Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

GH2 molesting the 5dIII

profile picture
Downtofilm
Posts: 6896 - Karma: 20,395
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7722/5d-mark-iii-vs-gh2-vs-nex-7

5D Mark III vs GH2 and NEX 7 from Andrew Reid on Vimeo.



Thats also without any firmware hacks.

Word.
Jun 12 2012 1:00AM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,246
I've seen a lot on SP that the 7.5 (rokinon brand) is the best fisheye for it by a mile!

http://forums.skateperception.com/index.php?/topic/296513-gh1-fisheye-question/
Jun 13 2012 1:22PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,246
Also, for a gh2, it's rather "budget friendly" for a nice setup:

GH2 body - $700 (used)
Samyang 7.5 fisheye - $300 (new)
Nikon 80-200 2.8 two touch - $900 (used in great condition, can be had cheaper)
Tokina 11-16 2.8 nikon mount - $600 (used)
Panasonic 25 1.4 - $650 (used)
Tamron 17-50 2.8 nikon mount - $330 (used)

700
300
900
600
650
300
-----
3450

all said and done thats a really good deal...
Jun 13 2012 1:53PM
0 0
profile picture
plorr
Posts: 3131 - Karma: 528
I decided to bite the bullet on the Lumix 7-14 f4 and I've gotten great results with it. By far the best build quality and image quality of any native m43 lens I've used. Only issues are it doesn't accept filters and is relatively slow. Other than that the Nikon version of the Tokina 11-16 2.8 would be a good slightly cheaper choice.
Jun 13 2012 2:15PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
I'll upload some skiing/lens samples when I get back from the dentist. Tooth decay is no laughing matter.
Jun 13 2012 2:39PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
The two best UWA for m4/3 are the Olympus 12mm f2 and the Tokina 11-16 2.8. The Olympus has really good autofocus from what I hear (could be useful if you're shooting a glidecam), and it has full compatibility with the GH2. On the other hand, I went with the Tokina because it's simply the closest you can get to cinema glass in a wide angle.
Jun 13 2012 2:41PM
0 0
profile picture
ThunderousFilms
Posts: 674 - Karma: 2,317
https://vimeo.com/37002436


https://vimeo.com/32371578


https://vimeo.com/39314067


https://vimeo.com/33894300


My buddy makes some amazing edits with the GH2, that being said the files type that the GH2 uses are a bitch compared to my 7d files in post before you convert them.
Jun 13 2012 2:52PM
0 0
profile picture
plorr
Posts: 3131 - Karma: 528
I think the workflow is actually easier than a canon DSLR. No need to use mpegstreamclip or anything like that. I just log and transfer to prores right from the SD card in FCP7.
Jun 13 2012 3:30PM
0 0
profile picture
zahava
Posts: 7791 - Karma: 12,039
Yeah, I posted a link to it earlier. So many skate filmers' use a gh2 these days.
Jun 13 2012 3:38PM
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
you can do that in FCP with a canon DSLR too, right? you just need a plug-in i think
Jun 13 2012 4:04PM
0 0
profile picture
Downtofilm
Posts: 6896 - Karma: 20,395
this is what I do
Jun 13 2012 4:16PM
0 0
profile picture
Downtofilm
Posts: 6896 - Karma: 20,395
Thinking of making the Nikon switch.

GH3 or Fs-700
Nikon 80-200 2.8
Nikon 24-70 2.8
Tokina 11-16 Nikon mount (does it have an aperture ring?)

Jun 13 2012 4:35PM
0 0
profile picture
BolderPro
Posts: 767 - Karma: 426
Alright so I am no expert on photo/video (not even close) and I'm not trying to be a troll, but I have been in the game for long enough that I have realized now that what you shoot on (your body not lens) really does not make all that difference (until you get above the $5,000 bar).

The difference between a d3200, a Gh2, a t2i, 5d or a 7d or any other dslr is honestly not going to make any difference that will be visible to a viewer. The main importance of shooting is your flow, angles, and vital settings (exposure, Frame rate, etc) with that in mind I really don't think one of the listed above cameras would be able to "outdo" another one of them based on the tiny spec differences. the only way one of these cameras could outdo another one of these cameras is by the shooter himself.

