T3i or GH2?

Azmyth

Azmyth

Veteran
I've sold my T2i in search of a swivel screen DSLR with some additional features if possible.

I shoot mostly horror, features/shorts. I don't do anything else really.

Here's the features I need.

- good in low light
- swivel LCD
- high quality lens options

Here's the features that would be great to have.

- 1080p external monitoring while recording (i have bad eyes)

Whats different about the T3i vs. the T2i.. other than the screen?

I'm going to be making a purchase in the next couple days/week.. so anything you can offer can be helpful.

I was dead set on a GH2 but I've been working with some T3i footage this week, and I still like the way the footage looks. I just want to get the best camera for my needs.
I also have a friend with a T3i for multicam shoots. Should I take that into account?
 
I thought you were already sold on the GH2 from the last thread. ;)

Its generally bad forum etiquette to start new threads on the same subject.
 
this is true, but if i posted this in the gh2 forums.. how will I be persuaded by the canon users? lol
 
I just now noticed you were a mod, how did I miss that? Sorry for the double post. Sure if you feel i'd get a better response there. I thought I had decided on the gh2, but just want to be sure.
 
Azmyth said:
I just now noticed you were a mod, how did I miss that? Sorry for the double post. Sure if you feel i'd get a better response there. I thought I had decided on the gh2, but just want to be sure.
Click to expand...

LOL- it happens all the time.
I assume you've already checked out the Canon model comparison sticky in the APS-C section?
 
Yeah I read it earlier today.

Seems I have to decide whether I want the ability to have HD monitoring or not.
And whether I want sharpness over a softer look.

The GH2 seems to have a more detailed image thats for sure. Whether thats what someone doing feature films would like or not is the question.

Unfortunately, so many people are just shooting "tests" that its hard to find anything narrative vs. the canon's where there are tons of stuff. I've seen that one Musgo.. but thats about it.

I don't care how "Real" it looks I need cinematic images.

I've watched some videos where I'm like.. ooooh.. yeah GH2.. goodness.. and others where its the other way around.

So hard to choose. The monitoring might be the deal breaker though. I would use that feature a ton.
 
I also thought you were dead set on the GH2....

Anyways, the main differences between the T3i and T2i is the swivel screen, 3x digital zoom, and AGC disabler. So if you don't plan on installing MagicLantern on the T2i then it would be my least recommended. Also the canon offers the best native lenses.

The Gh2 offers full HDMI, viewfinder, more or less manual audio w/meters, a wider range of older lenses available, and no recording limits.

What it comes down to is image and no one except you can answer which image YOU prefer.

I personally just bought a GH2 after briefly working with a T2i.
 
Azmyth said:
Yeah I read it earlier today.

Seems I have to decide whether I want the ability to have HD monitoring or not.
And whether I want sharpness over a softer look.

The GH2 seems to have a more detailed image thats for sure. Whether thats what someone doing feature films would like or not is the question.

Unfortunately, so many people are just shooting "tests" that its hard to find anything narrative vs. the canon's where there are tons of stuff. I've seen that one Musgo.. but thats about it.

I don't care how "Real" it looks I need cinematic images.

I've watched some videos where I'm like.. ooooh.. yeah GH2.. goodness.. and others where its the other way around.

So hard to choose. The monitoring might be the deal breaker though. I would use that feature a ton.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing- shooting, editing and producing a narrative takes time. The stuff we're seeing finished now was likely started years ago, when many of the current model cameras weren't available yet. It wasn't too long ago that the 5D and 7D were considered the only games in town, and that is why films such as "Like Crazy" were shot on the 7D in my opinion. Check out my little rant in another thread on this already here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?267504-Is-the-gh2-the-new-low-light-high-ISO-DSLR-king&p=2485024&viewfull=1#post2485024

In a nutshell, we're right now seeing finished narrative films shot with Canon a while ago, but the next generation (being shot and edited as we speak) might be using newer models such as the GH2.
I have seen little narrative gems shot on GH series (1 and 2) start to pop up here and there like this one:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?269177-quot-Candy-Apple-Red-quot-Award-winning-short-shot-on-Panasonic-GH...


