GH1 Why are prices so low?

Sage said:
Considering a GH2 hack is now almost guaranteed (given the breakthroughs in the last few days), it may just be worth it to save up those pennies, no matter what the price...
Click to expand...

Currently the hack is in infancy..could take a very long while who knows? By then I may get a GH2 again.

stoneinapond said:
That's not an ethic. That's a mindset that may or may not be true in this case.

I haven't used a GH13, so I can't really comment. I did not buy the GH2 because it was the latest. I bought it because I think, based on my own research, that it is an improvement over the GH1.



So here is my question. When the GH2 price drops, will it become a better camera?

:tongue:
Click to expand...

I wasnt posting about folks like yourself...but folks who claim a camera isnt any good just because its 1-1/2 2 years old.

Haha well yeah when the GH2 is hacked giving me 25p...bit more MB for editing and is lower in price in body form it will be for me.
I never even bought my GH1 when they first come out...I always wait a year or so to see how things play out...call it conservative with my money...Im not a early adopter type....used to be when I was in my teens (always wanted the latest home cinema gear) and wasted so much money.

I did buy and played with a GH2 for a week (amazons return policy is my friend) and felt it wasnt worth the price (not bothered about etc was very unimpressed with the battery change) for upgrade when I was also wanting some lenses so got my money back....have a voigtlander f0.95...lowlight isnt a issue.

Currently (probably with japan crisis) GH2s are a bit higher in price.
If youre on a tight budget (like I am) then a GH1(hackable) is a very worthy purchase.
Plus if you lose/damage the GH1 its now cheap to replace ;-)
 
Last edited:
Brian_Rice said:
For me this will be my first DSLR. I don't imagine I'd ever use a DSLR for feature work (though not impossible). I'm only interested in using it for shorts and web-based stuff. I think, for my purposes, cheaper is probably better, especially if the differences between a GH13 and a GH2 are probably only going to be noticeable when displayed offline.

Still, I'm weighing all the options -- and not completely dismissing the T2i out-of-hand yet. Though I'm pretty sure straight bang-for-your-buck sounds like it's the GH13. Also, it sounds like the Panny has a better stock lens than most of the Canons.
Click to expand...

It does boil down to preference,cost and use.
T2i or GH1/2 seem to be the ones for you currently...the GH system has more benefits...built in live view EVF,articulated screen. Canons will take better stills but worse videos (for detail)...GH's are easier to shoot video with silent autofocus with some lenses.
If you have a preference to Canon though its a tricky thing to give advice.
 
mimirsan said:
if you are talking about FPN and banding in lowlight I can agree its a pain in the ass...but some GH1s have it less than others (one of mine has virtually none) and the GH2 has its own issues. No camera is perfect sadly.
It depends what the op wants from the camera.
Click to expand...

Yeah, mine isn't bad, especially with the FPN reduction settings Emory posted.
 
Wow, do people really believe the GH13 footage is superior to the GH2?

FWIW, Viatliy has stated that your better off with a GH2, and that's before he even knew whether he could hack the GH2 or not. Believes sensor is far superior.

Best
LW
 
Yes, clearly the GH2 has a better sensor, my argument is simply that a GH13 is still a force to be reckoned with, and that both are good cameras.
 
CColton said:
Yes, clearly the GH2 has a better sensor, my argument is simply that a GH13 is still a force to be reckoned with, and that both are good cameras.
Click to expand...

I have a hacked GF1 and a GH2. I am still going to add a GH13 soon. If you can score one under $500 why not? The articulating screen makes it so much nicer than trying to shoot with a T2i or GF1 even.
 
Last edited:
Sigh....the perfect camera does not exist. I much prefer my GH13's to Cannons, although I do use a 7D in extremely low light. As for the price drop, it has nothing to do with the quality of the cameras. There was a GH1 craze for a while, now there is an AF 100 craze, who knows what will be next....the good news is that there is a large and growing variety of awesome cameras available at unbelievably low prices.
 
Canon is easier to use. And most people can't deal with FPN (although if you get a late body it shoots near-free of FPN in 1600 iso). Some guys over these boards mumble about there not being differeneces, well, i've owned some GH1's by now & tested them pretty extensively. There are MAJOR differences between GH1's, and if you pick the right one, it's a great camera; and with bitrates SUPERIOR to GH2. I'm out in the woods shooting the most bitrate demanding stuff you'd imagine and GH2 doesn't reach the quality to a 40-50mbit GH1.

....but then i would recommend 99% to pick GH2 cus people don't have the skills to squeeze out the magic of a hacked GH1. It's over their heads. If they even see a difference in the end. GH13 is for the studio guy, the perfectionist, the pixelpeeper.
 
