Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: GH2 how worth it really is?  (Read 5771 times)
fredjeang
Guest
« on: December 30, 2010, 11:39:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm more and more curious about this GH2.

I remember very well Michael Reichmann having tested the 5D2 in video, and did a movie in low light conditions, pourring rain in Toronto...so he is pretty much aware of the capabilities of the Canon.
Then Chris having purchasing a GH2, Michael apparently shooting movies and enjoying it in Mexico.

Those are indicators that the GH2 is worth a consideration when it comes to movie.

But then, there are also some questions. The GH2 is a rather small camera not specialy aimed to the same market as the 5D2. So, when you say the GH2 is a really good camera for video, are you refering that it is really good considering it's size, as a walk arround tool, or really can it matches a 5D2 or a 7D in terms of video quality?

Or is the full frame saga again and again a real plus. I filmed with the 5D2 in a an underground parking with very low light and the results where extremely good under those conditions for example. But the portability of the Gh2 catch my attention and I seriously ask myself if it could be a sort of alternative that I could carry when the 5D is not welcome, still giving me similar results. (the capabilities of the Pana in non ideal light conditions, or in deliberate low light scene, is where I have the most doubts)

In other words, would Chris for example, hesitate to film a commercial product with it, like a video tutorial for example?

Or in other other words, is it seriously suitable for indy? Or really is it more to be considered as a good enough camera considering it's size and price point, to carry almost everywhere but with many buts?

Of course I'm strictly talking about movies here.

In short, as the adjective "good" is a large concept, I'd just like to know GH2 users thoughts on that matter and how to consider it.

Thanks for your repplies.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 11:51:06 AM by fredjeang » Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4925



« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2010, 12:25:41 PM »
ReplyReply

To my taste the GH2 is superior in most ways, including image quality, to the 5DMKII.

The Canon has a larger sensor, which gives shallower DOF, but then the Four Thirds sensor on the GH2 is roughly the same size as 35mm motion picture film, which is what we are all used to when it comes the the DOF of the film look.

The Canons use line skipping, while the GH2 uses some form of interpolation, which to many people's eyes has less artifacting and moire. Also, the shorter back focus distance on the GH2 allows mounting a huge range of lenses, including Leica M, Zeiss, PL mount etc, with just a simple adaptor.

Chris sold his 5DMKII and also his 7D to get a GH2 system.

Chris may have his own comments.

Michael

Ps: We are getting Panasonic AF-100s which we will be using as our primary cameras for shooting video from now on, and the fact that they share lenses with the GH2 makes the latter ideal "B" cameras as well on more advanced productions. We'll be selling out Sony EX-1s shortly.


Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1921



« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2010, 12:39:38 PM »
ReplyReply

In other words, would Chris for example, hesitate to film a commercial product with it, like a video tutorial for example?

No hesitations at all.

Other than the DoF difference (for which I prefer the GH2 over the 5D) the GH2 is really a generational improvement. It is a stills camera with excellent video IQ, video performance and handling. Far better IMO than the 5D.

The only downside that I see is actually the size which, while extremely advantageous for weight, is a bit of a problem for someone with very large hands. I am constantly pushing one of the many controls by mistake which is frustrating. I wish there was a Lock button to 'freeze' all of the controls. But so far, I haven't actually ruined any footage this way. Smiley

For any large project, I would still choose a good video camera over a stills camera, but the GH2 has pushed Panasonic's video-capable 'DSLR' well ahead of Canon for the moment.
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2010, 01:34:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you so much for your repplies.

I must say that I'm particularly impressed by what you both are saying, knowing that it's not so easy to impress you, this camera should be indeed to consider, wich I will. and I wasn't expected that to be honest.

Wish you happy new year's night from Madrid. No olvideis comer las uvas al cambio de año. Wink
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 01:43:18 PM by fredjeang » Logged
mikekobal
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 84


« Reply #4 on: December 30, 2010, 06:53:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree with Chris and Michael, (still keeping my 5D though) had my doubts about upgrading to the Gh2 from the Gh1 and ordered a second body immediately after shooting with it for a couple of hours, this will be my main video set up from now on, might get the AF100 but want to try it first and see if its really worth it. The AF100 has some very nice pro controls to monitor exposure, focusing and XLR inputs (sound sensitive projects I hire a sound guy, so that's not a seller for me) higher bitrate, frame rate and size options. I do like the small form factor of the GH2 very much, although the tiny buttons on the back are a real pain I keep hitting the display and quick menu button simultaneously all the time, but I can pack 2 or even 3 GH2 bodies,  a bunch of lenses and essential accessories in a carry on bag! I got mine right at the end of this project -
http://www.mikekobal.com/blog/?p=1123
and immediately saw the advantages over the GH1, going back and forth between the two was a bit frustrating, since the layout for the control buttons changed.
Def my #1 video choice at the moment.
Mike
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2010, 04:42:09 AM »
ReplyReply

im not sure what is a decent wide for these 4/3 cams ?

a 20 2.8 such a bargain on a 5d

for the 7d one has to spend more on a 14 2.8 or 16-50 etc

for the 4/3 im really not sure of a decent wide lens ?



Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 31, 2010, 07:25:39 AM »
ReplyReply

im not sure what is a decent wide for these 4/3 cams ?

a 20 2.8 such a bargain on a 5d

for the 7d one has to spend more on a 14 2.8 or 16-50 etc

for the 4/3 im really not sure of a decent wide lens ?

I've been hoping for an UWA non-fisheye prime for MFTs for a while, but since that seems to not happen in the foreseeable future, I bought the Panasonic 7-14mm (14-28mm 35mm equivalent) which covers ultra-wide to wide. It's a very good zoom lens for still use, relatively light and small, and the much-commented but subjective build quality is exceptional. I haven't done actual head-to-head comparisons, but I'd assess it rivals my Sigma 14mm prime on an APS-C camera. At f/4 it's not the fastest lens, but I have little use for fast wides.

I've shot some video with it at 7mm which is a nice effect. It has very little focus breathing, and is a constant f/4. It doesn't come cheap, though. Olympus has a more affordable 9-18mm which has poorer IQ according to the reviews I've read, but I don't have first-hand experience with it.

edit: I noticed you mentioned 4/3 cameras in your post, although I assume you mean Micro 4/3 which is a different, if closely related, standard. My comments above refer to Micro Four Thirds only; I'm not familiar with Four Thirds cameras or lenses.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2010, 07:30:10 AM by feppe » Logged

Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 02, 2011, 12:18:39 AM »
ReplyReply

I meant whatever size the gh/af100 cameras are

it seems impossible to replicate the look of a simple and cheap lens like a 24 or 20 prime on a 5d, at 4 or 2.8,

a 14 at 4 or 5.6 (you might need to stop down one to sharpen it up) would have waaaay more DOF than a 20 at 4 on a 5d

whatis required is something like a 12 f2 - non existant ?

S



Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
tom b
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 874


WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 02, 2011, 02:55:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Over the past several years I've shot stills for video shoots. One of the the most telling comments from the shoots was most revealing. Basically the admission was that the most important thing from a shoot was that the audio was audible. It was a talking heads shoot which is very typical of the shoots I have I have taken images from. 5D or GH2 the important thing is that the story is more important than the image. DSRL video has still a long way to go!

Cheers,
Logged

bcooter
Guest
« Reply #9 on: January 02, 2011, 10:19:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Lately I've heard that the powers that be in Hollywood are pushing for the 5d/7d and not just for inset shots, or background plates but for principle photography.

Depending on who you talk to it's either the end of the well crafted movie or the beginning of innovation.  It depends on which side of the fence your sitting on.

Nobody at the write the check level is talking about the Panasonic, but that could be because they don't know what it is, or better put they just lump all the new cameras into one brand name, the 5d.

I have the panasonic GF1 which is the same sensor as the other Panasonics and it's ok, but doesn't seem to go to high iso as well and at the write the check level, Hollywood isn't looking at these small digital cameras because of the cost of the camera, they're looking at speed, both in higher iso which allows for smaller lights, less crew, less money on set. 

Still and motion photography are beginning to have parallel development and the 5d mindset has changed everything in both professions.  It may not be great at anything, but it's good at almost everything. (Some would say good enough).

Also as much as dedicated videographers are not comfortable with the short dof of a 5d, the new bread of cinematographers embrace the ability to toss focus by the inch. 

But there is a big difference in what a cinema style artist wants to capture vs. a videographer is usually hired to do. 

The only real innovation needed with video on the camera side is the ability to autofocus with accuracy  with artistic options. 

Other than that I think motion cameras are begging to mimic the development of still cameras and are beginning to hit a plateau.

Not that there won't be new hardware, God there is always new hardware, but I think the most changes will come from the back end in post production.

A few years ago a full blown effects house paid in the millions for licensing of software and purchase of dedicated hardware.  Today you can do a full professional suite for a hundred thousand, tomorrow it probably will be the price of an adobe cs liscense.

(BTW:  a few years ago the high end effects houses in Hollywood had 24 effects directors where today they have a freelance list and three full time sales reps).

Today I don't think anyone believes you can turn on your PC and produce a full special effect, cinema quality movie from your desktop pc, but just like in stills, there was a time that nobody thought photoshop would become a $500 still effects suite that every photographer could and would own.

Regardless, changes are coming to high end motion and the roadmap to cinema has already been laid by the professional still photography industry.

