Why do so many pros still choose Canons over Panasonics?

Status
Not open for further replies.
X

xocomil

Well-known member
I have a GH13 and am enjoying it a lot. I recently shot a news story for HD broadcast on it and was happy with the results. I'm even thinking of upgrading to the GH2.

However, what I can't help but notice that most of the people in my line of work (news/current affairs docs) who are experimenting with "cinematic journalism" shoot with Canons (5D being the most popular). This despite 12 minute limits, overheating issues, and an image that many have described as being not as sharp as the GH13.

What gives?
 
xocomil said:
I have a GH13 and am enjoying it a lot. I recently shot a news story for HD broadcast on it and was happy with the results. I'm even thinking of upgrading to the GH2.

However, what I can't help but notice that most of the people in my line of work (news/current affairs docs) who are experimenting with "cinematic journalism" shoot with Canons (5D being the most popular). This despite 12 minute limits, overheating issues, and an image that many have described as being not as sharp as the GH13.

What gives?
Click to expand...

My guess would be the reason would have been the same for me, had Nikon had an HD camera. I have Nikon still cameras, lenses, etc. So, had Nikon a HD camera in the price range of the GH-1, I probably would have gone with it.

For most pros, they make some choice at some point, and usually have some form of brand loyalty, even if it's in the form of a barrier because one would have to buy all new lenses...

In the case of the GH-1, I did buy an adapter for my more manual Nikon lenses...

The other issue, is I think Canon has just done better with marketing, especially in the T2i class, than Panasonic...
 
xocomil said:
I have a GH13 and am enjoying it a lot. I recently shot a news story for HD broadcast on it and was happy with the results. I'm even thinking of upgrading to the GH2.

However, what I can't help but notice that most of the people in my line of work (news/current affairs docs) who are experimenting with "cinematic journalism" shoot with Canons (5D being the most popular). This despite 12 minute limits, overheating issues, and an image that many have described as being not as sharp as the GH13.

What gives?
Click to expand...

#1. Canon is Full res sensor with Pro body and lenses vs cheap plastic Panasonic GH line...

#2. Easy to produce quality Bokeh and SDOF shots, better low light performance

#3. Every pro still photographer had a full range of lenses already available, simply get body

#4. MFT format is new, and even though I have a GH2, I am not yet willing plunk down near $1k for a MFT only lens than can't be used on a pro Nikon or Canon or "Pretend" Red Scarlet body

#5. No OIS on body... means you are stuck with getting MFT or adapted 4/3 lenses... see #4


That's just the start, but the GH2 may gain some traction with Olympus offering pro weatherproof options and Panasonic developing quality Bright wide-angle lenses...
 
So herd mentality, marketing and brand loyalty?

I still find it strange that with all the favorable reviews of the GH2 all the news/doc cameramen I know (and these guys are good) are still going with the Canons.

I just want to make sure I'm not missing anything here .... brand loyalty means nothing to me. I just want the best tool for the job.
 
I have been shooting with Canon 5dmk2/7D since the 5dmk2 came out over two years ago. I currently have a GH2 on order (I had two but I cancelled one). Panasonic GH cameras are not really here yet, so even if I wanted to switch, I couldnt.

The GH1 is not a bad camera, but I didnt get it because of a variety of faults, many of which were fixed by the eventual firmware hack. The first time I saw one was at a trade show with a PL adapter and cine lens on it, and I played with it briefly but the LCD, the menus, and at the time the image, looked like a consumer cameras' compared to the Canons I was used to.

The GH13 hack looks good, but compatible cameras are not always readily available, plus it's a hack, and while I did use magic lantern for a while some years ago, I prefer not to depend too much on hacked, possibly unstable hardware, especially if offers images with less latitude and more noise than my Canon.

By the time I got much of a chance to think about either of those options, the GH2 started being talked about, and it was eventually clear it was an even better camera for video production. So I am going to give it a serious chance if Panasonic Direct ever fulfills my order that I placed over 3 weeks ago. And then maybe I might even get to use one on a job once I settle on a new lens and am able to find batteries available somewhere...

The GH2 treats video right, but otherwise its sensor is unable to compete with the 2 year old Canon 5dmk2 or even the 7D. Canon implemented video poorly but better than most of the competition, so much of the current support for professional video applications is focused on them. That may change, but it will still take some getting used to working with a camera with a smaller sensor and less latitude, more noise, and no custom curves just for the sake of sharper images and less moire (oh and the monitoring and audio control will help sweeten the deal).
 
Clients, when allowing DSLR shooters to bid on a project, often request Canon by name as a requisite. If you had to call or email them trying to explain why another camera is just as good, if not better, then you may have already lost that job.
 
I agree with tflak. Most people are simply more familiar with Canons and have heard all the buzz the past couple of years about the 5d and 7d. Like anything else it will take time before the mainstream "professional" community switches over. Canon has had a several year head start in terms of marketing, but with time more and more people will start recognizing the alternative options.

I nearly bought a 60d about a month ago only because I wasn't educated on the GH2 well enough. Once I did my reading and test shooting, there was absolutely no comparison. Since buying the camera I've also introduced it to several producers/DP's that had been considering going with a 5d or 7d package for upcoming projects. After introducing them to the GH2, each and every one of them has rethought their decision to go with Canon.

I've also now used my GH2 on several professional shoots, commercial and corporate. My crew and clients were extremely satisfied with the performance of the camera. Especially in comparison to the 5D which I've also used on several recent studio shoots.
 
I think that we are missing a fundamental in that it is all mush. It's all sound and fury. These are not video cameras. These are not digital cinema cameras. And with that being said, people have re-purposed these cameras brilliantly. Some people began before there was a GH1 so a standard was set, a sort of benchmark, and because it's been tried and tested in a number of different scenarios, they go back to that for the comfort of feeling professional, connected to the crest of the VDSLR bandwagon, and bolstered by beautiful footage.

I can tell you honestly that there were three factors that drove me to the GH1, the lensing choices (?), the Panasonic name, and the fact that it was not Canon. I love it, but in a lot of people's eyes I am not as "professional" as my 5d brothers and sisters, or as "indie" as my 7d brothers and sisters because my re-purposed tool was not as "professional" as their re-purposed tool- many people still respond to that.
 
J Bellari said:
#1. Canon is Full res sensor with Pro body and lenses vs cheap plastic Panasonic GH line...

#2. Easy to produce quality Bokeh and SDOF shots, better low light performance

#3. Every pro still photographer had a full range of lenses already available, simply get body

#4. MFT format is new, and even though I have a GH2, I am not yet willing plunk down near $1k for a MFT only lens than can't be used on a pro Nikon or Canon or "Pretend" Red Scarlet body

#5. No OIS on body... means you are stuck with getting MFT or adapted 4/3 lenses... see #4...
Click to expand...

Sorry mate. Didn't see you there.

I've found bokeh pretty easy to achieve with the GH13 (and ND filter). And GH2 seems to allow much better low-light than the GH1.

I think you're right about the build quality, and the Micro Four-thirds format (and the required investment in lenses).

Might be a stupid question, but why would latitude/dynamic range be narrower on GH2? Sensor size?
 
Yep sounds about right nyvz, and really why do purchasers torture themselves with this kind of self-debate/justification over there purchasese.

Its the 'oh god i didnt just go buy the 1% inferior one' - which is a load of bs, if you bought the camera you wanted, (presumably after testing it... and cos it gave you the image you wanted.) then why the hell care what other folks use?

Ive used the Canon Xl's, the panny hvx200, hpx500, pd170s, betacam, (and a k3 hehe) and for every model i chose and used, others used different models. Were they idiots and was i always right? Of course not - its just relative! So debates of this character are a little pointless i reckon!
 
J Bellari said:
#1. Canon is Full res sensor with Pro body and lenses vs cheap plastic Panasonic GH line...

#2. Easy to produce quality Bokeh and SDOF shots, better low light performance

#3. Every pro still photographer had a full range of lenses already available, simply get body

#4. MFT format is new, and even though I have a GH2, I am not yet willing plunk down near $1k for a MFT only lens than can't be used on a pro Nikon or Canon or "Pretend" Red Scarlet body

#5. No OIS on body... means you are stuck with getting MFT or adapted 4/3 lenses... see #4


That's just the start, but the GH2 may gain some traction with Olympus offering pro weatherproof options and Panasonic developing quality Bright wide-angle lenses...
Click to expand...

#1. A large sensor that it is being downscaled to oblivion and resolves significantly less resolution than the Panasonic. Large and heavy bodies and lenses that are clunky and hard to use for video.

#2. If you have a GH2 you know this is a non-issue. It does the same.

#3. Thanks to short flange distance Panasonic can be adapted to nearly any lens ever made by man, including lenses designed for much smaller formats, thanks to telephoto crop mode.

#4. MFT has lenses that blow the optical quality and features of any other lens at the same price out of the water because the smaller format allows for building incredibly sharp and high quality optics at much lower prices. For example, the 20mm f/1.7, the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95, and the G. Vario 14-140mm (yes it's slow but show me another 10X wide to telephoto zoom for under $1,000 anywhere.)

#5. Canon and Nikon don't have this either. Olympus does...with m4/3 cameras. Pentax does as well.
 
GH13... lack of live-out ext monitor support. FPN.
GH2... just came out.

More 5D pros would get serious about m43 when Panasonic releases pro m43 body and pro lenses like 12-50mm 2.5-3.3. Well... Panasonic already released Af100/101 for pros. But Canon is not stupid. 5D mark iii. I think GH series is better suited for hobbyists and indie filmmakers.
 
See Ben_b, you kinda serve my point with that reply... you know what i heard, the GH2 also makes you a fresh cup of coffee in the mornin' and you should just see her in a negligee...
 
Ben_B said:
#1. A large sensor that it is being downscaled to oblivion and resolves significantly less resolution than the Panasonic. Large and heavy bodies and lenses that are clunky and hard to use for video.

#2. If you have a GH2 you know this is a non-issue. It does the same.

#3. Thanks to short flange distance Panasonic can be adapted to nearly any lens ever made by man, including lenses designed for much smaller formats, thanks to telephoto crop mode.

#4. MFT has lenses that blow the optical quality and features of any other lens at the same price out of the water because the smaller format allows for building incredibly sharp and high quality optics at much lower prices. For example, the 20mm f/1.7, the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95, and the G. Vario 14-140mm (yes it's slow but show me another 10X wide to telephoto zoom for under $1,000 anywhere.)

#5. Canon and Nikon don't have this either. Olympus does...with m4/3 cameras. Pentax does as well.
Click to expand...

I forgot the 2 most important points...

#1. timing is everything (they released 5D, 1D Mark iV, 7D, T2i and 60D thru 2010)
#2 "prettier" out of the box colors and look for immediate internet distribution (if you forgive moire and aliasing).

Going forward in 2011, I think the GH2 and AF100 offer a compelling alternative which simply was not around in 2010- See timing is everything...
 
Ben_B said:
Large and heavy bodies and lenses that are clunky and hard to use for video.
Click to expand...

Don't underestimate the value of a large heavy body... In some areas of town, you can turn your camera into a mace and beat the snot out of an assailant... The puny little pannies aint got no substance... they'd just make the mugger madder...
 
tflak said:
Herd mentality.
Click to expand...

+1

A friend and I both have had 7D's since they came out a year ago and when I told him I was going to switch over to the GH2 he said, "Why would you give up the quality of genuine Canon equipment?" I asked him, "What's so special about 'genuine Canon equipment?'"

I think this is just another example of blind brand-loyalty. So many people think Canon is just more "pro" than Panasonic, even though the GH2 is superior at virtually everything compared to the Canons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top