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!

Panasonic GH2 vs. Canon 60D

profile picture
h.robarge
Posts: 1284 - Karma: 1,800
Hey NS I have a 60D right now and I was wondering if a GH2 would be a better choice for me. I do about 75-25 video to pictures and film just about everything. Nature, biking, skiing, skating, tramping, etc....
So...what do you guys think?
Jun 5 2013 12:24AM
19 8
profile picture
Evangelista
Posts: 481 - Karma: 1,583
If you have the money to invest into the GH2 I would do it.
Jun 5 2013 2:13AM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
GH2 is alright, but I hate the files, and the menu is seriously the most insane shitshow haha.
Jun 5 2013 2:54AM
2 0
profile picture
Forcillo
Posts: 3801 - Karma: 3,580
GH2 will produce better video, so depending on your budget it will perform better for you. The pictures aren't up to par with Canon but you shoot more video anyway.
Jun 5 2013 7:57AM
0 0
profile picture
j.benziger
Posts: 688 - Karma: 8,024
Not to thread jack or anything but...I am in the same dilemma and i have heavily weighed out the comparison between the two. I was going to pick the 60d because of the more waterproofing/ more durable body. Do you guys think I should really worry about durability and waterproofing or go with what is going to produce better video?
Jun 5 2013 10:27AM
0 0
profile picture
Evangelista
Posts: 481 - Karma: 1,583
I think it's more important to invest in something that will produce higher quality video. You can always buy protective gear for your camera if you need to.
Jun 5 2013 11:32AM
0 1
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,328
well the 60d's body is definitely nothing to brag about...
Jun 5 2013 2:47PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61602 - Karma: 123,028
Worrying about water resistance and build isnt worth it.

OP and pbj the gh2 is a great camera. Will it cause you to produce BETTER videos? not necessarily. Yes, the IQ and resolution is slightly better but that isn't going to make your videos automatically better. I've seen a ton of amazing videos made on canon dslrs, they are capable of creating a beautiful image.

Switching from 60d to gh2 is a big process that of course depends on the gear you have now. If you do not own a camera yet, getting a gh2 is a good idea. If you already own a 60d, just keep shooting with it, buy a new lens, get a mic. The key to a good video is to practice, not upgrade your equipment.
Jun 5 2013 3:46PM
4 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
GH2 may have 'better IQ' (honestly I don't REALLY find it better enough to make a big deal over), but the Canon also has a lot more affordable fast glass, and with the larger format sensor, Depth of field looks a lot better.
Jun 5 2013 8:00PM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,328
uhh that's definitely debatable
Jun 6 2013 1:34PM
2 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61602 - Karma: 123,028
Maybe if you're talking native lenses and you mean the 50mm 1.8 but other than that, no way. GH2 is easier to adapt older, cheap, fast lenses to.

Now, if you're talking about photo and using AF its a different story, but im assuming this entire convo is about video.
Jun 6 2013 1:38PM
1 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
I was sorta thinking m4/3rds in general, so from more of a photography standpoint, I suppose...

But still, having that 2x crop ratio hurts vintage glass a lot IMO. A 50 becomes a 100mm lens. a 35 becomes a 70. Even a 28, what with all of it's wide distortion becomes a long standard. Granted I haven't REALLY had a lot of experience using vintage glass on an M4/3 camera, but that seems almost unacceptable, if you're more interested in wide angle stuff.. a 1.6x crop is pretty awful as it is, but at least it's within the neighborhood.

I guess thats where I'm coming from, really... To get a fast standard lens on a GH2, you have to buy a 28 f2, or a 24 f2... which will almost always be soft as balls wide open, and it won't be particularly fast anyways - not to mention sorta pricy for vintage lenses.

Perhaps not a big deal if you're stopping down to F11 for skiing all the time, or something anyways, but it is limiting.






Jun 6 2013 3:53PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61602 - Karma: 123,028
I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate when people bitch about fucking crops. 1.5x crop is ideal for video, i almost wish i had 2x crop for some situations. I don't care about your photo shit right now, this thread is about video. Not sure what lens you deem as "affordable" on the EOS system thats 35mm 1.4 or 50mm 1.4 but honestly with a gh2 you take one step back and you're at the same FOV as a 7d, two steps and youre at a 5D. Its not that big of a deal AT ALL. fuck the full frame "look" its bullshit. The only advantage to the full frame is using lenses like the 24mm 1.4 and THAT IS IT otherwise, its bullshit. im sorry im getting so heated, its not directed at you, im just so fucking sick of people bitching that something isn't fullframe.
Jun 6 2013 4:34PM
2 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
I'm not talking about full frame. I'm talking about crop 1.6/1.5x vs a 2x, and the lens compatibility. Full frame is overrated as hell for video, I agree with you there.

I'd much rather have a 50 become an 80, a 28 become a 48 (virtually a 50), and a 17 become a 28, because you can actually find vintage glass for affordable prices in those focal lengths and have 3 lenses cover the basic spectrum...

Also, a 100 is a lot harder to pan than an 80. It's a lot more tight than just a few steps back... zeroing in on a subject in motion is a bitch with a 50 on a m4/3.


Jun 6 2013 5:38PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61602 - Karma: 123,028
I guess that shit doesn't bother me as much, you can get very wide lenses @2.8 and the widest lens you can get a 1.4 is a 24 which is still kinda tight on a crop. I think using the 2x crop as a reason to NOT buy a gh2 is poor.
Jun 6 2013 5:40PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
Also, I'm talking about affordable vintage glass... 400 bucks for a 24 f2 (that's what I see them go for, in good condition) is a lot to spend on a manual focus lens that's likely to have heaps of distortion.
Jun 6 2013 5:41PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61602 - Karma: 123,028
For sure, but with lenses like the 11-16 and 17-50 @2.8 and the tech going into sensors these days, 1.4/2 lenses arent always needed
Jun 6 2013 5:49PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
Considering how similar the 60D is to a GH2, and the affordability of wider FOV vintage glass, I'd see it as at least a bit of an advantage. (that and the Canon Menu is far better - sure, you can get used to anything, but I just can't stand trying to figure that native panasonic bullshit terminology for on a GH2)

I'm not saying the GH2 sucks, or that you can't get wide lenses or anything like that... not for a second... Also, I guess I'm totally forgetting the affordability of the 14 f2.5 for m4/3rds, but still. There's a lot to consider either way.

It's just, for me, assembling an effective 28-50-80-200 fast prime collection on a 60D cost me jack shit, and everyone I talk to who has a GH2 has to put out a chunk of change for that range, unless they go for more tele-lengths and deal with the constraints...

But, knowing you, you're going to defend GH2 to the death, like always ;P


Jun 6 2013 5:49PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
Depth of field?

I don't know. Personally, I really appreciate good use of out of focus elements in videography - especially seeing as I don't really film Skiing much (though it can certainly be used there too - to great lengths)
Jun 6 2013 5:51PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61602 - Karma: 123,028
Its not that im defending the gh2 persay, i just hate when people get in a bunch about crop. yes a prime set is tougher with a 2x crop but limiting yourself to just primes when there are a ton of great zoom options is your own choice really. I understand where you're coming from and im not saying you're wrong. I just get upset when people bitch about crop factor, thats all.
Jun 6 2013 5:52PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
See, that's the other thing. I'm all about primes when I'm doing video. I fucking hate zooms and their limitations.
Jun 6 2013 5:53PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61602 - Karma: 123,028
I feel like you could put "primes" in place of zooms also haha