With all of this in mind my point is to say that why is there all this talk of one camera crushing another one or why does everyone want to hop onto the crowd of one camera because it has a small spec different from their current camera, When in all reality any one of the above listed cameras could create a video that would be "professional".


Jun 13 2012 4:45PM
0 0
profile picture
NPF
Posts: 5152 - Karma: 12,116
wow thats a crazy difference!
Jun 13 2012 5:17PM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,328
nope :(
Jun 13 2012 5:22PM
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
so im confused how the fuck you would change your aperture then
Jun 13 2012 5:24PM
0 0
profile picture
zahava
Posts: 7791 - Karma: 12,039
But there's an adapter than can control it. Ask landis.
Jun 13 2012 5:26PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,246
nikon controls its aperture mechanically, not electronically like canon does. So you just need an adapter that has a lever to push the aperture lever
Jun 13 2012 5:31PM
0 0
profile picture
Mkvackay
Posts: 1903 - Karma: 5,465
yea durand kills it. still don't know what the hell his v-pod looks like but it seems to work well
Jun 13 2012 6:18PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
I hear this argument time and time again, and it's nonsense. I don't make videos to please others, and I don't justify mediocrity just because I know I can technically get away with it. You have to take into account how we as artists wish to evolve our craft for personal satisfaction, not just whether or not people will accept us.

That said, if you can't make pleasing images with a t2i, a GH2 isn't going to change anything. However if you're constantly find yourself restricted by certain aspects of your camera, then there's nothing wrong with switching to a tool that suits the job.

Jun 13 2012 6:34PM
0 0
profile picture
zahava
Posts: 7791 - Karma: 12,039
^this so much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jun 13 2012 6:41PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,246
EOShd or eosusers or whatever that site is called is also a huge fanboy of the lumix systems. Will do whatever, whenever to bash canon products now. It's humorous!

also also, @landis, I believe sometimes the slight quality gain from ditching an entire system and switching to another can be more of a hassle then anything else. For those that do work for clients, if they are happy with the quality they see, and couldn't tell the difference between a 5d III or a gh2, then why waste the money and huge time/effort to sell everything you have and get a new setup, for a slight edge that only you'll appreciate? I think this is what that kid was getting at, although I do agree with you about the whole self pleasure aspect.
Jun 13 2012 6:51PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
1. GH2 is all around cheaper to work with, unless you need to switch after investing all your money into closed-system glass (Canon), in which case that's a user error. And even then, your lenses should hold their value, so switching isn't expensive nor is it difficult.

2. Again, you can get away with doing commercial work using an iPhone. Normal people can't tell the difference between Planet Earth footage and GoPro footage. The US as a culture is particularly guilty of this design injustice: make the most money off the cheapest product (the fruits of capitalism, right?). Look at Japan where every little detail of every street sign and door hinge was consciously designed. Could they have gotten away with something trashy or boring? Yes, but they tend to go the extra mile and as a result Japanese civilization is largely more pleasant to look at from a design perspective. The same applies to video; if you're just selling pixels rather than art, then you might as well choose a different job with better pay.

3. EOShd is just as much of a circlejerk as any other site. I think the reason why I hate talking to people about cameras in general is because people already seem to have made up their mind, usually revolving around brand loyalty as if everything in life needs to have some form of "team" dichotomy to it. It's one thing to prefer products of a certain brand, but I won't hesitate to criticize and sell my $3000+ investment if I'm not pleased with it.

Thing is, comparing the GH2 to any Canon DSLR really is apples to oranges. You can prefer one over the other, but it is a matter of fact that the GH2 is technologically superior to the Canon DSLRs. That's why I made the switch, and lo and behold, I ended up slapping myself in the head for not switching sooner. However, Canon DSLRs are still cameras first and foremost, so it only makes sense that still photography is where they outshine the GH2.
Jun 13 2012 7:22PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
All the follow cams were shot with the Tokina 11-16 @ 14mm or 16mm. The stationary wide shot of Durtschi (after the flag) was at 11mm. The shirtless dude was the Lumix 20mm 1.7, and the telephoto shot of Mt. Hood was my Pentax SMC 50mm 1.4 in ETC mode (4x crop factor total).

