T3i vs GH1
- Thread starter roxics
- Start date
ROCKMORE
Veteran
It looks good today, but tomorrow Canon will improve the resolution as well. It's a loosing proposition to switch back and forth between camera brands, because it's not just the camera body. It's the lenses and electronics, batteries, memory cards, files and workflow that has to change too. One good lens alone is the value of 2 camera bodies.
It doesn't really matter which camera is better in today's challenge, as long as it's making money I can live with it.
Jester2138
Well-known member
Then the next day Panasonic will improve theirs!
DSLR's are on the way out in the big picture. Look at cameras like the Pentax 645D and you've seen the future of high-end professional photography (just wait for the prices to come down). Nikon and Canon don't get it. The M4/3 system is the future of prosumer photography simply because it makes more practical sense to not have a mirror and optical viewfinder (seriously, wouldn't you rather be able to see through the sensor than the lens?). The ONLY impediment to M4/3 is the technology - and as we all know technology is improving every hour.
My point is simply that DSLR's are fast becoming obsolete and if you want to marry yourself to that system, fine, but I'm going to M4/3. It's better for video than DSLR's now and the gap will only widen as technology improves.
ROCKMORE
Veteran
Then the next day Panasonic will improve theirs!
(seriously, wouldn't you rather be able to see through the sensor than the lens?).
My point is simply that DSLR's are fast becoming obsolete and if you want to marry yourself to that system, fine, but I'm going to M4/3. It's better for video than DSLR's now and the gap will only widen as technology improves.
As a photographer I would rather see through the lens. I have the system hooked up to my laptop to see the digital image a few seconds after shooting on a larger monitor. For video of course you have to use a monitor.
As for the format, after many years of shooting 35mm film I prefer the Aps-c film plane over the smaller 4/3 sensor. I'm also planning on a 5Dmk3 that will mount all my Canon lenses. Panasonic cannot match that option.
Too bad Panasonic abandon the 35mm motion picture standard with their mirror-less camera design. It will be easy for Canon to release a mirror-less design for their lenses when (if) it's in the corporation's interest to do so.
I suspect Canon will go that path to compete with the Af100 but they have a history of dragging their heals longer than many manufacturers.
It will be much more difficult to enlarge a sensor in a system of lenses designed for a smaller one. Impossible actually without replacing most of the lens designs.
Sony has now released the new consumer Nex-3 /5 with an Aps-c size sensor, which leads me to believe other manufacturers may adopt it on new releases.
It's unfortunate that Panasonic didn't go that route. If they did i would have a Panasonic. A year ago the only choice was a GH1 un-hacked.
The EX-3 I use has a very small sensor 11mm corner to corner. with much higher resolution than all the DSLRs, but I still prefer the look of 35mm cine lenses. The Panasonic sensor is somewhere in the middle which doesn't work for many of us.
Your right about one thing hands down. One hour from now the rules may all be changed.
Last edited:
Then the next day Panasonic will improve theirs!
DSLR's are on the way out in the big picture. Look at cameras like the Pentax 645D and you've seen the future of high-end professional photography (just wait for the prices to come down). Nikon and Canon don't get it. The M4/3 system is the future of prosumer photography simply because it makes more practical sense to not have a mirror and optical viewfinder (seriously, wouldn't you rather be able to see through the sensor than the lens?). The ONLY impediment to M4/3 is the technology - and as we all know technology is improving every hour.
My point is simply that DSLR's are fast becoming obsolete and if you want to marry yourself to that system, fine, but I'm going to M4/3. It's better for video than DSLR's now and the gap will only widen as technology improves.
Great, enjoy your 4/3's system and let the rest of us get on with it. Last time I checked, no one person had a corner on the truth. The crystal ball is notoriously unpredictable and telling everyone what the future is in order to merely reaffirm your own choices is not very interesting.
Personally, I will take a larger sensor any day of the week over a 4/3 and I am not too worried about DSLR obsolescence despite your dire predictions.
Last edited:
I prefer the larger sensors because they give me greater choices in terms of lenses (from the photo as opposed to the cinema world) and especially in terms of wide angle, speed and cost. I think the 2x multiplication is just too difficult for wide angle use currently, and while I am pleased that many manufacturer's are coming to the table now for the 4/3's market, switching being two systems is prohibitive. For me APS-C size would make more sense as a defacto standard if things do go mirrorless because it allows for the closest FOV to PL mount cinema lenses, as well as remaining relatively functional for the millions of photo lenses out there. I also think that for low light work it does make a difference to have the larger sensor and I often only need to use reflectors today for what required powered light sources 5 years ago.
