GH2 Thinking about doing a GH2 vs 1DX / D4 / D800 / 5DIII Test

L

L1N3ARX

Well-known member
My Dad happens to be somewhat of a photography freak and buys every single body he can get his hands on. At the moment, I finally have access to all the FF models. I'm thinking about doing a comparison. With the BMCC upon us, it almost seems trivial to compare expensive DLSRs... which at a lesser price than any of them, will crush all of them. But... I think it would still be interesting.

What say ye... test or not to test?
 
Test. The BMCC is not the same type of tool as a DSLR, and as such will not be suitable for all the same jobs. It will be difficult to make that one more than a studio cam due to its insane file sizes, limited battery, and intense post workflow. Because of the added difficulties, DSLRs aren't going anywhere. All of those cameras still have a place.
 
Well, I'd have said - yes, absolutely go ahead. But. It is rumored strongly that next month the GH3 will be announced. Now, that doesn't mean that the GH2 becomes obsolete by any means, after all, it'll be months before the GH3 is actually available, more months before it's hacked (hopefully it can be hacked!), and all this time it means that realistically GH2 is the only option. However, it's still a reality that the GH3 is being announced next month, and everyone will eventually migrate to it (assuming Kholi is right and the GH3 is a substantial improvement on the GH2 in the video department) - that means we'd like to know how the GH3 stacks up against your list of DSLRs, not the GH2... after all, nobody is clamoring for a comparison between GH1 and those DSLRs... GH1 is yesterday's news, and GH2 is about to become too. I guess it can't hurt to do a test, but its relevance will only last until the GH3 drops.
 
Have at it. But we all know what each camera delivers. Yes, the BMCD is going to be cool, but the lowlight kings will still be the FS100/700, the Nikons, and the Mk2 or 3. With lighting however, the BMDC is going to be killer!!!!
 
Most of these cameras have been subject to lots of testing already. The comparison I'd really be interested in seeing is the GH2 v 1DX
 
Whats the point of using Hacked cameras,out of the box performance is the only fair test,i have no problem with my unhacked GH2 EXEPT i wish one color was a bit better after maximum in camera adjustment.
 
What's the point of buying another lens if you have the kit lens? The answer: to improve and expand the camera's abilities. And hacks are free! :)
 
They are ALL fine recorders.

I am much more interested in LENS comparisons, because it seems that in many instances lenses can make a bigger difference than switching cameras.
 
I just think if you have the energy to do it, it will come a great peril only to open up redundant debate of what camera this and what camera that rhetoric. I would do it for yourself if you are curious. There are plenty of posts, websites, and opinions as to what camera is the best and what camera sucks. To me there are just lots of cool cameras that do a fine job at this or that while another camera does the same. You might as well just post, Mac or PC. Because it's the only can of worms you would open with your test.

Sure. We all all interested in how cameras stack up to one another. But didn't the part 2 of the Zacuto shootout prove anything? That being that lot's of cameras are capable. Just as computers, microwaves, cell phones, cars, even dogs. It's safe to say you would waste your time as the info is already there for us to see. But if you have free time on your hands, go for it. I would just pick one of them and go make something for us to enjoy visually or emotionally while you improve your skills (don't take that hard. Even Scorsese will admit that he learns everyday)......

Camera shoot outs are just getting old when one thinks about how many great cameras there are.
 
dustylense said:
Sure. We all all interested in how cameras stack up to one another. But didn't the part 2 of the Zacuto shootout prove anything?
Click to expand...

Quite honestly, nothing very useful They spent a lot of time on blather this year trying to convince us the hardware doesn't matter, it's the operator that counts.

Well, in the production world, where you have the time and ability to set things up just right, that's long been a given. But the whole point of a 'camera shootout' it to test the camera's abilities, not the operator's. The point is to see how any given camera performs under various situations when you don't have the time or ability to control the scene. Specifically, event work, not production work, is the real challenge in this industry.