Password: boourns

Boggle Tournament? from Landis Tanaka on Vimeo.




This was shot with mostly the Lumix 20mm 1.7, and the long shots were the Pentax 50mm in ETC mode.

Rainy Daydream from Landis Tanaka on Vimeo.

Jun 13 2012 7:56PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,246
valid points you make, and yes, the GH2 is the superior camera in terms of resolution and image quality.

I mean, for me personally, I'm invested in Canon. I like their stuff from a photography standpoint, and am pleased enough with their video side to see no reason to switch. I'm used to the canon interface that taking the time to relearn nikon would be annoying, and having to replace everything from lenses/bodies down to flash triggers and batteries would be an absolute nightmare (the time it takes to sell everything on a used market and keep my loses to a minium would take forever, having to get good deals would add another chunk of time, etc)

But hey, if I wasn't such a gearwhore and wasn't trying to actually get out and shoot for once, I'd probably consider the switch! Nikon glass has been tempting me for a while...
Jun 13 2012 8:12PM
0 0
profile picture
BolderPro
Posts: 767 - Karma: 426
Im wasn't saying that you would get the same results with any camera but between the best canon, nikon, sony, and panasonic HDSLRs the difference is so small that I wouldn't see any difference in my own resolution, I totally agree that you shoot for your own enjoyment and pride but you can throw as good of stuff together with a 7d as you can with a gh2. Conditions would have to be EXACT to be able to tell the difference between the resolution of one vs the other.
Jun 13 2012 8:23PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
I would say the difference is pretty large. I that might be the case with poorly compressed web video, but even in most instances I can immediately recognize whether a vimeo video was shot with a GH2 or a 5D.

The Canon DSLRs are ~700 lines, and the GH2 is ~900 lines. Not a big number, but definitely noticeable. Watching uncompressed footage on a 48" TV via HDMI, the difference in resolution between the GH2 and the 5Dmk2 is ginormous. Of course, other aspects go into perceived resolution as well. For instance, the GH2's cleaner noise and lack of moiré give the image clarity. You can actually turn up the sharpness without having moiré ruin the shot.


Jun 13 2012 8:39PM
0 0
profile picture
zahava
Posts: 7791 - Karma: 12,039
Honestly, the difference between the two cameras would be so small that your BIAS towards one or the other would take over. So many factors such as lenses, editing (codecs/compression), your skill, light, and weather would make more of a difference; it's truly apples and oranges.


What isn't apples and oranges is a gh2 vs film.

FIlm >>> sushi >>>poop >>> t2i >>> gh2

#fucklandis
#fuckmefuckyoufuckanythingthatisntfilm
Jun 13 2012 8:56PM
0 0
profile picture
BolderPro
Posts: 767 - Karma: 426
.
Jun 13 2012 9:01PM
0 0
profile picture
Downtofilm
Posts: 6896 - Karma: 20,395
Click for larger image

I found a picture of you.

Jun 13 2012 9:06PM
0 0
profile picture
zahava
Posts: 7791 - Karma: 12,039
Click for larger image

I found a picture of you.
Jun 13 2012 9:30PM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,328
i know, it's just unfortunate since the adapters that can control aperture are more expensive and you don't actually know which f stop you're using.
Jun 14 2012 1:43AM
0 0
profile picture
=nick=
Posts: 10471 - Karma: 2,182
wait, are you saying you weren't on Canon's Varsity team? I'm thoroughly confused now.
Jun 14 2012 3:39AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61604 - Karma: 123,122
avchd > h264... just saying. Every time I have to use a h264 shot, i want to slice my wrists. Its the worst fucking codec, yet canon keeps pumping out their dslrs using it. avchd is surprisingly easy to use and yes you do have to convert it, but if you're not converting your h264 to a friendlier codec, get learned. Even coming from 422 dvcprohd, 420 avchd holds up pretty well. h264 does not.
Jun 14 2012 3:58AM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
Thanks for that, I completely agree with this. I can easily see the difference in the footage, and if you're at a level where what's holding you back is your gear, it's time for new gear.