Jester2138
Well-known member
I own a 7D... But either way, I can't see what's wrong with trying to predict the future, whether or not I end up being right.
With current cameras, that's understandable. But I was talking about the future. So why would it still be better to see through the lens? The picture that comes out in the end isn't what you saw through the lens, it's what the sensor saw. Thus, in order to have greater control and work faster, it would make more sense to be able to see what the sensor sees, otherwise you're always playing a guessing game (no matter how good at that guessing game you may be).
S35mm motion picture film is 24.9mm x 18.6mm. M4/3 is 17.3mm x 13mm. APS-C varies, but on the 7D is 22.3mm x 14.9mm (this is not considering aspect ratios on the two sensor sizes, which put M4/3 and APS-C even closer together than these dimensions would suggest).
Neither APS-C nor M4/3 meets the "35mm motion picture standard" as you said. So when debating the various merits of either system what 35mm motion picture film is should stay out of the conversation, as neither side can claim legitimacy by association with that format.
What should be talked about, on the other hand, is how and at what cost each format works. M4/3 and APS-C have many differences here.
P.S. I noticed just now that this is the Canon forum... Whoops! I posted a lot yesterday and didn't see that. Shoulda known better.
I love my 7d, am involved all the time in these threads. Something I was going to bring in posting a new thread was that after using the 7d for a documentary I am shooting... I am actually not crazy about it. I actually am thinking that a video camera and not a DSLR would be more of an advantage. 7d has a better look but at the cost of efficency and many other reasons.
I am not saying I hate or am abandoning the 7d. I just think that it might be missed by many that while we are going gogo gaga over DSRL's, we might be missing out on all the great video cameras.
As for shooting films, I think the 7d is great for that.
I am not saying I hate or am abandoning the 7d. I just think that it might be missed by many that while we are going gogo gaga over DSRL's, we might be missing out on all the great video cameras.
As for shooting films, I think the 7d is great for that.
ROCKMORE
Veteran
So why would it still be better to see through the lens?
When I light a set I look at it with my eyes, not through a video monitor. When I compose my shot, it's through the lens because I want to see what is there in real life.
The camera translates the live information into a digital image. I don't make my decisions based on the cameras monitor. I base lighting and composition, on what is in front of me and adjust it until the camera translates the image into what I want. I tell the camera what to do, not the other way around.
Last edited:
I recently had my 7D kit stolen and have to start over.
I've watched about 1000 vimeo clips of GH2 videos and I do love the sharpness of the image, but I do feel that Canon has nicer and richer colors. Subjects just pop more in the Canons. The GH1 has a pronounced green shift which really dulls the colors overall IMO. The green shift also makes grading more difficult because when you warm up the greens, it tends to shift all the colors in the image because the green is so strong.
Also, I like how the Shallow DOF of the Canons tend to permeate through the image more. Just a bit, but definitely noticeable.
But yes.... the Moire pattern SUCKS big time. Canon as a company SUCKS and needs to get on the ball and stop milking it. I'm sure even with the Digic 4, Canon could easily solve the moire problem, but they just choose not to.
It's a tough choice. If it was strictly based on IQ, Panny wins. But asethetics and lenses are important also. Even though Panny can take every lens, I feel Canon has much better, faster, IS lenses to choose from. Tokina 11-16, Canon 17-55 f2.8, Canon 100mm Macro and the 70-200 IS 2 are 4 of the best lenses made. But that might change with the Birger adapter.
Not sure what route I'm going. With that said, I do hope Canon release either a video camera or the 5D3 soon. Full frame is beautiful (not over rate at all IMO) and I would probably buy a 5D except they are probably going to release a new one soon.
I guess the worst thing about the GH2 right now is actually finding one, then finding a battery, then finding a decent Nikon adapter (the voightlander or the novoflex). It's so hard to find any of those right now. By the time Panny gets it together, the 5D3 will probably be out. Hehe...
Competition between the companies are good. But Canon needs to start competing again.
I've watched about 1000 vimeo clips of GH2 videos and I do love the sharpness of the image, but I do feel that Canon has nicer and richer colors. Subjects just pop more in the Canons. The GH1 has a pronounced green shift which really dulls the colors overall IMO. The green shift also makes grading more difficult because when you warm up the greens, it tends to shift all the colors in the image because the green is so strong.
Also, I like how the Shallow DOF of the Canons tend to permeate through the image more. Just a bit, but definitely noticeable.
But yes.... the Moire pattern SUCKS big time. Canon as a company SUCKS and needs to get on the ball and stop milking it. I'm sure even with the Digic 4, Canon could easily solve the moire problem, but they just choose not to.