i find zooms to be very versatile and useful. just me i suppose
Jun 6 2013 6:03PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
Maybe m4/3 zooms are nicer or something.. but I really hate zooms on Canons and Nikons unless they're something like the 11-16 f2.8, where the range is so negligible that they have fuck-all for distortion. Still cost obnoxiously too much.
Jun 6 2013 6:22PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61602 - Karma: 123,028
I mean, i dont use a gh2, i have an fs100 and use tokina 11-16, tamron 17-50 and sony 18-200.
Jun 6 2013 6:30PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
Yeah. For what you do, and what that camera is, I guess I could also see why Zooms would work well on that. I actually didn't know they made either of those lenses for the E-mount...
Jun 6 2013 6:44PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61602 - Karma: 123,028
They don't, they're nikon mount, i use an adapter.
Jun 6 2013 6:45PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
arooooo? *scoobydoo.jpeg*

how do you work aperture on that shit? Do they make an adapter that slides the pin to close it? or do you just run wide open all day? haha.
Jun 6 2013 6:53PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61602 - Karma: 123,028
They make adapters that adjust aperture. Nikon lenses have that little pin so its pretty easy. I never shoot wide open fuck that
Jun 6 2013 6:58PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
That's what I figured... I couldn't see how it would work any other way. That would be dumbass.
Jun 6 2013 7:36PM
0 0
profile picture
123+ski
Posts: 2832 - Karma: 581
I know some people have adapted b4 zoom lenses and used them on the gh2. Parfocal, constant aperture (usually f1.4 or 1.8), and some have even got the servo zoom working. For video, they give good results in terms of sharpness, and the range is absurd, especially when combined with the ETC mode. I might try to pick one up once I have a little cash for photo/video stuff. I'm not sure if many people have heard about this, and in some situations, this can be a huge advantage for the gh2/m43 system.
Jun 6 2013 8:09PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
I've also heard of C mount lenses being used, but you end up with gnarly vignetting because of the small image circle...

Could be cool if you want to film a sniper scene though, I guess.
Jun 6 2013 9:02PM
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,809
As though this is done regularly? haha.

Also a quick google suggests etc is only really usable outside, IIRC I saw(didn't look at tests) that apparently 200 iso in etc mode gives similar noise to either 800/1600 iso in regular mode.
Jun 6 2013 10:08PM
0 1
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
Video guy who lives next door does seemingly EXCLUSIVELY videos that have to do with guns and shot-em-up bang bang shit. Pretty boring after a while, but he has used small image circle lenses in this way...
Jun 6 2013 10:34PM
0 1
profile picture
123+ski
Posts: 2832 - Karma: 581
I've heard of this too, but I think there are some/many that actually cover the whole sensor or have a very tiny amount of vignetting
Jun 6 2013 10:42PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
Yeah, but craaazy soft around the corners... like lensbaby kinda shit.
Jun 6 2013 10:45PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
Canon's crop sensors are so terrible that I would rather use a GH2 for stills over any of their non-FF cameras.

I switched from a 7D to a GH2 for the sole purpose of video. Then I discovered that the GH2 takes much cleaner stills, and is adaptable to a wider range of vintage glass. Not that I ever use it for photos, but still-I was surprised.
Jun 8 2013 2:43AM
1 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
Ehh, im gonna disagree on this one. There are MANY other reasons id take a 7D over a GH2 for stills. And while primes are fun as hell to shoot with, GH2 lacks the long tele lenses with AF (for photos obviously).
Jun 8 2013 6:58AM
0 0
profile picture
Evangelista
Posts: 481 - Karma: 1,583
Pretty sure the new 35-100 is a long tele lens with AF
Jun 8 2013 12:04PM
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,809
that's hardly long at all, 70-200 on ff, which is 44-125 on crop~
Jun 8 2013 12:06PM
0 0
profile picture
123+ski
Posts: 2832 - Karma: 581
panny 100-300 has quite a bit of reach and I've seen good results from it
Jun 8 2013 1:37PM
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
Variable aperture though. And the whole tele deal isnt the only reason id take a 7D over a gh2 for photos
Jun 8 2013 1:49PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
GH2 is garbage for stills...
Jun 8 2013 8:16PM
0 1
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
I mean, different people have different criteria. I have zero use for AF or unnecessarily shallow DOF, and I hate the thick rainbow noise that plagues the 7D at every ISO setting. So it makes sense that I would favor the clean sensor of a GH2, as well as its wider adaptability to vintage lenses. Though for the record I hate shooting digital entirely when it comes to stills, so this is really a moot point for me.
Jun 8 2013 9:06PM
1 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,809
Correct me if I'm wrong(usually) but isn't colour noise barely a problem on the canons? Can be removed with setting the slider to 25 in camera raw, and doesn't seem to have a negative impact on the image, but gets rid of all colour noise. Luminance on the other hand, that's a bitch
Jun 8 2013 9:34PM
1 1
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
Canons have a pretty damn wide adaptability to vintage lenses anyways... and due to the larger sensor, can actually use them far better. A 50 becomes an 80, and a 35 becomes a 50. Rather than a 100 and a 70 respectively. Far easier to work with IMO.

I have never had an issue with the rainbow noise that you speak of. Maybe it's due to the parameters that I shoot at or something, but I really haven't had an issue with that.


Jun 8 2013 9:45PM
0 0
profile picture
michael_bc
Posts: 1386 - Karma: 720
You are bitching about the difference between 1.6x and 1.9x crop.

Canon's lousy crop sensors should be labeled what they are: between APS-C and micro four thirds.
Jun 9 2013 6:48AM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,328
isn't canon's 1.6x crop the definition of APS-C? And then the normal 1.5x is APS?
Jun 9 2013 1:43PM
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
This. All rebel series is APS-C i think.
Jun 9 2013 1:53PM
0 1
profile picture
michael_bc
Posts: 1386 - Karma: 720
Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APS-C
Jun 9 2013 3:59PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
How can you use them better? If you don't want a 50mm to become a 100mm, use a 25mm; problem solved. Besides, the Voigtlander is better glass than anything Canon makes.

I really don't understand what's so difficult about adapting focal lengths to the sensor. Of course there's a crop...don't just use a 50mm and bitch about how it's too long. That's like using crop lenses on FF and bitching about how it doesn't cover the whole frame.

Furthermore, for skiing the crop is essential. 70-200 on FF or even APS-C is not long at all. a 70-200 on a GH2 is a telephoto range that is actually functional in the BC, and with the EX. TELE mode it becomes a big mountain shooting machine (280-800mm).

On the wide end...a Tokina 11-16 is too wide at 11mm for just about everything. I really don't understand the paranoia with wide lenses and crop sensors.

As for noise: I am not really accustomed to post processes. I am of the opinion that a good camera should not need correction to begin with. With the 7D its impossible to get a natively clean image that rivals even Nikon's soccer mom DSLRs.
Jun 10 2013 4:01PM
2 1
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
That's entirely not the point haha. Spending 1000+ on the Voightlander 25 goes against one of the biggest reasons for buying vintage glass - affordability.

also... 70-200 on a Canon or Nikon crop is like a ~105-320 That's all pretty telephoto if you ask me. If you need anything longer than that, then you're basically telling Robert Capa he's wrong, or your'e shooting wildlife/sports and have a limited perimeter anyways - which if you're shooting skiing, you don't really have a limited perimeter.

I don't see how 11 is too wide on a crop... it comes out to a 17mm or so - which is a pretty effective UWA focal length. If you know how to use a UWA, then it's certainly a fantastic option, and for video, it gives a really good, up close, and always in focus subject.

I really don't know where you're getting all these noise issues. Perhaps I'm always shooting at 100-400, and using really fast glass that allows me to do so even when it's pretty dark... I haven't come across any more noise than I have when I've used micro4/3rds cameras.




Jun 10 2013 11:11PM
2 0
All times are Eastern (-5)