We'd have been better served if Steve and company would keep that in mind when they do their annual tests. How a camera performs under controlled circumstances is much less useful information than how it performs under real-world 'stress test' situations, where the operator has NO control over the scene, and must often rely on the camera itself to do it's job well or the image is just plain going to suck.

THAT is the proper mindset for any camera shootout. Part 3 should have been incorporated into part 1, and part 2 eliminated entirely.
 
Jim Simon said:
Quite honestly, nothing very useful They spent a lot of time on blather this year trying to convince us the hardware doesn't matter, it's the operator that counts.

Well, in the production world, where you have the time and ability to set things up just right, that's long been a given. But the whole point of a 'camera shootout' it to test the camera's abilities, not the operator's. The point is to see how any given camera performs under various situations when you don't have the time or ability to control the scene. Specifically, event work, not production work, is the real challenge in this industry.

We'd have been better served if Steve and company would keep that in mind when they do their annual tests. How a camera performs under controlled circumstances is much less useful information than how it performs under real-world 'stress test' situations, where the operator has NO control over the scene, and must often rely on the camera itself to do it's job well or the image is just plain going to suck.

THAT is the proper mindset for any camera shootout. Part 3 should have been incorporated into part 1, and part 2 eliminated entirely.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with you. SOrry. Part 2 reveals that the tools are here for all levels and all budgets. Doesn't get more real world than that. There are big budgets, then there are small budgets. Are you going to shoot f65 on a $5,000 budget? Just as are you gonna shoot Gh2 on a $250,000,000 budget. It's nice to have the best, but some budgets just don't allow for that. Just how many BIG time guys and gals picked the Gh2 as wowing in part 2? Coppola was one of them that ranked it very high. After he found out it was the Gh2, he kinda nervously looked around the room as if he wanted to take his words back. Given, the Gh2 post was obviously more problematic, but the solution was there for lighting and for the colorist. Would I pick the F65 or Alexa over the Gh2? Of course! The end result is going to be less painful to achieve.

Part 2 was done to say, "We have the tools. At all levels and price points. There is no excuse to say if I only had a better camera". I give all credit to the 5d mark II for the rapid pace of this. It birthed the AF100, F3, FS100, C300, C100, and so on. We know what they are all capable of because we read about them everyday. I get 4 film making magazines delivered a month. Every issue has an article about something being shot on the 5D Mark II, to this very day. I believe all of these cameras are quite exceptional. Can they all hit the big screen. Well, the 7D and MK2 has proven that they can be used. Yet, today with the BMDC, the C100 and 300, the Scarlet, FS700, right on down the line we are progressing into better and better cameras. I sit and wonder, what will the Gh3 gives us? It's a great time to be making motion projects. The choice of camera is yes, still important. But the shoot out says to me, no matter what your budget is, big or small, there is a way and little room for excuse on the camera....
 
I think out of all the choices available, people would be most interested in the 1DX vs GH2. Perhaps even some footage from the D4, since it's a bit more rare. Gonna see if I can do this tomorrow.
 
dustylense said:
Part 2 reveals that the tools are here for all levels and all budgets.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that I don't consider that revelatory. Making that 'statement', I can only respond with "well, duh!" Meaning, the conclusion form part 2 is obvious, and was already a given. There was no need to rehash it.

And you're still missing my point about using production scenarios as a testing method. That is more of a test of the operator than the camera. The real test is EVENT work - weddings, school plays, birthday parties, documentary work, etc. Situations where the operator has little or no control over the scene, lighting, or action, has only once chance to get it right, but still wants his image to look very bit as good as what could be done in a production scenario. THAT is where the abilities of the camera come into play. THAT is the market any camera shootout should be targeting. And here's why.

Tests geared towards production work don't really help out us event shooters. But, tests geared towards us event shooters reveal the true capabilities of the camera, and can easily be applied to production work as well. Part 3 was MUCH more revealing and informative, because it showed us what any camera shootout should show us - what can the CAMERA do when the operator has no control over the scene?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top