the gh2

[Mike Leah]

Ive generally been a canon person and have been looking into one of their dslr, but the gh2 is really tempting me. The footage i have seen online generally looks more pleasing to me.

Is the gh2 the better option vs one of the eos canons, when main use is video?

I was set on maybe a 60d or similar but the gh2 footage is hard to resist.

would like to hear opinions since ive generally been a canon person.

[Martyn Hull]

Having had a 550D/T2i, I can say my present GH2 outperforms it as far as video goes, possibly skin tone was more to my liking on the Canon but most seem to say differently. In all other ways the GH2 is a clear winner.

[Evan Lloyd]

The image quality is amazing. Many on here don't like the functionality or ergonomics of the camera, but I don't share their displeasure. I too was considering the 60d and the reason I chose the GH2 is as follows:

-No Overheating
-No recording time restraints
- Useable onboard audio with meters
- auto focus
-Mic line input
- Small and light
- Less expensive.
-Ability to use legacy lenses
- Amazing video quality in many different formats.


The only drawback for me is that the GH2 has a pretty limited choice of lenses. Canon does not have that problem.

I have not regretted my decision once. It is a phenomenal camera.

[Jeff Harper]

It depends on your needs, and only you can decide this. For photos, there is absolutely no comparison, the GH2 is relatively weak, the 60D is far superior for photos by all accounts. I found my 40d to be better than the GH2 for photos. But your main concern is video.

I believe there is a general DSLR forum here at DVinfonet, that also might be a good place for your question.

Phillip Bloom has the 60D listed at the bottom of this page of his reviews done awhile back: UPDATED with T3i/600D: Which… “Video DSLR” to buy? | Philip Bloom

Things to consider, GH2 will run non-stop, the 60D will not without risk of overheating. The 60D has 60p, the GH2 doesn't, except in 24p in a 60i wrapper.

The 60D, according to him will run a HDMI monitor, the GH2 will run one, but only in one mode, very irritating.

The 60D is a great choice, but only if you don't need the features of the GH2 (non-stop recording with no overheating, etc).

You do have a ton of lens choices with the GH2, but with the 60D you only really need Canon lenses, as the selection of them is quite good, and no adpaters needed.

GH2 really is not "better", its more a matter which camera fits your needs. If your're shooting weddings, it's nice to not have to restart every so often. For shooting highlights only the 60D would be an nice choice.

If I didn't need uninterupted filming, I'd be partial to Canon, as I am a huge Canon fan as well.

[Bill Bruner]

I got rid of a Canon T2i when I bought the GH2. It wasn't just the Canon's limited shot length. It was also the horrible moire on patterned objects, the noisy lens motors, the fact that the viewfinder goes black in video mode, and the lack of autofocus in video mode.

I do miss my Canon's 1M pixel LCD and great still image quality, but that's not enough for me to go back to having to deal with poor video performance.

[Jeff Harper]

I don't know about the 60D, but moire is certainly not a problem with the GH2.

I would love the form factor of the 60D, for sure, but I can tell you I am getting some great video with the GH1s and the GH2 both. With a fast lens on the GH1, it becomes an excellent backup camera.

[Patrick Janka]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

The 60D has 60p, the GH2 doesn't, except in 24p in a 60i wrapper

The GH2 has 60p in 720p. The 24p in 60i was a problem with the GH1, which didn't have true 24p.

[Bill Bruner]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

I don't know about the 60D, but moire is certainly not a problem with the GH2.

Outdated video image processing algorithms and hardware are to blame for Nikon and Canon moire problems. Sadly, these are still the most popular video DSLRs in the hands of consumers -- who are almost always surprised when they try to shoot video of anything other more visually complex than a solid colored subject.

Here's a new 60D shooter who got a nasty surprise when he tried to film a bridge over water with lots of wave motion:

Canon 60D moiré + aliasing problems on Vimeo

I am not a Canon or Nikon hater - I still love my old Nikon D50 -- and I still have one of my Canon lenses -- but until they solve the moire and shot time limit problems, I will not buy another video-capable DSLR from them.

If these cameras were cars, there would be a recall.

[Jeff Harper]

Patrick, the GH2 still doesn't have 1080 60p, which was my point, unless I'm mistaken.

The GH1 also has 720 60p, as does the GH2, which makes it an ideal mode to shoot in if you're running both cameras, as you're getting matching 60p footage.

[Mike Leah]

thanks for all the replies. I think im pretty much sold on the panasonic. Seems like its hard to get right now but thats ok. Will give me more time to save up for an extra lens.

[Jeff Harper]

Depending on the lenses you plan to use, and the mode you plan to shoot in, I get great results with the GH1, which currently sells for $400 and is easily available.

It kind of depends on your needs, but for general purpose video, if you put a fast lens on the GH1 and shoot 720p, your results are very similar to the GH2.

Now with a slow lens in low-light, you'll get much better results with a high iso with the GH2, no comparison.

But with the 20mm lens, for example, the gh1 looks very nice.

I have both cameras, and when I go to grab one of my four cameras for recreational or experimental shooting, I rarely even check if it's a GH2 or GH1, I just go with the camera that has the lens on it that I want, since I have no lens slower than a F/2.8 zoom. For wedding work, I always pair my F/2.8 lens with the GH2 for better ISO performance, but for outdoor work or when I'm using a F/1.7 or faster lens, it makes little to no difference to me.

Ultimately, the lens is more important than the specific camera, in this case, and with proper settings you can get great results with both.

[Bill Bruner]

I agree with Jeff -- not a lot of difference in video image quality between the two cameras (and I'm planning to follow your example and buy a GH-1 as a second camera).

But there are real differences, in addition to low-light performance, that anyone buying a GH-1should be aware of:

- slower autofocus speed (quantified here: Micro 4/3rds Photography: AF speed, GH1 vs GH2)

- no live HDMI out (GH2 has live HDMI out while shooting 1080p24 only)

- no audio gain control (GH2 has 4 level audio gain control -- not quite manual, but better than AGC)

- no Extended Tele Converter (which allows you to extend your lenses by ~2.6x with little of no loss in quality - much better than a digital zoom)

Good side-by-side comparison here: Micro 4/3rds Photography: Comparison: GH1 and GH2

Again, like Jeff, I am a big fan of the GH1, especially at $400 -- but anyone buying the GH-1 instead of waiting for the GH-2 should know what they're giving up.

Good luck,

Bill

[Mike Leah]

yeah I looked at the gh1 footage last night and was impressed. Some of the footage looked just as good as some of the gh2 footage.I may get the gh1 first since its cheaper to kind of learn and practice with and the gh2 seems hard to keep in stock right now. If I got just the gh1 body, whats a cheap lens thats half way decent to play around with for the gh1?

Just noticed I could get the gh1 with a 14-42 lens for 600. Is that a good route to take for me to get started?

[Jeff Harper]

Bill, you are right to list the differences, as it is good to know exactly what the differences are.

Mike regarding lens choices for the GH1, your choice should be dicated by what you need and what you will be shooting.

A cheapo 14-42mm panasonic lens is fine sometimes, but for indoor work it is slow and considered pretty poor and you might actually think your cameras is not so good as the ISO on the GH1 sucks above 800.

But if you bought a 20mm f/1.7, wow, the difference would be significant. Sharp, clear, good in low light.

If you buy a cheap lens, you'll later end up wanting and buying a good lens anyway, and then you'll just have to sell the cheapo at a loss. Save your money, and just get a good lens, is my suggestion.

Except if you could use a Canon FD F/1.4 50mm (effective length of 100) with an adapter, you could have a lot of fun, and for under $150 with adapter included. But at 100mm it is pretty limited for general use. But wow, what a lens. It is amazing in low light, and even outdoors you can stop it down and get some amazing footage. You can find the lens for $125, I think, get an adapter for $20, and you'd be set.

The best prime to start would probably be the 20mm. It's quite a lens. Don't go cheap, if you do your footage will reflect it and you''ll regret it. Lens choice is almost more important than the camera.

[Patrick Janka]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Patrick, the GH2 still doesn't have 1080 60p, which was my point, unless I'm mistaken.

The GH1 also has 720 60p, as does the GH2, which makes it an ideal mode to shoot in if you're running both cameras, as you're getting matching 60p footage.

The 60D doesn't have 1080 60p, either, though, so your earlier comparison was in err.