Skeptikal
Active member
I guess we can both move on with our lives now...
Why do so many pros still choose Canons over Panasonics?
- Thread starter xocomil
- Start date
- Status
I guess we can both move on with our lives now...
HaHaHa...
Isn't that what Ted at Red was doing at CES today with the working Scarlet prototype brick?
He wasn't too willing to part with his footage... we might have seen 24mbps...
just havin fun! I'll probably buy one...
I purchased a Canon simply because I need it to be compatible with other videographers I work with. GH1 without a hack isn't anywhere near as good in my opinion, and I don't want to trust a hack during mission critical shooting. I played with a GH2 at Texas Media Systems last month and I have to say that I really don't care for the touchscreen controls for things like aperture. I'm too used to the physical controls that I can use without having to look. I think the GH-series puts out some great images, and I want the AF-100, but I go for what is right for me, not necessarily which is "best" since that's such a relative term anyway.
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Thank goodness Skeptical! Are you giving me a 2nd chance after all? u know... to be together! Muuaaaah!!!
hehehe
Gary Huff im all with you about touch screen controls for aperture, and yep im definately keeping my seagull beadie eye on the af-100, just waiting till prob Spring before getting one personally.
Jester2138
Well-known member
I think you're overreacting to some gearheads having a bit of fun.
Undoubtedly until the GH2 the Canon's were clearly the better choice if video image quality was all you cared about.
That's not the case anymore, and I for one am very interested to see how the professional filmmaking community responds. It'll be a bit of a litmus test, one might say.
I'm not using a GH2 until Shane Hurlbut shoots with one.
Just kidding, I love mine. I am a professional by definition, I guess I just don't have a well-read blog or feel the need to trumpet the noise to the world.
In the end its all about the results I get for me, If I like what I see I use whatever it takes.
GH2 is a really neat camera.
Just kidding, I love mine. I am a professional by definition, I guess I just don't have a well-read blog or feel the need to trumpet the noise to the world.
In the end its all about the results I get for me, If I like what I see I use whatever it takes.
GH2 is a really neat camera.
Phil Rhodes
Well-known member
To answer the original question, simply because in London I can rent a 5D but I can't rent a GHx. There are situations where I would have used the latter preferentially but simply couldn't get one. I would have bought a GH2 if it had had 25p, but that's only because I would consider it a camera for personal projects or stuff where the client isn't clued in on that sort of level - professionally it's Canon all the way and that's due to nothing more than what people know and what's more heavily promoted.
If you want reasons, the 5D does have better dynamic range and therefore somewhat nicer pictures, the picture styles are a little more flexible than GHx colorimetry, CF cards are better and more robust than SD, and the availability of lenses is far greater. The GH series have better moire and rolling shutter performance.
Pick and choose, really.
If you want reasons, the 5D does have better dynamic range and therefore somewhat nicer pictures, the picture styles are a little more flexible than GHx colorimetry, CF cards are better and more robust than SD, and the availability of lenses is far greater. The GH series have better moire and rolling shutter performance.
Pick and choose, really.
Canon really does have the better brand name, a specialist professional camera/imaging manufacturer that is known to the normal Joe.
Panasonic on the other hand have a cheaper perception, pretty much make every piece of electronics under the sun, and even though they have a professional video camera division most people aren't aware of it. Panasonics just aren't sexy, even if they are very capable tools
Panasonic on the other hand have a cheaper perception, pretty much make every piece of electronics under the sun, and even though they have a professional video camera division most people aren't aware of it. Panasonics just aren't sexy, even if they are very capable tools
All my Nikon lenses work with my GH2. All my Olympus OM lenses as well. All Olympus Four Thirds lenses also, even with AF to some degree. The only thing necessary is a cheap adapter.
And so do hundreds of lenses made by Zeiss or Leica or Pentax or Minolta or Konica as well. Just to name a few. (Also Canon FD, if you prefer Canon.)
The only missing lens is a fast wide angle, something like a 12mm f1.4. But that gap is expected to be closed this year.
There may be good reasons to choose Canon over Panasonic, but availability of lenses really isn't one of them.
Phil Rhodes
Well-known member
Well, OK, you can readily adapt the micro 4/3 stuff to practically any mount you like because the FFD is so small; this would be one of the advantages of the thing. I have a 1/2" broadcast lens I'd quite like to try and given an appropriately-shaped piece of metal it is theoretically possible.
However as a practical matter, if you want to go out and rent stuff, what's available is Canon and a bit of Nikon, which is what I was talking about.
However as a practical matter, if you want to go out and rent stuff, what's available is Canon and a bit of Nikon, which is what I was talking about.
skulpt
Member
It's not just the herd.
1) Even the T2i has a lot more dynamic range than the GH1 (DPReview hasn't reviewed GH2). It's 7.8 EV of DR vs 8.8 for even the T2i.
2) Color rendition. Panasonic seems to render colors differently than the Canon cameras. Actually quite differently from most. The differences are quite dramatic actually:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/page27.asp?color_compare=panasonic_dmcgh1/0
3) Build quality. Enough said
4) Some don't want to swap their equipment every time another company advances. I realize that true professionals want the best right away, but some of these guys have spent $$$$$$$ on Canon lenses that work natively on their Canon Cameras.