Martin Oller said:
....but then i would recommend 99% to pick GH2 cus people don't have the skills to squeeze out the magic of a hacked GH1. It's over their heads. If they even see a difference in the end. GH13 is for the studio guy, the perfectionist, the pixelpeeper.
Click to expand...

Exactly: there is no perfect camera, only a perfect combination of camera, operator, use, and intent.

Also, I must have a later GH1 body, because my FPN is really not that bad with emory's settings. You can notice it but you have to look for it.
 
I've been using HFs and HFSs for years and have shot several times on Sony's EX1s and have found them all to be agreeable. That's why I'm a little uneasy about moving away from canons for my first DSLR. I'm not a heavy tech person, so if a GH13 demands a degree in advanced digital optics then it might not be the cam for me. What got me even remotely interested in DSLRs was the Mark 5DII. I'm going to be purchasing the FS100 next year, so whatever DSLR I purchase will just be to integrate with my current workflow, and might be something that's useful for incognito street/city filming (whereas even something as small as the FS100 might attract more attention than would a DSLR) later on.

Right now I'm just looking for something inexpensive that will let me utilize glass (but I don't want to go the adapter route as it just seems like such a waste with the way things have trended). The approximations are:

7D: 1200
D60: 1K
GH2: 1K
T2i: 600
GH13: 450

For me, this camera will pretty much only be used for talent DOF shots. I don't need to improve on the image quality of my HFSs in lowlight or otherwise, but a lot of time and effort goes into framing shots to create an "artificial" DOF look that would be easily solved by using real glass.

I'm sure that the GH2 is a better cam, but being that I'm also going to want to grab a couple pieces of glass for the cam, wouldn't it be best to go for the cheapest possible route for my purposes?

Lowlight is an issue, but with the shots I'm talking about I can almost always control the lighting situation.

I would personally never use a DSLR for run and gun shooting over my camcorders unless perhaps for some establishing shot stuff in and around the city.
 
I still respectfully believe that a GH2 with good glass (Panasonic or adapted - you can find great adapted glass) is the way to go if you want a good low-price solution. My GH13 is great and I'm sure I'll get my hands on a GH2 ASAP, but I don't have the budget for an FS100 or even $4K-$5K cameras right now, so I'm sticking with DSLRs.
 
But what about the new, unhackable ones. That is where the deals are. I've been looking at old pre hack footage, and it looks fine to me in controlled circumstances, which is the only way I'd use this type of camera. I still believe that small chip real video cameras are better for most things most of the time.
 
Brian_Rice said:
I've been using HFs and HFSs for years and have shot several times on Sony's EX1s and have found them all to be agreeable. That's why I'm a little uneasy about moving away from canons for my first DSLR. I'm not a heavy tech person, so if a GH13 demands a degree in advanced digital optics then it might not be the cam for me. What got me even remotely interested in DSLRs was the Mark 5DII. I'm going to be purchasing the FS100 next year, so whatever DSLR I purchase will just be to integrate with my current workflow, and might be something that's useful for incognito street/city filming (whereas even something as small as the FS100 might attract more attention than would a DSLR) later on.

Right now I'm just looking for something inexpensive that will let me utilize glass (but I don't want to go the adapter route as it just seems like such a waste with the way things have trended). The approximations are:

7D: 1200
D60: 1K
GH2: 1K
T2i: 600
GH13: 450

For me, this camera will pretty much only be used for talent DOF shots. I don't need to improve on the image quality of my HFSs in lowlight or otherwise, but a lot of time and effort goes into framing shots to create an "artificial" DOF look that would be easily solved by using real glass.

I'm sure that the GH2 is a better cam, but being that I'm also going to want to grab a couple pieces of glass for the cam, wouldn't it be best to go for the cheapest possible route for my purposes?

Lowlight is an issue, but with the shots I'm talking about I can almost always control the lighting situation.

I would personally never use a DSLR for run and gun shooting over my camcorders unless perhaps for some establishing shot stuff in and around the city.
Click to expand...

In your case...I dont think its unreasonable to go for cheap as you can find GH1 and get that glass.
 
dop16mm said:
But what about the new, unhackable ones. That is where the deals are. I've been looking at old pre hack footage, and it looks fine to me in controlled circumstances, which is the only way I'd use this type of camera. I still believe that small chip real video cameras are better for most things most of the time.
Click to expand...

I personally don't believe unhackable ones are worth the money. Film a bush handheld and the quality will drop noticeably; it looks horrible.
 
after trying and not particularly liking the 5D and 7D. i bought a GH2. here are my thoughts:

GOOD:
love the white balance controls
surprisingly enjoyed the touch-screen
menu system reasonably intuitive
autofocus worked well
enjoyed mjpeg option
small form factor and articulating screen opened up some fun POV options!

