GH3 Time for a new camera. GH3?

lpowell,
Would you let me know what monopod and quick-adust ball head you are using with the GH2?

Thanks
 
J.F.R. said:
the BMCC is no different workflow than any other Raw camera.
Click to expand...

That may depend on your work flow. Both RED and Alexa footage are directly editable in Premiere Pro straight from the camera. Surprisingly, Adobe's own CinemaDNG is not. So the work flow for BMCC users can be quite different if you use the Adobe suite of programs and prefer to edit native before doing any CC work.
 
As mentioned above, final production versions of the BMCC are already "out there" in the hands of a relatively small number of real users, and most of the footage they've posted looks stunning (as expected).

Unfortunately, manufacture of the BMCC is temporarily halted while BMD sort out a sensor supplier issue, but is expected to resume "soon".

In addition to the BMCC's awesome 12-bit RAW 2.5K CinemaDNG uncompressed recording feature @ 5 megaBYTES/frame, for example ...

... the BMCC can also record compressed, extremely high-quality, easy to edit video using either 10-bit 1080p ProRes 422 HQ or DNxHD @ 220 megaBITS/sec with log or Rec.709 gamma.

ProRes and DNxHD at that data rate beat the pants off the codecs used in 99% of other camcorders.

In addition, a $3K BMCC includes an exceptional software bundle (Davinci Resolve, Ultrascope & Media Express) worth >$1.5K alone.

Lots more info here.
 
Last edited:
OldCorpse said:
Interesting question. Here's a small fact - and a very funny one, in view of all the comments here - neither the BMCC nor the GH3 are out as yet. We've seen some footage from both, but always with the caveat that these are not final products, but betas still being tweaked. There are the specs on paper, and then there's real life footage. If you just want to judge by specs on paper, that's fine, but experience suggests, that it's best to wait for the actual cameras to come out and fall into the hands of real-life users. Only then can you find out all the plusses and minuses of the product - because whatever the specs say, it's up to your own eyes to decide what you like, and it only then becomes clear what you are dealing with in workflow and additional gear you'll need to make the camera operational for your very particular needs. When you buy a camera, you are buying just the body, but that's hardly enough to make it a usable product for all purposes. For example, the BMCC is $3K, and the GH3 is $1.3K, but what about lenses, filters, monitors, sound solutions, post prod gear etc., etc., etc.? It may be quite different in each case, and far outweighing the initial camera cost.

I would not make any hasty decisions yet. Wait until the products you are considering are out, and only then make the decision. I used to think that image quality was the #1 consideration, but I've slowly been coming around to the view that image quality from a camera is actually pretty far down the list these days - I say "these days", because pretty much all pro or semi-pro cameras can produce image quality that's within a broad band of "acceptable to 99% of the audience", as in "acceptable, meaning they either can't tell the difference, or the difference is immaterial to their reception of the work". What differs widely is how much work it takes to get the footage - as the recent Zacuto test showed - and that's what's become more important to me. I'd rather not have to spend 10 times as much time and additional gear to get acceptable footage - to take a random example, if we were to postulate that the AF100 footage is equivalent to GH2 footage, but it takes 10 x more work to get the GH2 footage, I'd rather go with the AF100... which would actually hold, even if the GH2 footage was slightly "better" - because nobody except for pixel peepers will care about the image, and meanwhile I have to put out 10 x as much work and trouble.

Of course, there's the budget question. If all you have or can afford is the GH2, then it's useless to talk about the AF100 - though keep in mind, in order to actually get footage, you'll need to add a bit of $ to the GH2, such as f.ex. ND filter solution etc., so even the budget can be deceptive.

Meanwhile, I'd wait. That's what I am doing, fwiw. I'm very excited by the GH3, but await it's arrival in real user hands.
Click to expand...

Time and how easy it is to use is very important. $3,000 is my top budget so the AF100 is on the list.
 
one of the things i dont like about the AF100 is it is the size of a traditional video camera, but other than XLR ins, really has few other benefits of one. and add to that its not a lot (or in some discussions, ANY) more capable in the end than a GH2
 
Last edited:
wgzn said:
one of the things i dont like about the AF100 is it is the size of a traditional video camera, but other than XLR ins, really has few other benefits of one. and add to that its not a lot (or in some discussions, ANY) more capable in the end than a GH2
Click to expand...