And I'm sure more are coming. Kholi has even mentioned that at least some scenes in his upcoming feature "Superseeds" was shot with a GH2 (he says one of them made it into the trailer, but I can't tell which one).
http://vimeo.com/25440849

I'm not saying the GH2 is necessarily the right choice for you, but I am saying that it is too soon to tell based on what you've seen released. It took a while for Canon to be accepted as a filmmaking tool, and it is going to be some time before the GH series catches up. Canon has the benefit of being the first to really popularize this style of film making.
 
Zxander34 said:
I also thought you were dead set on the GH2....

Anyways, the main differences between the T3i and T2i is the swivel screen, 3x digital zoom, and AGC disabler. So if you don't plan on installing MagicLantern on the T2i then it would be my least recommended. Also the canon offers the best native lenses.

The Gh2 offers full HDMI, viewfinder, more or less manual audio w/meters, a wider range of older lenses available, and no recording limits.

What it comes down to is image and no one except you can answer which image YOU prefer.

I personally just bought a GH2 after briefly working with a T2i.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was dead set on the GH2, until I kept working with this T3i footage I shot.

I still love the way it looks, its just missing so many of the features the GH2 has without having to do the whole ML thing.

I mean, I'd probably hack the GH2, but thats because I had a previously hacked GH1 that had no issues (caused by the hack)

The main thing that worries me about the GH2 is its sharpness, as you said.. FEATURE wise.. GH2 is a no brainer, and I'd use all of those things. So it comes down to which one produces the image I like the best because I could get by without the HD monitoring if it meant having the most pleasing image possible.

I saw this the other day and this is what sold me on the GH2, even more so than Musgo did, because this looks more like stuff I'd shoot.

http://vimeo.com/25531632

I'm not interested in documentaries or anything of that nature.. just narrative pieces, whether shorts or features.
 
M. Gilden said:
Here's the thing- shooting, editing and producing a narrative takes time. The stuff we're seeing finished now was likely started years ago, when many of the current model cameras weren't available yet. It wasn't too long ago that the 5D and 7D were considered the only games in town, and that is why films such as "Like Crazy" were shot on the 7D in my opinion. Check out my little rant in another thread on this already here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?267504-Is-the-gh2-the-new-low-light-high-ISO-DSLR-king&p=2485024&viewfull=1#post2485024

In a nutshell, we're right now seeing finished narrative films shot with Canon a while ago, but the next generation (being shot and edited as we speak) might be using newer models such as the GH2.
I have seen little narrative gems shot on GH series (1 and 2) start to pop up here and there like this one:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?269177-quot-Candy-Apple-Red-quot-Award-winning-short-shot-on-Panasonic-GH...


And I'm sure more are coming. Kholi has even mentioned that at least some scenes in his upcoming feature "Superseeds" was shot with a GH2 (he says one of them made it into the trailer, but I can't tell which one).
http://vimeo.com/25440849

I'm not saying the GH2 is necessarily the right choice for you, but I am saying that it is too soon to tell based on what you've seen released. It took a while for Canon to be accepted as a filmmaking tool, and it is going to be some time before the GH series catches up. Canon has the benefit of being the first to really popularize this style of film making.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to choose based on what I would want on set in a camera, and what I'd use to make it "easier" and more "Efficient" for my purposes.

For all intents and purposes the image of each camera is amazing and either one can produce perfectly capable images. So, that being out of the way, it comes back down to features and things I might use or not..

So.. when looking at the GH2 and things I'd use...

1. the HDMI monitoring.. BIG YES.. I get so annoyed trying to squint to see focus on a tiny lcd. Alot of people swear by loupe's, they hurt my already bad eyes.
2. The function that lets you record while zoomed in (i forget what its called)
3. PL mounted lenses (when I first saw the GH1, I drooled at the thought of being able to mount huge cinema lenses on it and get that same sort of image. I know you have to buy the PL mount and rent the lenses, but I'd rather do that than rent a RED personally.
4. Its smaller, which means more creative shots can be gotten.
5. (I like not following the crowd)
6. The ability to use all these old M42/FD lenses I have lying around.

