Why do the Canon's look so good?

[roxics]

These boards lately seem to tout the GH2 as the Jesus camera. I read a lot of people bash on the Canon's. Aliasing, moire, less than full HD resolution, poor quality 720p, etc. On paper (or rather the web) I read this and say "man that's horrible, guess I better join the ranks of the GH2 crowd." Yet over and over the Canon cameras seem to be the most used. From Hollywood cinematographers to run and gun indie filmmakers. I just look at the images shot on them and I'm impressed by the colors and cinematic quality.

So if these Canon cameras are so horrible like I keep reading then why does their imagery look so beautiful to me? Why are so many people using them and why am I not seeing any high end productions or filmmakers shooting with the GH13/2 aside from Philip Bloom shooting his mom in the kitchen?

I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm a GH1 owner. But yet the Canon look impresses me more than the Panasonic stuff. Does Canon put some kind of fairy dust in these cameras that make them so appealing even with all their faults?

 

[Kholi]

Flame Bait.

 

[wgzn]

id like to attempt to end these kinds of discussions once and for all:

it ALL comes down to work style, work flow and general expectation.

i too am an OLD SLR dude. i like the way big DSLRS like the canon 5D and 7D feel in my hands. i was dead set on a 5D/7D until i used them for video. i just didn't like the few hits they take in the video arena. hits i consider significant to what i shoot. like the variety of "hack requirements" to optimize performance, output monitoring, shot length and ever possible aliaising/moire situation. even though i prefer the way the canons feel and their general superiority in the stills-only race. as well as the look of their video in an optimum shooting scenario. sadly, the GH2 made more sense for the type of work i do.

i think it comes down to a couple different camps. the indie/feature/music/art crowd VS the run-and-gun/corporate crowd.
the indie/artsy shooters TEND TO have a little bit more latitude in their shots. while the run-and-gunners tend to have to work with a different and often more confining set of requirements.

as i've mentioned, personally i LIKE the look of the canon footage better. BUT there are things inherent to that footage (specifically moire issue) that i know my clients would see and complain about. so for me it was a decision of need vs preference.

since purchasing, and getting used to my GH2 i'm feeling much better about a decision i previously considered a big compromise. but you have to understand and i think those in the music production world will reinforce this. that if you try to make one device be too many things. some of those things are going to suffer.

one camp can hate on the other all day long. as you will read in these forums. but you have to look at the pros and cons objectively. and accept that its a matter of choosing the better tool for the work that YOU do. without getting caught up in marketing horsecrap, internet hear-say or blind faith logic like "because xyz director uses one"