want my work to be the best it can be for my standards, if the client doesn't notice, I don't care, because I do.
Jun 14 2012 5:08AM
0 0
profile picture
M3TRO
Posts: 645 - Karma: 5,399
#HDSLRproblems
Jun 14 2012 5:18PM
0 0
profile picture
NWPA
Posts: 2309 - Karma: 165
Im pretty sure Im gonna wait until the GH3 comes out in August, anybody have any idea if thats gonna be a lot more expensive than the gh2??
Jun 15 2012 5:12AM
0 0
profile picture
MatRich
Posts: 4789 - Karma: 1,813
alright heres my thing, for the last 2 years I have been thinking like this thread in general... what amazing piece of gear can I get to make my videos look better.

I have been shooting 7D for 2 years now and I have thought about adding to my kit, even changing it for "superior systems" like fs100, GH2, 5D...

I spent thousands of dallars building my kit with stabilizers, rigs, sound, lenses, sliders... Recently I changed my approach with film in general and with how I construct my kit.

It doesn't even come down to having a kit that makes your image look good or being able to get the appropriate settings and performance out of any camera. Its not about an image that will make people go "wow that is such amazing quality!"

Its not about settings or rules, sensor performance or lens quality ( to a certain extent)

Its about the narrative and visual quality of your work! Fuck gear fuck specs, the best, most impressive works I have seen could have been shot on an old cellphone and I still would have been amazed.

People should stop fussing so much with gear and start learning more about film language, how to construct a scene... any way to make your work step away from wow nice quality and move into the wow amazing work category.

That being said, a combination of this with a relative amount of quality is important or else the audience is distracted. there is no point however in fussing so much over it. The fact is, anything above and including a t3 is enough to retain the audiences attention so stop fussing about what better gear to get, what setting to use, and focus on what better technique to use so your work has impact!
Jun 16 2012 11:23AM
0 0
profile picture
BolderPro
Posts: 767 - Karma: 426
EXACTLY! this is what i was trying to say above
Jun 16 2012 12:18PM
0 0
profile picture
.Max.
Posts: 2930 - Karma: 701
This makes a lot of sense from a directors standpoint, I agree with everything you said. However there are people who love the technical aspects of filmmaking and earn satisfaction from getting the best possible image they can. There are a lot of elements in filmmaking and there is something for everyone, it's the art form that uses all other art forms.
Jun 16 2012 12:55PM
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
exactly.



i don't feel like i'm a filmmaker who's super concerned with story. i don't really care about being a director. i'm mainly interested in the visual aspect; in getting, as you said, the best possible image i can. so it's worth it to me to invest in gear that will bring me closer to that goal. shooting a great story on an iPhone would bring me far less artistic satisfaction.
Jun 16 2012 1:05PM
0 0
profile picture
M3TRO
Posts: 645 - Karma: 5,399
I think maintaining an equal balance of everything is important from the standpoint of an independent filmmaker. People that find themselves obsessive over IQ and technical range play very important roles in production companies and other large firms.

Believing that advanced gear will improve your film-making is like believing that new skis will make your ski better... It's just foolish.
Jun 17 2012 11:10PM
0 0
profile picture
bakedpow
Posts: 8770 - Karma: 10,467
This.

I feel like when the subjects we are interested in filming are action based like skiing you move away from the "story" and focus more on perfecting colors, angles, sound etc.

when filming things more mundane it helps keep the viewer interested by providing a story.
Jun 17 2012 11:18PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
I somewhat agree, and I somewhat disagree. For one, I reject the notion that the literary aspect of a film (story) is the golden priority. Some of us approach filmmaking in a more abstract fashion. The only reason I use a camera in the first place is because I don't have the patience to learn how to handle a paint brush. Yes, film is a temporal art form, and therefore people will always be concerned with the sequence of events. And yes, the way a story is conceptually depicted visually is important. I agree with all of those things.

But dismissing the importance of image quality just because "most people" will focus on the story isn't exactly fair. Filmmaking a team effort. The DP's job doesn't concern the integrity of the script; his only concern is illustrating it visually. And I would hope any self respecting DP is a perfectionist when it comes to IQ. He could use a cheap camera and get beautiful images (28 Days Later was shot on miniDV), but that doesn't mean that using the best tools possible is a fruitless endeavor. If that were the case, studios wouldn't bother financing billions of dollars of film stock, despite the fact that the average Joe can't discern the aesthetic difference between COPS and Children of Men.