Today when you look into the sound stage a a movie or episodic television set you don't see 24 people standing around waiting for their call to do their specialized craft.  Now if there are 30 people on set, all 30 are working. 

Don't be surprised when you hear the Cohen Brothers or Robert Rodriquez shoots a blockbuster on 4 hand held cameras and edits on an I-mac.

Maybe not today, but it's coming.



IMO


BC
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8948


« Reply #10 on: January 07, 2011, 07:56:37 PM »
ReplyReply


Also as much as dedicated videographers are not comfortable with the short dof of a 5d, the new breed of cinematographers embrace the ability to toss focus by the inch. 


I'm reminded of a current advertisement for MacDonald's chicken nuggets, currently showing on Australian TV. The video camera is sharply focussed on a couple of cartons of chicken nuggets on a table, but the presenter who is extolling the virtues of the chicken nuggets, is almost completely out-of-focus, standing about 3 metres behind the nuggets.

At the end of his short spiel, he asks the cameraman if he can see him and asks if he should move closer. The cameraman then briefly focusses on the presenter who becomes clear and sharp for about one second, resulting in the chicken nuggets becoming briefly out-of-focus, and says, "Yeah, mate! I can see you. Further away would be better."  Grin


Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1697


« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2011, 07:37:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Some questions about focusing the GH2 + lenses...

first, how do you follow focus of moving subjects? Is there a kind of extension? Does something like that works at all with those small AF lenses?
Or do you rely on AF? The touchscreen-focusing is certainly a cute feature... but can you set the speed of the focusing or does it jump to the desired distance?
Or in short: how do you focus a person walking from the background in front of the camera?

Too, in one of the GH2-articles Michael said the finder image zooms in when you manually focus (with the AF lenses)... is there a way to turn that automated zoom-in off (at least in video mode)? That "feature" is not really practical when you don't shoot stills...

By design I think the Leica R lenses should be fine for manual focusing... maybe better as the M lenses, as you need quite short focal lengths and those M wide angles have somewhat small focus rings. Should also be easy to make a nice extension on the R lenses for smooth focusing.
Has anyone tried that combo (GH2 & R)... not for focusing "moving" stills, but to follow focus smoothly?

Many thanks!






« Last Edit: January 19, 2011, 07:39:14 PM by tho_mas » Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4266



« Reply #12 on: January 20, 2011, 04:56:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Kinect is incredible. It can track a person, and knows the distance.

Edmund
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2010


WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2011, 03:13:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Kinect is incredible. It can track a person, and knows the distance.
Not with enough accuracy to focus a DSLR.
Logged
Mike V
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2011, 07:32:37 PM »
ReplyReply

...the Four Thirds sensor on the GH2 is roughly the same size as 35mm motion picture film,

No, it's actually much, much smaller.

The sensor size in a GH2 when shooting video (16:9) is 17.3 x 9.7mm
i.e. an area of 167.8 sq mm.

Super 35 film when shooting for 16:9 ratio or the sensor size (16.9) in cameras like the F35 / Genesis / Red etc. etc.  is 23.6 x 13.3 mm
i.e. an area of 313.9 sq mm.

The Panasonic sensor is nearly half the size.

Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2011, 11:39:38 AM »
ReplyReply

No, it's actually much, much smaller.

The sensor size in a GH2 when shooting video (16:9) is 17.3 x 9.7mm
i.e. an area of 167.8 sq mm.

Super 35 film when shooting for 16:9 ratio or the sensor size (16.9) in cameras like the F35 / Genesis / Red etc. etc.  is 23.6 x 13.3 mm
i.e. an area of 313.9 sq mm.

The Panasonic sensor is nearly half the size.




If you want to make digital video/cinema/motion look like traditional video then all you need to do is pull focus from nose to the horizon and bump the frame rate beyond 24 fps.

Looks like video, smells like video.

If you want to make digital video/cinema/motion like like traditional cinema film then keep it at 24 fps and let the focus gently roll off the main subject.

Though some dp's bemoan the dof of the 5d, it's better to have the option to throw focus than not.

To me the minimum frame size is S35.  That's kind of the warm and comfortable, looks like a motion film camera look.

I just think the Panasonic is too small a format, once cropped down to 16x9 or 185.

IMO

BC
Logged
Mike V
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #16 on: January 25, 2011, 11:52:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree.
The Four Thirds sensor is just too small.

It's not just about depth of field.

Longer lenses very often look nicer. Nicer perspective. More compressed background. Less distortion etc.

To get the same field of view yet using a longer focal length is a huge advantage.

Also with a bigger sensor, often the image quality is better.

If you compare the video from the 5D and the 7D, the video from the 5D looks considerably better.
Yet by the numbers it shouldn't look much different.

Despite all the technical faults (high compression, crappy Codec etc.) the video from a 5D has a "Big camera" sort of look.

Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad