GH2 Waiting on this lens.

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheDingo said:
...What in the world are you talking about ?

Just like the thread you started in the Canon Full Frame forum, I am going to ask you to define what you mean by "achieves closer to hollywood" because this makes absolutely NO sense to me.

Today the majority of Hollywood movies are shot with the Super35 format, which is much closer to the Micro 4/3 size than the odd-ball Full Frame 35mm Still Photo format, that was used for only a few Vista-vision films made by Hollywood production companies.

The Full Frame 35mm Still Photo format has next to nothing in common with Hollywood movies, especially when you consider that most films are shot with a DOF that closer matches the DOF found on Micro 4/3 format cameras than the ultra shallow DOF of the 35mm Still Photo format.

I've also pointed out that several feature films have been shot over the past year using the Panasonic GH2 camera, with the most current one being Shane Carruth's "Upstream Color", and it looks like a well shot Hollywood feature film.

So what exactly are you talking about?
Click to expand...


Relaaaax, he could be a 12 year boy in his mothers basement, he's only posted a few times. Have you any personal experience shooting movies with your GH2 set up? Or did you just learn stuff off other posters and the Internet?
 
jamesmallonuk said:
Have you any personal experience shooting movies with your GH2 set up?
Click to expand...

Yes, I've been DOP on a bunch of low-budget Indie shorts over the past 3 years. I do this for fun, so I haven't put together a reel of this work. ( I shoot corporate / medical training for my day job )

I am sick of reading posts from newbies that seem to think that the Canon 5D has some magical Hollywood "cinematic" properties.

When the reality is that it takes good planning, good pre-production, good production, and good post-production to create something of cinematic value.

The camera you shoot with is one of the least important ingredients in the mix.
 
TheDingo said:
...What in the world are you talking about ?

Just like the thread you started in the Canon Full Frame forum, I am going to ask you to define what you mean by "achieves closer to hollywood" because this makes absolutely NO sense to me.

Today the majority of Hollywood movies are shot with the Super35 format, which is much closer to the Micro 4/3 size than the odd-ball Full Frame 35mm Still Photo format, that was used for only a few Vista-vision films made by Hollywood production companies.

The Full Frame 35mm Still Photo format has next to nothing in common with Hollywood movies, especially when you consider that most films are shot with a DOF that closer matches the DOF found on Micro 4/3 format cameras than the ultra shallow DOF of the 35mm Still Photo format.

I've also pointed out that several feature films have been shot over the past year using the Panasonic GH2 camera, with the most current one being Shane Carruth's "Upstream Color", and it looks like a well shot Hollywood feature film.

So what exactly are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I respect your opinion and you're probably way more knowledgeable than I am on these topics. However, in showing several coworkers who are no informed on the parameters of film technology videos on Vimeo of GH2, GH3, and 5D Mk II/III...they unanimously picked the 5D videos...maybe it was the coloring, etc....but I think they liked that look...forget my comment about Hollywood then.

Only reason i'm entering the conversation is because I am curious as I am looking to purchase soon as I'm not happy with my 60D.
 
JasonMillard81 said:
Only reason i'm entering the conversation is because I am curious as I am looking to purchase soon as I'm not happy with my 60D.
Click to expand...

I owned a Canon 60D with a few good lenses for about 4 months, and then sold everything after owning a Panasonic GH2 camera for about a month. The Canon 60D took great still photos, but the video was soft and had lots of little problems that the GH2 video did not have. Once the GH2 camera was hacked to record higher bit-rates, there was no going back. It produces an extremely good video image.

The GH3 is the next generation and in most way surpasses the GH2, though I have had a few small issues with moire creeping into some of my corporate video work, which annoys me to no end.

One of the main reasons why people like the Canon DSLR video look is the Canon "baked-in" color that comes right out of the camera without having to do anything to achieve this.

But once you factor in proper color correction and grading of your footage, then the Canon "baked-in" look doesn't seem so attractive any more. If you look at any of the footage from Shane Carruth's "Upstream Color" which was shot with a hacked GH2 camera, you are seeing properly color corrected and color graded footage which looks like a million bucks. Pretty much any of the modern DSLR cameras can produce a great looking image once the footage has been properly corrected and graded.

Every frame I shoot for my corporate training work is ALWAYS color corrected and sometimes lightly graded. ( these are training videos, so nobody wants to pay for a "cinematic" look )

The Canon 5D Mk3 camera produces a very nice image, but so does the Panasonic GH3 camera. The 5D Mk3 has a 2-3 stop advantage over the GH3 in dim light, but most of the time you don't want to be shooting in dim light, you want to actually light your locations, or pick locations that are already well lit naturally. Dim light produces a crappy image partly because you loose a lot of your camera's dynamic range when you push past the 1600 - 3200 ISO range. ( I try and never shoot higher than 800 ISO )

As you've mentioned, one of the GH3's main strengths is the sharpness of the image it records, which can look amazing when everything is properly tuned in your shot.

There is one other GH3 advantage that is coming later this summer which is the Black Magic Pocket Cine Camera, which will use the same Micro 4/3 lenses as the GH3 does. For $995 the Black Magic Pocket camera brings 13 stops of dyanamic range to your videos. ( far more than any DSLR camera can do ) I definitely plan on adding one of these to my camera kit, which I will probably use for any sun lit outdoor shots. I will have to see how this camera compares to the GH3, as I imagine they are both going to have certain strengths that are not duplicated in each other. ( this is also why I kept my GH2 body, as it does a few things better than the GH3 )

...The Canon camera the really impresses me is the C100, which is the next step up after the 5D Mk3. ( big difference between the image quality of these two cameras ) The C100 is as sharp as the GH2 / GH3 cameras, has 12 stops of dynamic range, and this dynamic range remains right up to 20,000 ISO. It's a pretty compact camera that can run all day on a few batteries.
 
