Hi, I currently use a Canon 550D but also own a Sony Z1. I love the 550D but for more hectic run n gun on the hoof stuff tend to use the Z1. Autofocus on this camera is excellent and the lack of parfocal lenses for Canon (at a affordable price) make the Conon ecosystem not ideas for me, but I am getting great results.

Have heard a lot of good things about Panasonic GH and finally started looking into it. The GH2/14-140 sounds like a killer combination for documentary (and indeed drama). From what I have read I am surprised anyone uses canon (apart from 5D which is another story). Is the autofocus any good and does it really hold the focus through zoom (can I use the zoom in focus zoom out method)?

GH2 / 14-140 seems to good to be true for the price, am I missing something, what are the drawbacks?

Are the inbuilt pre-amps any good or will I still be using my BeachTek DXA-SLR.

Seriously considering selling all by Canon kit and Sony Z1 and investing in a GH2 and some nice glass!

Ben

The 14-140mm is nice lens, but it is f/4-5.8. It is useless in low light. I sold mine after one use at a conference, it was much too slow for my use.

You could buy it and try it out, return it if you don't like it.

It does NOT hold focus thru a zoom nor exposure. It's a very good lens, just used it for an interview today, but it's not a video camera lens. And the low light performance is not great so alter your expectations about what the GH2 can do. It really is closer to a Canon DSLR in practical use than a video camera.

Thanks for the reply, so are there any GH2 lenses that are video lenses?

The Vario X PZ 45-175 is close to a video lens, stays in focus but has only 4x zoom and isn't very wide to start. The power zoom is not easy to work but the manual zoom is nice. The Vario X 14-42 PZ lens is not usable as a live zoom lens due to exposure idiosyncrasies and the lack of manual zoom. The expensive manual zoom GX 12-35mm is supposedly par-focal and holds it's exposure but I've heard reports that this is not entirely true.

Interesting, there are several parfocul lenses for 550D and one this is very close (practically a parfocus lens), which was what I was looking at (18-135). Maybe I should stick with the 550D.

I find this very strange as I thought the GH2 used the same lenses as the AF101, I find it difficult to believe it is not possible to get a proper video lens for the AF101.

Ben

Ben, there are, of course, advantages of the GH2 over the 550, but the GH2 is not the "miracle" you might be seeking. Using the GH2 is still very much like shooting with any DSLR, but we do have some great lenses to choose from. I have a 12mm F/2.0 I love, which to my knowledge is unlike anything offered by any other camera manufacturer. (I could be wrong about this, but it is a great lens at any rate).

You can also buy the GX 12-35mm F/2.8 for $1299 that William mentioned, but as he says it does not turn your camera into a video camera, not by any stretch.

You could switch to the GH2 to take advantage of the great lens choices, but the lenses will cost you.

The AF101 is not a "real" video camera, it only looks like one. It does not have any lenses made for it specifically. I would stick with the 550 unless you have a real need to change. The 550 is a great camera.

"You could switch to the GH2 to take advantage of the great lens choices, but the lenses will cost you.", As is always the case with lenses. I did not say I was trying to do it on the cheap. Please tell me what these lenses are. For documentary I would need something like the Canon 18-135. Parfocal I want, constant aperture I can live without.

I also think people may be selling the 14-140 a little short. I know it is not parfocal but I thought it did hold its focus due to the camera compensating with a servo (similar to Z1). Also if the autofocus works well (for documentary) this compensates (to a degree) for not being parfocul. In a way for docs given the choose good autofocus may be better than parfocul. I tend to use the Z1 on autofocus with peeking, call me lazy but I am a 1 man crew juggling lights, sound (often radio microphones) and lights. In the 4 years I have had the Z1 the autofocus has never let me down. I do however go to manual when doing sit down interviews.


I gather GH2 is 2 not 1.6 'crop factor'. Is this why there is a 14-140, is this actually more like a 18-120.

Ben

Aside from the three lenses I mentioned, par-focal is not available on the GH2 right now unless you get an adapter for the Canon lenses you mentioned. And even then some of those lenses are par-focal thru a limited range.

Also there are various other issues that make the GH2 better as a B camera rather then the main camera in documentary situations. The lack of audio monitoring is one of them. I used a Zoom recorder for the interview yesterday so that I could get reliable audio recording without the GH2 auto gain making it's own choices.

You might consider the GH3 if you are considering using the camera as the main camera. I have one on order and will combine it with the GH2 for two camera recording. And I already have plenty of lenses to share between the cameras. Supposedly the GH3 and the 12-35 lens is a killer combo but that is about $2400 already. If a specific long term job actually materializes, I will also purchase a JVC HM600 so I have a real zoom lens on a new camera that shoots broadcast acceptable footage.

William answered question better than I, so I deleted my post.

There is no 10X zoom lens with a decent aperture for any large sensor camera because the optics will be A) Too big & heavy B) Too expensive.

The 2X crop factor on the GH2 means that the 14-140mm lens is equivalent to a 28-280mm on a full frame sensor while the 18-135mm on the 550D with a 1.6X crop is equivalent to around 29-215mm. If big zoom is important to you then there are even longer EF-S superzooms like Canon's 18-200mm (29-320mm FF equivalent) or the Tamron 18-270mm (29-430mm FF equivalent). Here is a good review of the various superzooms on the market. Best superzoom for Canon DSLRs: 8 tested | News | TechRadar (http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/best-superzoom-for-canon-dslrs-8-tested-1060915/1#articleContent) They are all pretty cheap & plasticky.

Is the autofocus any good and does it really hold the focus through zoom (can I use the zoom in focus zoom out method)? GH2 / 14-140 seems to good to be true for the price, am I missing something, what are the drawbacks? Are the inbuilt pre-amps any good or will I still be using my BeachTek DXA-SLR.

I produce product videos and typically deal with two situations:
a) Staged shots
b) Unstaged shots of our products being used on real jobs - completely run and gun

In both cases I need to shoot quickly and the GH2/14-140 delivers. This combo works so well that I dumped our Sony HVR-V1U after shooting one video with the GH1 – and the GH2 is even better. For my work projects I shoot exclusively with the 14-140.

This short excerpt is from a project I'm working on right now. It was shot in available light with the GH2/14-140. An overhead fluorescent provides most of the light and a small, high window provides some indirect daylight: micro Nano Test - YouTube (http://youtu.be/gqUCiqpOylU)

Focus and zoom can be problematic with the 14-140. It's virtually impossible to zoom smoothly, but I've found that I can usually get away with small changes in focal length while shooting. I've shot equestrian events using the 14-140's full zoom range and because the camera and horse were both moving the uneven zoom speed was not objectionable.

The auto focus will often shift in/out of focus in low light; this is not noticeable in brighter lighting conditions or when the lens is zoomed all the way out.

The audio is passable, but noisy with most mics. Mics with a very low impedance (~150 Ohms) are MUCH cleaner. For the best results I'd count on using your Beachtek adapter or an external recorder like Zoom or Tascam.

I can zoom smoothly with the 14-140 with the zoom assist lever attached but it's still harder than a professional video zoom lens. The interview I shot this week (which is set to air next weekend) suddenly turned from two separate individual 10 minute interviews to a dual subject 10 minute interview. The interviewees had to leave quicker then we expected. Aside from the fact I was lucky I had brought two clip mikes, I wasn't expecting to have to worry about zooming or focus. Fortunately because the facial recognition auto-focus on the GH2 works so well since I brought enough lighting I could leave the focusing to the camera in this situation. This is very important as the 14-140 doesn't hold it's focus in the amount of zooming I needed to do to go from a two shot to a medium close-up of the individual subjects. It did a great job although I was initially expecting to use a fixed lens for a nice DOF. Not much DOF with the 14-140 in the wide settings. The facial recognition auto focus does not work well in dark situations or situations with more than two people unless you are using the touch screen to signify the subject to focus on.

When I get the GH3 (next week I have been told) I will probably set a situation like this up with a wide shot on the GH2 with a 20mm lens and close-ups with a 45mm I have. Zooms are fun but cuts are easier to fine tuned.

Depends on your exact needs. For my work that involves discreet shots with any amount of setup time and few lighting changes, and little need to capture or monitor from multiple audio sources, the GH/14-140 delivers just fine.

For those doc jobs where the camera rolls for a long time, following subjects, with frequent lighting changes and a need to monitor audio or capture from multiple sources, the GH2 doesn't work. Main reasons being:
- inability to change ISO while recording
- inability to adjust WB while recording
- only one audio in, no monitoring

It's also not ideal for handholding. I can with ample support, but once I add the weight and bulk of a rig, I may as well just roll on the AF100 or a similar camera better suited to the job.

The GH3 addresses many of the drawbacks of shooting with the GH2, aside from the small form and single audio input.

Ben - other posters have given you some good information, so I'm not going to repeat it - but I wanted to add one thought. One of the several reasons I got rid of my 550D/T2i and don't shoot video with Canons any more was the stunning resolution of the £799 GH2. With the 14-140 lens, the images are much sharper than from the Canons (not to mention Canon's' moire problem with brickwork, shingles and patterned fabrics).

For docs and run and gun, I recommend the switch to Panasonic. And if you can afford the £1604 GH3, get one. Headphone jack, better dynamic range, faster autofocus, 64 step audio gain control (rather than the GH2's 4 steps), 1080/60p, .mov output for easier editing, water and dust resistant magnesium body - a robust pro camera.

Here is a doc shot with the GH2: Oh Angkor on Vimeo

Here is a doc shot with the GH3: Mme Sokhna Fall on Vimeo

Cheers, good luck with your project, and best of the Holy-days.

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution (http://hybridcamerarevolution.blogspot.com)
Panasonic FZ150/TM900/GH1/GH2/GH3

It's also not ideal for handholding. I can with ample support, but once I add the weight and bulk of a rig, I may as well just roll on the AF100 or a similar camera better suited to the job.

The GH3 addresses many of the drawbacks of shooting with the GH2, aside from the small form and single audio input.

Thanks for the reply. You mention the AF100, do you not use Panasonic lenses with it, from what others have said there seems to be a lack of parfocal and fast lenses for the GH2 so I am a bit confused as to why the AF100 is a good solution for docs & factual?

Bem

Thanks everybody for taking the time to reply. I am thinking that if I jump ship it will be to the GH3, not sure if the GH2 is worth it. The main thing that is making me nervous about leaving the Canon camp is there seems to be a real lack of fast/parfocal glass for the Panasonic ecosystem. Canon has quite a lot of L lenses that can be got for under £2000 used and some quite crazy lenses like the 18-270 (not over sharp but sharp enough and can be a godsend).

My other option would be get a used GH2 body, an adapter and have a play around with my canon lenses.

Can someone point me at a good GH3 review (for video).

Regards,
Ben

Ben - I think you would get the best result by making the jump to the GH3. The GH2 has served me very well, but the GH3 takes hybrid still/video cameras to the next level. Here are, in my view, the three best reviews of the camera. All are of cameras with pre-production firmware

GH3 video review from The Camera Store in Canada. They are great guys - I bought my GH2 from them a couple of years ago: Panasonic GH3 Hands-On Field Test - YouTube

And from Luminous Landscape: Panasonic GH3 Field Review (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/panasonic_gh3_field_review.shtml)

Regarding lenses, the 12-35 and 35-100 are not the only fast glass in the GH3's lens ecosystem. There are also the great Zuiko lenses for the 4/3 format, easily adapted with the Panasonic MA-1. Lens compatibility chart here: http://panasonic.jp/support/global/cs/dsc/connect/gh3.html


Autofocus and autoexposure work on these lenses, and they are terrific, high quality glass. I shoot with the Olympus 11-22 f2.8-3.5 and Sigma 18-50 constant f2.8. My next 4/3 lens will be the £1073 Olympus 50-200 f2.8-3.5.

You may also want to look at the highly regarded Olympus 14-35 and 35-100 f2.0 lenses, each for less than £2000.

Here is the GH2 with the Oly 35-100 f2.0 taking on a RED Epic (please watch at 1080p): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95lVDmpt03I

Again, hope this is helpful.

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution (http://hybridcamerarevolution.blogspot.com)

Thanks for the reply. You mention the AF100, do you not use Panasonic lenses with it, from what others have said there seems to be a lack of parfocal and fast lenses for the GH2 so I am a bit confused as to why the AF100 is a good solution for docs & factual?

Bem

I use a mix of lenses. My two main close-to-mid zooms are Panasonic: the Panasonic 12-35/2.8 and the Leica 14-50/2.8-3.5. I think they compare well to the Canon 24-70 and 24-105 in terms of range and speed. While the Canon zooms may be somewhat sharper, the video imaging (with current EOS DSLR's) definitely isn't. You have to step up to the 1DX, C100 or C300 to see whatever optical advantage they may have over the PanaLeica glass... and even then, it may be more a function of the sensor.

In quick & dirty jobs where there's plenty of light, minimal setup times, but many changing shooting distances, I still get plenty of use from the kit 14-140 lens. The range is good and the slowest speed (f5.8 on the long end) isn't unworkable.

Adding in a Panasonic 35-100/2.8 is an eventual budgetary goal, as this lens is also parfocal, reasonably fast, internal focusing with AF, OIS, and so forth. Most of my work isn't at these ranges, so it hasn't been a priority.

In a pinch, you can use anybody else's lenses... so something like a Nikon 17-35, 17-55, 24-70, 80-200 and others will yield a little less range, a lot more size, but with the proper adapter (Metabones, MTF, or others) you'll get a smooth-zooming, smooth-focusing fastish lens with the bonus of a clickless aperture (by way of the adapter). There is thus no lack whatsoever of good zooms for the m43 system.


Moving onward, why the AF100? It's simply a more professional self-contained setup with things like excellent sync audio (which I can monitor and adjust while recording), 2 discreet input channels, exposure and focus aids, switch-on-the-fly ISO and WB, timecode, VFR, best data rate in more than one framerate, etc. With the 14-140 it exposes and handles pretty much like an HVX with better DR and less noise but no servo zoom and less tele range. With fewer external devices and connections, nothing gets bumped, twisted, or undone in mid-shoot.

But again, for many jobs that only need good 24p visuals, maybe even with just simple nat sound or impromptu single-mic interviews, GH2 works very very well.

Bill...
Im impressed with the Angkor documentary....what great work !

Made me realize I don't need the GH3....at this time. The GH2 is capable of much more that Ive been able to deliver. Maybe Santa will bring me a lens or two. ha

Thanks for sharing that....and Happy Holidays.

Jeff Hinson

Thank you, Jeff. Yes, the GH2 continues to be a wonderful camera. I bought the GH3 because I absolutely needed the headphone jack, rain resistance and 1080/60p - and it has been worth it, but I'm keeping the GH2.

Gotta sell something, though. My house is starting to look like something out of an episode of "Hoarders".

Blessings of the holy-days to you and yours!

Bill

Just tossing it out there, since I recently shot a documentary with the Sony A77 (I won't link it here out of consideration of the GH3 group.) The kit lens that comes with the Sony Alpha A77 is a 16-50 f/2.8 APS-C parfocal design. The camera has in-body stabilization for this and any lens you attach. I'm now using this lens on both my A77 as well as my FS100 and it's an amazing piece of kit for video use. I wouldn't be surprised if it was designed first and foremost for video use.

Now, the A77 has other issues, such as lack of a headphone jack, and heavy aliasing on wide detail shots, but it is a very usable run-and-gun documentary camera. It's my understanding that aliasing isn't as much of a problem with the GH3 and, of course, the GH3 has a lot more video-ready features.

A friend of mine just bought a GH3 so we may be doing a little comparison soon, between his camera and my A77 and FS100 (why not?)... which is why I am checking out threads in this forum today, but I saw your thread and thought immediately of the DT lens.