BAD:
small size and plastic feel (compared to a 5D/7D) feels like a toy
audio level controls too limited
using mjpeg option disables some of the more desired features

HATED:
that aperture and shutter speed are controlled by ONE wheel. you press the wheel in to toggle between the two. this is F-ING HORRIBLE! if you are a still shooter, you WILL miss a shot having to dick around with this
the look of the panasonic glass. had both the 14-140 and 20mm and didnt care for the bokeh of either.

OVERALL:
just using "kit glass" i much prefer the LOOK of the 5D/7D video to that from the GH2
the problem i had with the canons was the propensity for moire. (i personally shoot a good deal of things that might induce moire)

from a flexibility of workflow, i really enjoyed the GH2. and i think if you buy a good m4/3 to __________ adapter and use some GOOD and FAST glass, the GH2 could be really handy to have around.
but for me. it just didnt make sense to try to make my still camera shoot deliverable video when i have a perfectly viable hpx 170 for that.

i had hoped id have liked the camera more for still work than i did. and had i taken the time to experiment with better glass, it may have helped.
but the single wheel f-stop/s-speed control sealed the deal for me against it as a true still tool.

add to that, that im not a fan of the avchd codec or cmos sensors. so i sold my GH2 kit and am just going back to a 35mm adapter for critical DOF stuff.
it was a worthwhile experiment for me. because due to the lack of GH2 availability i came out $400 ahead of what i paid retail ; )
 
Last edited:
I got my GH1 then hacked into GH13 after completely giving up on my canon 5D MK II and after 1 month wait trying to get a GH2.

I do most of my clips in a studio and use a green screen. Since I have lots of studio lights, I never worry about the "low light" scenarios.

Problems with canon 5D MK II:
Inaccurate skin tone, canon color that I can't get rid of
420 color space, very hard to process in post and sucks for green screen, can't cleanly knock out the back ground
Can't resolve people's hair from a reasonable distance
Big sensor and with most lenses it causes a lens distortion (makes my talents look fat), I know I can get a big prime lens that has no distortion, but it's quite expensive
Average codec, if you bring a codec crusher in the scene --> everything turns blocky --> scene ruined
Microphone is close to non-existent

GH1/2's strength over canon 5D MK II: (I don't have a gh2, correct me if I'm wrong)
Accurate skin tone.
Flat image profile, easy to process in post.
Resolve thin lines well.
Better codec, thus smoother animation.
Kit lens (14-140) has almost no lens distortion since the camera body corrects it automatically
A real microphone (or a pair since it's stereo)

GH13's strength even over GH2:
422 color space, to me that's a God sent
Higher bit rates, make my talents look sharper and the camera is able to produce more details

So in my studio, that $1000 gh13 ($500 body + $500 lens) beats the $4000 canon 5D MK II ($2500 body + $1500 lens) in almost every aspect, when it comes to video mode

I'm very glad I got a under rated gh1 for my work, and sorry for myself falling victim to canon's marketing before that.
 
CColton said:
I personally don't believe unhackable ones are worth the money. Film a bush handheld and the quality will drop noticeably; it looks horrible.
Click to expand...

That's the codec. I have a Avermedia pci capture card that I used to record xbox games and any maps that were all green like Jungle in Black ops looked horrible with the original mp4 recorder. When I used FRAPs to record, it looked twice as good.

Bad MP4 codec has a problem with all green for some reason. SOOOO....don't shoot bushes. I'm tired of all the shots of leaves and other flowers that dominate test footage anyway.

I was about to buy a T3i, but it wasn't in stock and waiting for that $800 payment to post finall made me get cold feet. For the price, a new unhackable GH1 can't be beat. Also the limitations aren't much different from other DSLRs and I'd wind up doing the same thing if I had a T3i or GH2. If you want cheaper, then go for a canon a1200 that shoots 24p 720 for $100. Otherwise go for a canon t2i , t3i or GH2.

For less than the cost of a body only T2i I got a GH1 plus 4 adapters and 6 used lenses off ebay. Can't beat that.
 
CRFilms said:
That's the codec. I have a Avermedia pci capture card that I used to record xbox games and any maps that were all green like Jungle in Black ops looked horrible with the original mp4 recorder. When I used FRAPs to record, it looked twice as good.

Bad MP4 codec has a problem with all green for some reason. SOOOO....don't shoot bushes.
Click to expand...

I like the freedom to shoot anything I need to. I've stated my opinion, clearly you disagree, so I'm not going to argue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top