX300/370/250 line of Panasonic cams definitely have their strengths.
 
As sensitive as DSLR's are a F3.5 lens will kill any advantage the sensors had compared to a video camera shooting at F1.8. Heck even my 1/4" HMC40 can look better in low light compared to a F3.5 lens. DSLR's will always have image artifacts compared to video cameras such as aliasing.

At the end of the day a video camera will almost always give a better video image just due to the way it works. It may not have the creative options or a certain look to it but in terms of how the pixels relate to each other it will almost always be better. Even my simple HMC40 can smoke a GH2 outdoors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top