It's a matter of using the right tool. For 98% of people on NS, a t2i and three lenses are more than enough. However if you're like me and find yourself cursing certain inescapable limitations of your gear for your style of shooting (my conflict of deep focus vs moiré), then you probably aren't using the right tool.

The truth is that the best gear will only allow you to work to your full potential, not further the boundaries of that potential itself. I'm being pedantic, but I feel many people in this thread are overshooting the crucial grey area of this subject.
Jun 18 2012 3:09PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61604 - Karma: 123,122
So I've been reading this thread and this topic of "buying gear makes you better" shit came up and ive been slightly avoiding it, not sure what to say about it. Landis hit the nail on the head for me. Saying you don't need a high quality image is true, but it depends on who you are. I had an hvx for while and i knew it was less sharp than a dslr and knew it wasn't true HD, etc. but i keep on going with my hvx because it worked well for me and i didnt want to compromise with a camera that had downfalls.

Them the af100/fs100 came out and it was the camera I always dreamed about, dslr with a professional video body. So i got one, it was expensive, but it was worth it to me. Has the quality of my edits increased? IQ yes, but i'd say this year was one of my best making edits, but it wasn't because of my camera. I went out, worked hard with riders, worked hard editing and pumped out a bunch of content that I was stoked on. I tried new things, I stuck with old things and i feel like i got a little better and i think i couldve done it with my hvx too.

Its all about the effort you put into your filmmaking and how you can effectively use the tool you have. I admit myself i get caught up in numbers and specs and shit too, but sometimes you just gotta forget about that and just film, thats the best part anyway.
Jun 18 2012 4:22PM
0 0
profile picture
.Max.
Posts: 2930 - Karma: 701

Canon 5Dmk3 video review from Philip Bloom on Vimeo.



He talks about this issue.



For those too lazy to watch, he explains that the hacked GH2 is sharper, however it has that micro 4/3's sensor, meaning poor low light performance and increased lens lenghts. It's also plagued with a lower dynamic range. Because of the lack of aliasing on the 5diii you can apply sharpening in post and get an image almost indistinguishable (in sharpness) from the GH2's. Food for thought.
Jun 18 2012 8:22PM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,328
and you can get all of this for 4x the price! wow!
Jun 18 2012 8:43PM
0 0
profile picture
.Max.
Posts: 2930 - Karma: 701
Hahah I'm not arguing for either one. Just putting more information on the table.
Jun 18 2012 8:55PM
0 0
profile picture
B.Taillefer
Posts: 420 - Karma: 321
Although yes the smaller sensor size and 2x crop factor could be seen as downfalls, one can adjust to them quite easily, and personally I don't see the point in spending an exponentially greater amount of money to achieve the same footage as a GH2.

If the GH2 shoots a better quality (sharper) image for less money then there really isn't any reason to get the 5d in my opinion for purely videography. Photography is a completely different story
Jun 18 2012 9:15PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
Haha hyperbole much? The GH2 has its fair share of flaws, but these aren't them. I wouldn't say it's "plagued" with lower dynamic range. If anything it has a smoother knee, which technically means less DR, but also more pleasing highlights. The 5d tries to get every last drop of DR in the image, and as a result the knee is painfully sharp and takes an obnoxious amount of post work to mask. Low light performance is far from "poor," it is just marginally surpassed by the 5d. The difference isn't enough to require any extra lighting.

Really though, there is no reason to pay an extra $2,700 just so you can rely on post-sharpening a low res image with a severely crippled codec.
Jun 18 2012 10:17PM
0 0
profile picture
SSteezle
Posts: 9297 - Karma: 7,702
I agree with most people in this thread so far. It's not the gear it's the person behind the camera. I'm also guilty to getting stuck up in the camera specs.


but, here's one of my favorite edits I always look back at.

Filmed on a vx2100

Splendid Prod. Winter 08 Montage. from Ante Olofsson on Vimeo.

Jun 18 2012 11:34PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)