5) Greater artistic freedom with DoF. Like it or not, a lot of clients are starting to like the extra DoF in some of the work shown. While it might not be "film like" vs years past, it is something people like Phil Bloom are liking and using for clients.
5) Herd
6) Looks more professional
I think one thing people keep on forgetting is that detail isn't everything. It's not like you have sharpness, and now every film maker is set. Color rendition, dynamic range, and control of DoF are other reasons besides the "herd" view that people will continue to use Canon over Panasonic for many applications. Of COURSE more will start using the GH2, but detail isn't the only feature some of these film makers are looking for.
1) Even the T2i has a lot more dynamic range than the GH1 (DPReview hasn't reviewed GH2). It's 7.8 EV of DR vs 8.8 for even the T2i.
2) Color rendition. Panasonic seems to render colors differently than the Canon cameras. Actually quite differently from most. The differences are quite dramatic actually:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/page27.asp?color_compare=panasonic_dmcgh1/0
3) Build quality. Enough said
4) Some don't want to swap their equipment every time another company advances. I realize that true professionals want the best right away, but some of these guys have spent $$$$$$$ on Canon lenses that work natively on their Canon Cameras.
5) Greater artistic freedom with DoF. Like it or not, a lot of clients are starting to like the extra DoF in some of the work shown. While it might not be "film like" vs years past, it is something people like Phil Bloom are liking and using for clients.
5) Herd
6) Looks more professional
I think one thing people keep on forgetting is that detail isn't everything. It's not like you have sharpness, and now every film maker is set. Color rendition, dynamic range, and control of DoF are other reasons besides the "herd" view that people will continue to use Canon over Panasonic for many applications. Of COURSE more will start using the GH2, but detail isn't the only feature some of these film makers are looking for.
Hmmm... This makes me want to do a shootout between the 5DMK2 and the GH2.
Same Lens, Same Lighting Condition, both optimally post processes using 5DToRGB... maybe I can get on it this week.
Panasonic has TERRIBLE marketing and distribution in the USA. No average person knows about this camera. Everyone knows about Canon.
The canon is a larger more "pro" appearing camera - appearances can be deceiving. My favorite thing about the GH2 is that it is light and small enough for me to carry everywhere unobtrusively. Finally a camera that is small enough that I don't feel like I need a babysitter for it when I want to pay attention to my wife and the world around me but still has so many of the things that I look for in a creative tool.
Same Lens, Same Lighting Condition, both optimally post processes using 5DToRGB... maybe I can get on it this week.
Panasonic has TERRIBLE marketing and distribution in the USA. No average person knows about this camera. Everyone knows about Canon.
The canon is a larger more "pro" appearing camera - appearances can be deceiving. My favorite thing about the GH2 is that it is light and small enough for me to carry everywhere unobtrusively. Finally a camera that is small enough that I don't feel like I need a babysitter for it when I want to pay attention to my wife and the world around me but still has so many of the things that I look for in a creative tool.
Personally I think the Color Matrix in Video mode on the 5DMK2 just plain blows. I feel like the skin tones are so much nicer in the GH2 (and that goes for every skin tone) Of course, it's also easier to adjust the White Balance Matrix on the fly using the GH2 as well using the 2D chart and plotting your color shift. I know there is a huge issue with Gamma in the h.264 implementation and quicktime - but I always feel like you end up guess and checking 25 times with a canon, whereas I got great results in about 5 minutes of tweaking with the GH2.
Field of View on a Micro Four Thirds camera is a much bigger problem than "lack" of depth of field control. It's not like anyone shooting 16mm films ever said "you know, I love 16mm - but I wish I had shallower depth of field - you know like nothing is in focus - yeah, that's what I want." The biggest limitation of 16mm has been resolution and grain structure due to the photochemical process.
Now that I need a between a 24 and 35 prime to achieve a "normal" field of view I'm a bit annoyed. I'm used to walking around with a 35 or 50 and being set for the day...just means more shopping...tokina 11-16 here I come for a wide.
roei z
Veteran
not to my taste.. EVERY 5d/7d/t2i footage i've seen so far has the same videoish color that immediately labels it at my "don't like it" dept.. GH2 color (or Panny) just looks REAL to me.
my personal opinion judging from watchimg a lot of films and finding no resemblance at all in the canons. as for being objective: i even find the AF100 color to be videoish more than the GH's.
Phil Rhodes
Well-known member
One of the biggest issues with 5D colorimetry is that the factory default setup is an absolute war crime. The "standard" picture style is clippy as hell, and a lot of video has been shot in those modes and put online, creating an impression that the thing is not as good as in fact it is.
joe1946
Veteran
roei z
Veteran
that might be so, but even watching "black swan" with it's subway shots, i was very disappointed to find out it looked just like what i mentioned above. i really think the GH2 could fit more into the film look.
(anyway, as a side note, right now i'm a bit upset from seeing the latest scarlet footage.. burns the AF100 to the ground. but i'll get over it. in any case it will take a minimum of a year to try getting one)
Last edited:
- Status