Torn between gh2 and 5d
- Thread starter tampawolf
- Start date
, still though, I don't mind if the adapter is expensive, what adapter do I need? Thanks
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
I'd look at a lot of footage from both cameras first. The GH2 is the trendy camera of the moment, but it has it's own weaknesses. Both have pluses and minuses. Things they are good at, things where they are not so great. Depends on how you intend to use it.
This. Unfortunately there's no perfect camera, so there's definitely pros and cons to both. It's up to you to decide which set of weaknesses you're more okay with. If you know people with both cameras, see if you can shoot a little bit to see which you prefer.
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
Well, there's also the fact it's better weather sealed, there no comparison as a still camera, not even in the same league (for those who use for both), I still think the dynamic range is better on the 5D, you have the option of very shallow DOF when you want it (or can make it deeper by lighting correctly), I find the colors more pleasing, and you have more lens options. Aesthetically, I just prefer the 5D image. That being said, the removal of issues with rolling shutter, moire, aliasing, etc... are nice and the bitrate hacks for the GH2 do make for some pretty nice footage.
Shooting exteriors, especially architectural exteriors, I'd MUCH rather have the GH2. Shooting a conversation between two people in a living room, I'd much rather have the 5D.
Shooting exteriors, especially architectural exteriors, I'd MUCH rather have the GH2. Shooting a conversation between two people in a living room, I'd much rather have the 5D.
Most of us don't, sooo...
Nnnaaah. They're both about the same, 5D is just so mushy/soft that the range/highlights give off that impression.
You've got the same option on a GH2, just get the right glass.
subjective, though. I can't stand the Canon color. GH2 has been more accurate for skin to me.
No, you don't. GH2 can mount nearly ANY glass, Canon cannot.
Definitely applicable. If you prefer it, then that's fine. Technically, though, the image can't hang. xP
The advantage of the 5D was always sensor size to me, and like Imaginate outlined shooting in tight rooms it can really help reign in the budgeted look of no space. Utility is a good thing to consider.
then why not consider canon 60d? 1 stop slower than 5d but still 1 stop faster than gh2 in term of DOF. also similar price of gh2.
If you put on the Voightlander 24mm f/0.95, you'll have more shallow depth of field than you'll know what to do with.
The DOF can be identical if you allow for the format differences. When shooting with a Canon 5D MK2 with 50mm lens at f/2.0 it has the same DOF as shooting with a GH-2 with a 25mm lens at f/1.0.
...Often the Canon 5D MK2 has TOO shallow depth of field, where you are forced to stop down to get enough in focus, especially when you compare this HUGE Full Frame Still Photo format with standard 35mm Motion Picture formats like Super35 or Academy film formats. ( APS-C and M4/3 are essentially equivalent to Super35 and Academy motion picture formats )
This becomes a huge deal when you have to light a large set, where 4,000 watts of light might light a large set when shooting with the Micro 4/3 format, but to get the SAME DOF at the SAME ISO with a Canon 5D MK2 you have to use 16,000 watts of light.
james thorpe
Active member
I say get both if your passion is photography/video. Based on what you have mentioned, i would get the GH2 first. And a Voight will totally get you that 'Canon' look and DoF if thats
what you want. But i would look at the lens offerings in 2 categories. 'Cinematic-Voight, Canon FD's, Nikkor, etc' and 'HD-Extreme Clarity-Lumix, Leica line'. Both are great to have depending on the look you are after. One thing i will disagree with most is that the GH2 is no slouch for stills. I prefer the MkII but i am always surprised with the stills i am getting from the GH2. And the GH2 is an easier cam to shoot stills with since its smaller, lighter and super quick AF.
what you want. But i would look at the lens offerings in 2 categories. 'Cinematic-Voight, Canon FD's, Nikkor, etc' and 'HD-Extreme Clarity-Lumix, Leica line'. Both are great to have depending on the look you are after. One thing i will disagree with most is that the GH2 is no slouch for stills. I prefer the MkII but i am always surprised with the stills i am getting from the GH2. And the GH2 is an easier cam to shoot stills with since its smaller, lighter and super quick AF.
Let's also be clear about something... I'm only a fan of great images. I wish the 5D had a better image, then we could actually use it in our workflow. We can't, because serious paying clients don't want to see it or the image that it produces. Contrary to popular (unfounded) belief (fantasies), people DO notice.
The D4 looks like a tasty item, but don't want to be locked into NIkon glass.
If a Mark III comes around and it can actually hang with the GH2's image quality, then it's a no brainer: I want Full Frame in my DSLR, but not enough to take an image like that that, anymore. Not when there's better imagery at less than a third of the price new.
The D4 looks like a tasty item, but don't want to be locked into NIkon glass.
If a Mark III comes around and it can actually hang with the GH2's image quality, then it's a no brainer: I want Full Frame in my DSLR, but not enough to take an image like that that, anymore. Not when there's better imagery at less than a third of the price new.
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
Maybe this is where we get some of our disagreement. I don't shoot for "clients", well very rarely. I shoot an occasional music video or commercial to finance a gear purchase or raise money to shoot something narrative, but I hate doing that crap. I prefer my day job to that stuff. For the look I am going for in my narrative work, in most situations, the 5D is a better camera. I not only don't mind the slight softness, I really really like it.
I can totally understand where you are coming from as well. I was in the Canon camp and thought that the Panasonic m4/3rds lineup had some great stuff, but not enough to spend money to switch over. Then the hacks started coming fast and furious and after discussing with Kholi I went out and got one, and have been shooting solely on it ever since. You have to see the images for yourself in your environment before you can get it. Sure, I'll still keep the 60D and use it (and if I can get the C300, I won't be using the GH2 anymore), but it truely is a better image in an overall sense.
Nikon glass ( especially manual AI-S glass ) adapts to almost anything, where Canon EOS glass is far more limited when working with non-Canon cameras. From my perspective it`s the Canon EOS glass that "locks" you in.