When you look at it that way, the canon offerings seem to pale in comparison. Where image quality is really the only thing going for it.
 
very subjective. But the point I was making is that, with cameras that are both capable of amazing images although be it with slightly different aesthetic.. it then boils down to what features you need and which one has them.
 
Here's a GH1 short that's about a year old - a personal favourite of mine (GH1/PL) & is high in the film aesthetic and execution http://vimeo.com/15059034

I think any of the last/current breed of digital cameras can make great images. Back in my day (I'm an old timer from PAL land - LOL), I'd have killed for large sensor cameras...

It sounds like you love the feature set of the GH2 but love the way your Canon footage looks... why not spend a bit of time seeing if you can emulate a post style look that gives the more Canon style image on some GH2 footage?
 
ive used them all. if i could only own one (i currently own NONE) DSLR. it would be the GH2
 
I don't own GH2.. but from my experience with T2i now T3i + magic lantern, it feels like using regular camcorder now except the manual zoom.
 
A couple of conclusions I've come to in the debate between cams.

1. The simplest image conveys the story most easily. The universally sharp GH2 image rarely conveys a simple thought. The minds eye wanders to details off the subject too easily. This is much easier to achieve with the Canon soft image. The Loved On Water trailer listed above is a classic example. Resolution of the trailer has been halved and much of it is underwater or in the fog with no detail. Result is that your are drawn into the story always wanting to see more.

2. Dark ominous images are the forte of the GH2. Canon's do much better with bright vibrant color. Bright sky is nearly impossible to film with a GH2.

3. Overcranking Canon 720-60p is useless. Overcranking the GH2 is orders of magnitude better especially with the hacks. If you want to do any slow motion effects, just leave the Canon's in the bag.

Cheers,Pete
 
I don't understand this "oh the gh2 is to sharp, does not look as cinematic as the canon!!!" People film which is the base of the cinematic thing is rated at about 4k (look at zacuto for example). With generation lost for cine reproduction, some say it is more like 2k/3k in cinema's. So what is this theory that low rez canon has anything to do with film. It can be related to dynamic range (even if it is stilll lower but a big improvement compared to the basic videocam), 24p cadence and lower Dof. But resolution is not one of the reason. I think that people have been use so much to watch thing on Internet, that they have forgot what watching a movie in the cinema is like. It is the same thing as music, with the advent of mp3 and internet (bandwidth at the start of internet) hifi has become the low resolution compress mp3 format, who would have said that we would have a lower medium as the successor to the CD. I remember when the zacuto shootout was being projected as people reporting how people were laughing when dslr were projected after the more professional camera's. When you see people battling about whether to 4k or not on the pro level, people are discussing here about having a true 1080p camera with 100+ bitrate compared to moire/aliasing 720p (I mean we have the choice now for true hd large sensor high bitrate camera at $ 600).

There always a rule, an image can be easily degraded if need be for a certain look but very very difficult to upgrade. In this case you can add a little blur for example. Imaging if you find yourself with a buyer or producer that likes high resolution image, or just came out with a conversation/demonstration from a camera operator selling his latest scarlet/f3/alexa camera, how would look in front of that. (As a pro photographer I know how resolution/megapixel talk to the imaginery of client, you really need to have made of yourself for the client to go beyond that) . It is true that the story acting etc are the most important, but 99.9 % of film choose to support it with high quality imagery. If not every Movie would just use some DV camera to tell there story. You have exception but they are more exception that prove the rule than the contrary that some tend to imply.

Now I am talking at the same level technology/price point, give me a Sony F3/ Alexa and I won't use the gh2 for my project. But this camera is the closest to these big boys. Remember it is much much easier to degrade an image than the contrary. You can easily match the gh2 to the canon (provided range of lens in the same ballpark) but try to match the Canon to the gh2. The first impression from a gh2 and canon 7d owner... the Canon is out of focus!!!!! Then trying and trying, then you realise that it is not the focus but the gh2 is so much sharper that your perception of clear/sharpness has changed in seconds.

A disclamer: never judge the gh2 from its kit lens, in a way they are so perfect (sharp,contrasty and cold) that they give a very harsh and video look. Put some Fd for example and the world change before your eyes, still tons of detail but it is organic. It does have its problem like 8 bit banding problems, but it remains very very good.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top