It's a tough choice. If it was strictly based on IQ, Panny wins. But asethetics and lenses are important also. Even though Panny can take every lens, I feel Canon has much better, faster, IS lenses to choose from. Tokina 11-16, Canon 17-55 f2.8, Canon 100mm Macro and the 70-200 IS 2 are 4 of the best lenses made. But that might change with the Birger adapter.
Not sure what route I'm going. With that said, I do hope Canon release either a video camera or the 5D3 soon. Full frame is beautiful (not over rate at all IMO) and I would probably buy a 5D except they are probably going to release a new one soon.
I guess the worst thing about the GH2 right now is actually finding one, then finding a battery, then finding a decent Nikon adapter (the voightlander or the novoflex). It's so hard to find any of those right now. By the time Panny gets it together, the 5D3 will probably be out. Hehe...
Competition between the companies are good. But Canon needs to start competing again.
Last edited:
ROCKMORE
Veteran
S35mm motion picture film is 24.9mm x 18.6mm. M4/3 is 17.3mm x 13mm. APS-C varies, but on the 7D is 22.3mm x 14.9mm (this is not considering aspect ratios on the two sensor sizes, which put M4/3 and APS-C even closer together than these dimensions would suggest).
As far as the sensor size analysis, have a look at this comparison and you can see the Panasonic is clearly the smallest in the group.
If you compare the the image area between the 7D and the Panasonic it's actually much farther apart than the dimensions would suggest.
Phantom, ARRI, Sony, Red, and even Canon's D1 replicate 35mm cine quite close.
Why Panasonic chose to be the odd man out is a mystery to me.
Having the ability to use the Canon lenses on the FF 5D is another good option as the chart shows.
http://blog.abelcine.com/2010/08/18/35mm-digital-sensor-comparison-chart/
Last edited:
The sensor in the 7D is definitely bigger because the DOF is noticeably shallower on the 7D. Not by a huge margin like the 5D, but it's definitely noticeable.
The shallow DOF kind of permeates the scene more on the Canons, kind of like the Moire patterns. Hehe.
But in this case, it's a nice thing, at least to me because I like that aesthetic. but others might not.
The shallow DOF kind of permeates the scene more on the Canons, kind of like the Moire patterns. Hehe.
But in this case, it's a nice thing, at least to me because I like that aesthetic. but others might not.
Trying to predict the future is one thing, telling everyone exactly what the future is going to be is quite another.
Jester2138 said:
By the way, asserting that DSLR's are on the way out, that they are obsolete and everyone should be moving towards a M4/3 on the 7D/550D/T2i subforum is like trying to pick a fight. Looks pretty much like trolling as far as I am concerned.
Last edited:
derbrocks09
Well-known member
Jester2138
Well-known member
OK, first, I'm not trolling. I stated my belief as to what the future held, if it's really that much of a problem to you... I don't know what to say.
Second, I didn't notice that this was the Canon forum when I first posted - if I had I would have expected the more defensive crowd...
Image circle: 5D = 33mm, 7D = 26mm, AF100 = 21mm. Of course the AF100 is smaller, but we have so much variation between other "35mm" digital cameras that it really doesn't matter at this point... Besides, the difference between the AF100 and the 7D is significantly smaller than the difference between the 7D and the 5D. If you want shallow depth of field you can get it with any of these cameras. That's my point. The exact sensor size doesn't really matter.
You can put FD or EF lenses on M 4/3 cameras. Actually, while you can put FD on 4/3, you can't put FD on many Canons. Go figure.
Second, I didn't notice that this was the Canon forum when I first posted - if I had I would have expected the more defensive crowd...
Image circle: 5D = 33mm, 7D = 26mm, AF100 = 21mm. Of course the AF100 is smaller, but we have so much variation between other "35mm" digital cameras that it really doesn't matter at this point... Besides, the difference between the AF100 and the 7D is significantly smaller than the difference between the 7D and the 5D. If you want shallow depth of field you can get it with any of these cameras. That's my point. The exact sensor size doesn't really matter.
You can put FD or EF lenses on M 4/3 cameras. Actually, while you can put FD on 4/3, you can't put FD on many Canons. Go figure.
Last edited:
Jester2138
Well-known member
You have your own two eyes if you want to compose based on what you see. You don't need an optical viewfinder to tell you what you already know.
ROCKMORE
Veteran
Better to see the actual image. I compose my frame through the camera and it's important to see as clearly and in as much detail as possible. If I want I could still use the live view mode and work with the rear view screen. The viewfinder is a crude representation and is only good for framing and basic exposure. The only way to examine the final digital image is to blow it up on a monitor.
It's not always which is a better video camera, because Canon DSLRs are primarily still cameras. It this world Canons are clearly superior
Last edited: