What does the Canon offer that the GH1 doesn't

J

jrod81

Veteran
Just looking at the price alone I am wondering why I would pay so much more for the 5D as opposed to the GH1... especially since the 5D doesn't have 24p... I am still fairly new to the whole "making movie" community if it is highly technical things making the difference I would assume I could go without them but if there is something obvious that I will be missing by getting the GH1 I would like to know...
thanks a ton
 
the MKII H.264 bit-rate is 42Mbps. The GH1 AVCHD bit-rate is 17Mbps. Both are mpeg-4. The MKII is full frame the GH1 is 1.9x crop. The MKII has a higher dynamic range and better low light performance.
 
I wouldn't say "far" superior. It's a sharper image no doubt but then again it's got it's little nasty's in it that looks like hyper video most of the time. I'm not sure that a 24p hack would help. That's exactly what was described of the "so-called" upcoming 24p. I wonder if this "hack" will bee the equivalent to converting 30p to 24p in post. If so...then it's not the same as shooting 24p.
 
Ian-T said:
it that looks like hyper video most of the time.
Click to expand...
Ha! That's a great way to put it. And I say that as a fan of the 5D's image. I wish that more people would recognize this. It really deflates the argument, which some GH1 detractors have, that the GH1's look is too "video-like." The D90, IMO, has a look that feels closest to film.
 
Look at movies made with real film and see how hyper sharp they look. Especially when you watch on Blue ray and HD television. I have no idea why people relate film to soft image. Watch a Pirates of the Caribbean movie and witness hyper sharpness. What you get from the Mark ll or the GH1 is "digital film", and in the not so distant future it, and all other flavors of cameras producing it, will be the de facto look at all the screen theaters around the globe.
 
John, I get what you're trying to say but I think the term for film is "detail." Pirates and all these other movies have great detail. So does the 5D. But the difference is the "hardness" of the image. Aliasing does not help at all. Maybe if we run the clips through some sort of image blur that would help...but that "hardness" when put in motion looks like......video.

I always hear people say this or that about the D90 (in terms of it looking more like film etc). Let me be honest...it's because of its weak compression. That's it. I guarantee you if the compression was up to 40Mbps...it would look just as "hard" as the 5D. The compression seems to hide a lot of the subtleness of video. At least IMHO.

Film is very soft., detailed and..organic. Wht does one expect from an analog signal?
 
Again, it's not just the compression and softness of the D90 that make it look more "filmic." The gamma is more film-like, and the image is warmer as well.

Film isn't exactly "sharp" or "soft." It's much more complicated than that. When properly shot with a high-quality stock, film is sharp and highly detailed, but it only seems "soft" and organic because of the film grain. That's what makes digital video, in all of its forms (whether it's HD or SD, RED or 5D or GH1, etc.) "harder" or "harsher" or cleaner. Film also somehow simultaneously has higher dynamic range but is lower in contrast to a lot of high-end digital cinematography.
 
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say IMO if the D90 was 50Mbps mjpeg CBR it would blow the MKII away for a warm filmic look. I agree the gamma is more film-like but I am warming to the MKII but by the time they get 24p working nikon will probably have the D300s/D400 sorted. There is a way to compare them just put some MKII footage through some 15Mbps mjpeg compression. Don't get me wrong digital will never match the warmth of analog but it will come very close as it has in the audio world and most people won't be able to tell the difference.
 
Well, back onto the original subject, these cameras are primarily, or at least meant to primarily be, STILL cameras. And the canon is a VASTLY superior still camera. Its is very professional with 21 megapixels and all of its features. Even if the canon had no video mode, I don't think the price would be much lower for it.
 
it's hard to decide.. I have a 5D and I'm going to get a gh1 too as well- even if I dont have so much money, but, the image of the 5D is just the best that I have seen with digital video so far --- and you get a pro still camera --- why not try to get some photo jobs as well? If you want to be prepared for "every" situation be sure to carry a D5 MII with 24-70 and 70-200 IS both 2,8 and keep in mind this stuff is really heavy....!

The gh1 is handy, still good image, probably cool photos as well --- the best thing about it is the automatic "follow focus" lock (whatever it's called in english) so u can use the gh1 with some jib or crane or just run und gun much easier... just like the good old dv camcorders... but with a quite decent look..


The solution is... BOTH ;)
 
Ian-T said:
John, I get what you're trying to say but I think the term for film is "detail." Pirates and all these other movies have great detail. So does the 5D. But the difference is the "hardness" of the image. Aliasing does not help at all. Maybe if we run the clips through some sort of image blur that would help...but that "hardness" when put in motion looks like......video.

I always hear people say this or that about the D90 (in terms of it looking more like film etc). Let me be honest...it's because of its weak compression. That's it. I guarantee you if the compression was up to 40Mbps...it would look just as "hard" as the 5D. The compression seems to hide a lot of the subtleness of video. At least IMHO.

Film is very soft., detailed and..organic. Wht does one expect from an analog signal?
Click to expand...


:thumbup:
 
When I got my 5d I was very concerned about aliasing.

I had read everything. Saw all of the videos. Had planned on having to avoid certain objects. The truth is, I have seen VERY VERY VERY limited aliasing. I have seen it a few times, but only when watching the footage back at 1080p on a 42" screen. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have ever seen it had I not been looking.

My experience says that people blow the aliasing way out of proportion. I have shot extensively with the Ex1 and Ex3 and hate the aliasing these cameras create. With everything people had said about the 5d, I was sure it would be much worse in terms of aliasing.

Again, my experience has been that the Ex1/3 have much much much worse aliasing. Maybe I just got lucky with my specific camera body. But my 5d doesn't cause much aliasing and at this point I have tried and tried and tried to find it.

Also - you don't have to believe me if you don't want to, but 24p is coming. Absolutely coming. No comment more than that.

Last also - I have a preordered GH1 coming. I will extensively test the two cameras side by side once its in my hands.
 
i don't understand why companies are not putting the same effort in dynamic range/latitude that they put in sharpness. you can find all kind of looks with film cameras: sharp, soft, shallow dof or not, contrasted or not, ..... but the dynamic range is still the weak element in those video cameras.
http://www.vimeo.com/1886694 (no shallow DOF, not sharp .... but it looks like what it is: film. just film camera motion and film dynamic range that are making the difference)
 
obviously the canon allows for canon lens, but what if i want to use nikon (only because i already have 4 that i might as well use). will the gh1 or the 5d2 have adapters that allow nikon lenses to be used?
 
burnardo said:
it's hard to decide.. I have a 5D and I'm going to get a gh1 too as well- even if I dont have so much money, but, the image of the 5D is just the best that I have seen with digital video so far --- and you get a pro still camera --- why not try to get some photo jobs as well? If you want to be prepared for "every" situation be sure to carry a D5 MII with 24-70 and 70-200 IS both 2,8 and keep in mind this stuff is really heavy....!

The gh1 is handy, still good image, probably cool photos as well --- the best thing about it is the automatic "follow focus" lock (whatever it's called in english) so u can use the gh1 with some jib or crane or just run und gun much easier... just like the good old dv camcorders... but with a quite decent look..


The solution is... BOTH ;)
Click to expand...

so the "auto follow focus lock" will null and void the necessity for a follow focus setup on the rig?
 
jrod81 said:
obviously the canon allows for canon lens, but what if i want to use nikon (only because i already have 4 that i might as well use). will the gh1 or the 5d2 have adapters that allow nikon lenses to be used?
Click to expand...

Decent cheap adapters for the Gh1 available. Check the hardware/ lenses thread. $100 or less will get an adapter set that allows you to use virtually any Nikon lens you can imagine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top