ND wheel, HD-SDI HDMI and analog outs, two tactile on-the-fly audio pots, switchable WB and gain while recording, push auto, zoom and focus distance readouts, largish iris wheel, timecode, zebras, WFM, phantom power, relay record, pre-record, multiple accessory mount points...

For what I do, at least, that stuff all helps.
 
mcbob said:
For what I do, at least, that stuff all helps.
Click to expand...

...add: focus in red, adjustable scene files settings, black balancing, two card slots .... and the other twelve things we forgot .... it's a true film/video-camera. Not a photocamera that can also shoot (good) video.

postscriptum: did I hear anybody say "50/60 fps".... ;-)
 
I would also caution the OP on the Nikons he mentioned. They are great stills machines but in my side-by-side video testing, the hacked GH2 (flowmotion 2) walked all over the D800 before even getting to the moire and aliasing issues, I also found any difference in DR (at least in video) between to two negligible.

At the moment a good used AF100 is hard to beat for the money, but the GH2 will definitely get the job done as long as you are willing to deal with the audio workflow.

I'm very enthusiastic to see what the GH3 brings to the table, and I'm beginning to think there will be an AF200 before the BMCC mft sees the light of day. Time will tell.
 
wgzn said:
one of the things i dont like about the AF100 is it is the size of a traditional video camera, but other than XLR ins, really has few other benefits of one. and add to that its not a lot (or in some discussions, ANY) more capable in the end than a GH2
Click to expand...

I do like the size myself. I saw a D600 at Best Buy yesterday. It seemed kind of small for my hands.
 
mcbob said:
ND wheel, HD-SDI HDMI and analog outs, two tactile on-the-fly audio pots, switchable WB and gain while recording, push auto, zoom and focus distance readouts, largish iris wheel, timecode, zebras, WFM, phantom power, relay record, pre-record, multiple accessory mount points...

For what I do, at least, that stuff all helps.
Click to expand...

Probably when it comes right down to it I'd be better off with this than a DSLR. I have a H4n but it just gives me more work to do!!! After a few years of using the DVX100b it is nice to just grab it, a mic, a tripod and just go. The audio part of the DSLR seems to be the big drawback for me. Maybe a DSLR for a second camera but something like a XF100 as the main camera. Thanks for the input
 
Last edited:
ok, let me repackage the context about my feelings about the af100. yes, it has a number of useful features as compared to the GH2 (some of which however, you can achieve with a good external monitor) but my problem is it's size. it's somewhere between a shoulder cam and a handycam. and i'm prone to want to treat it as either. but being a CMOS camera i cant really treat it like either (jello). this is coming from a shooter who does ENG as well as semi-cinematic industrials. so i need a camera to either do double-duty or be enough of what it is to justify its single-purpose use. i just dont consider the af100 to be that.

and at the end of the day, it's image quality (from what i've seen) isnt noticeably if at all better than a GH2 - BUT it's also not noticeably (if any) worse than a GH2. so for a user like Zim, i can see where a couple of it's features would make it a more useful option.
 
Last edited:
sounds like you've never actually used the Af101 - its a very capable camera in the right hands & jello wise is streets ahead of the gh2 for handheld.
I think if the op wants control of depth of field & decent audio then the AF101 is a great deal price wise at the moment
If depth of field isnt important then you could do a lot worse than a used Panasonic hmc151, like a hd version of your dvx
 
you're partially right. ive used the af100 only a few times. twice in locked off interviews side by side with a gh2 and a couple times in run and gun shoots with an hpx170. and it wasnt a hero in either situation, relative to its price and size.

YES. there are scenarios where it's a great choice. and in the hands of the OP may be one of them.
 
Different tools for different people, I'd say. The BMC is going to be a KILLER for greenscreen work and for serious narrative work... so I'm buying it. I'm also going to get the Gh3 to compliment this and go along with the GH2 I already have.

The options in lenses is staggering and the audio options now are amazing. I shot with the AF100 for over a year and I liked it, but most of the time it stayed in the bag. Only time I used it was really on run and gun type shoots and mostly when I wanted to shoot 60p and monitor. I used it on the steadicam a bit too.


So, there are options in the new SD cameras from Panasonic. I used the 160s and 130s at work and they are amazing. Overall it's a great time to be buying gear!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top