JasonMillard81 said:
I respect your opinion and you're probably way more knowledgeable than I am on these topics. However, in showing several coworkers who are no informed on the parameters of film technology videos on Vimeo of GH2, GH3, and 5D Mk II/III...they unanimously picked the 5D videos...maybe it was the coloring, etc....but I think they liked that look...forget my comment about Hollywood then.
Click to expand...

Means nothing at all. You could have picked videos for your own confirmation bias needs to use in this "test".

TheDingo said:
I am sick of reading posts from newbies that seem to think that the Canon 5D has some magical Hollywood "cinematic" properties.
Click to expand...

Not just "newbies" either. Everyone loves that "Canon color" after all...you know, that great Canon color that makes Caucasian skin tones look like people have jaundice?
 
TheDingo said:
...What in the world are you talking about ?

Just like the thread you started in the Canon Full Frame forum, I am going to ask you to define what you mean by "achieves closer to hollywood" because this makes absolutely NO sense to me.

Today the majority of Hollywood movies are shot with the Super35 format, which is much closer to the Micro 4/3 size than the odd-ball Full Frame 35mm Still Photo format, that was used for only a few Vista-vision films made by Hollywood production companies.

The Full Frame 35mm Still Photo format has next to nothing in common with Hollywood movies, especially when you consider that most films are shot with a DOF that closer matches the DOF found on Micro 4/3 format cameras than the ultra shallow DOF of the 35mm Still Photo format.

I've also pointed out that several feature films have been shot over the past year using the Panasonic GH2 camera, with the most current one being Shane Carruth's "Upstream Color", and it looks like a well shot Hollywood feature film.

So what exactly are you talking about?
Click to expand...


Actually I believe that a lot of hollywood has gone, or is leaning towards digital. I recently saw an interview where Tarentino said he was fighting a losing battle to continue using film and several other big names in the room shared his sentiment. Digital is not only cheaper but also allows for a quicker turnaround. Hollywood studios are all profit centric and they seem to be pushing hard for the films they fund to be shot digital for this very reason.
 
jamesmallonuk said:
How is this related to the new Tamron lens?
Click to expand...

I suspect that the new Tamron lens is going to be a lower priced version of the new redesigned Panasonic 14-140mm zoom.

I've read nothing on the new Panasonic lens other than it will be about 1/3 f-stop faster, which is always a good thing, but I'm wondering what the autofocus will be like as focus-tracking is a bigger deal with the GH3 camera.
 
Will Turner said:
Actually I believe that a lot of hollywood has gone, or is leaning towards digital. I recently saw an interview where Tarantino said he was fighting a losing battle to continue using film and several other big names in the room shared his sentiment.
Click to expand...

I saw an interview with Tarantino where he said that he plans on leaving directing, and will stick with writing and also write as a film-critic.

Digital cameras are on the verge of surpassing film in almost every aspect, so I don't see any down-side to an all digital production process. Digital also makes more sense when it comes to films that are very FX heavy or films that are designed for 3D from the ground up. ( not a huge fan of live action 3D films, but I love it for animated Pixar pictures )
 
Gary Huff said:
Considering the lens has been announced and nothing else has come out, what did you expect to learn?
Click to expand...


That's the problem I have with forums, people rarely attempt to properly read the original post let alone try to answer it. Try looking at it, it's got a question mark and everything...
 
TheDingo said:
I suspect that the new Tamron lens is going to be a lower priced version of the new redesigned Panasonic 14-140mm zoom.

I've read nothing on the new Panasonic lens other than it will be about 1/3 f-stop faster, which is always a good thing, but I'm wondering what the autofocus will be like as focus-tracking is a bigger deal with the GH3 camera.
Click to expand...


I guess what I'm hoping is like the Sigma mft lenses that a third party lens will bring its lens characteristics to the m4/3 standard. I find the Pana zooms too sharp for my tastes. I've looked at tones of clips of the 12-35mm but it all looks like HDV. Apart from Leicas there are no stabilized lenses other than Pana, so I hope this lens will open up the format.
 
jamesmallonuk said:
That's the problem I have with forums, people rarely attempt to properly read the original post let alone try to answer it. Try looking at it, it's got a question mark and everything...
Click to expand...

You've hardly been the paragon of politness.

And yes, it can be normal procedure for a lens to announced ahead of time with few details forthcoming. I echo Gary's point. There is no information so I'm not sure how any forum members could help you in this instance. Unless you were looking for plain banter (you've got some of that) or somebody with inside knowledge (the latter hasn't as yet surfaced).
 
stoneinapond said:
There is no information so I'm not sure how any forum members could help you in this instance. Unless you were looking for plain banter (you've got some of that) or somebody with inside knowledge (the latter hasn't as yet surfaced).
Click to expand...

Exactly. I've seen this complaint many times of people upset when a thread takes a different direction than a question in the OP about a product that isn't out for people to actually use. Do you just want the thread to remain dead until someone knows something? Is that what you want?

"Gosh, darn, I'm tired of seeing this thread highlighted with new posts!"
 
stoneinapond said:
You've hardly been the paragon of politness.

And yes, it can be normal procedure for a lens to announced ahead of time with few details forthcoming. I echo Gary's point. There is no information so I'm not sure how any forum members could help you in this instance. Unless you were looking for plain banter (you've got some of that) or somebody with inside knowledge (the latter hasn't as yet surfaced).
Click to expand...


we have the specs and Tamrons history in lenses just for starter to create and opinion and discussion. But my original question was about standard lens release timetables. I read back, if you can find any impoliteness I might be able to see your point. But your friend Gary had a blunt question and I answered it...bluntly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top