The downlow on the GH1

[thisisapocalypse]

Lastly, what about the m4/3 lenses? Haven't heard much talk about them. If I'm buying just for this camera, worth it?

Thanks again,

Mark

The m4/3 lenses are very good, just depends what you need. The Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 pancake is excellent, and I personally have the Olympus 17mm f/2.8 pancake and I like it a lot (very difficult to find a 17mm lens as fast as f/2.8 otherwise - they don't really exist when it comes to legacy primes, heck there aren't really any modern 17mm lenses faster than f/2.8 period unless you get into $$$$ Cine Lenses), and you're not going to find a faster 20mm lens than the Panny...period, I don't think one exists (again, save for $$$$ cinema lenses)- so I think both of these lenses are worth consideration for your kit depending on the shots you need.

 

[Barry_Green]

So Barry in your humble opinion ...Is the T2i stronger in terms of the GH1 's weaknesses?

The t2i's codec is definitely stronger than the GH1's, by a goodly margin. But then the t2i has its own share of weaknesses where the GH1 is quite a bit stronger. The GH1 is a much better video camera than the t2i, for example, because it has autofocus, a live histogram during shooting, a functional viewfinder during shooting (no need for a Zfinder), and an articulating LCD. As a digital cinema camera, things start to shift back into the t2i's favor, with its larger sensor and that it can have HDMI output to a monitor while recording, which the GH1 can't do.

Look in the Articles section for my review of the GH1 vs. 7D, and just about everything will apply to the t2i as well. Except that prices have changed obviously; the GH1 is less expensive than it was (about $1200 now, vs. $1500 back then), and the t2i is way less expensive than the 7D, so that has to be taken into account.

 

[Vitaliy Kiselev]

Except that prices have changed obviously; the GH1 is less expensive than it was (about $1200 now, vs. $1500 back then), and the t2i is way less expensive than the 7D, so that has to be taken into account.

I want to specifically accent that GH1 body is about $640 now and this is cheaper than T2i body.
Plus you could mount very good old and cheap FD and MD lenses on GH1.
But not much wide lenses due to 2x crop factor.

 

[markyf]

As a digital cinema camera, things start to shift back into the t2i's favor, with its larger sensor and that it can have HDMI output to a monitor while recording, which the GH1 can't do.

Hey Barry,

Just read your great article on the GH1 vs. 7D. For the 7D, what you're saying is unless the camera operator is looking at a monitor, he or she can't see any video on the camera if the hdmi out is plugged in. Might make the camera tricky to operate, no?

 

[Barry_Green]

Very much so. But you can get a splitter and run two monitors if necessary, so the operator has one and the director has one.

In the end, you have to understand that these cameras (and especially the DSLRs, not so much the GH1) are just not made for video, and if you're going to try to incorporate them into a video workflow, you're going to have to do some frankensteining.

 

[markyf]

One more thing, DSLR vx. 170 type of camera. I am beginning to see that the real issue with DSLR isn't really skew, which can be worked around, but artifacting, which is always going to be there to some degree. All things being equal, would you get a cleaner image with a GH1 or a 170? Do the noise/low light issues of a smaller chip camera like a 170 make it somewhat less clean in some scenarios, making it kind of a pick your poison situation in terms of getting a clean image?

 

[Barry_Green]

Depends on what you mean by "clean". The DSLR has a definitely smoother texture to it; the 170 has a grittier texture to the footage. As far as grainy noise goes, the GH1 is cleaner in that aspect. But its "cleanness" is probably directly attributable to its main weakness, which is its weak codec. Noise is very difficult to compress, so I think the codec just eliminates all that detail, smoothing it out. Which also leads to the "mud" look.

A 170 is going to be a predictable, reliable, repeatable performer in every imaginable scenario. It's oriented towards professionals, with excellent onboard sound capability including XLR inputs, phantom power supply, manual audio controls, great pre-amps for a camcorder, and a headphone jack. GH1 has none of that. 170 has the most robust, solid codec of any camcorder anywhere near its price range; GH1 definitely doesn't have that. 170 has operational tools that make it a dream to work with in the field, such as an onboard waveform monitor and two levels of zebras and a spotmeter and built-in ND filters to give you incredible control over exposure; GH1 has none of that (but it does, at least, have a live histogram). The 170 has variable frame rates for all sorts of slow-mo and fast-mo effects; the GH1 has a much more limited set (1080/24, 720/60, and 720/30). The 170 can be hooked up to an external monitor, even using HD-SDI. The GH1 can't, unless you use the button press hack and then you'll get only standard-def composite, and even then you only get that as long as you're not recording; once you start recording you lose that monitor feed. The 170 has a power zoom, and manual zoom that keeps focus during the zoom; GH1 doesn't. There's a million things the 170 does that the GH1 doesn't.

But, you could buy three GH1 kits for the price of a single 170. And the GH1 can deliver 35mm cinema film-style shallow DOF; the 170 doesn't. And the GH1 can take an f/1.4 or even an f/0.95 lens for extreme low light performance, the 170 can't match that.