So I've been doing some research and it seems the Panasonic GH2 is leaving the 7D in the dust. Any thoughts?

The point is Perrone, mixing video terminology with film terminology will confuse many people - You make it sound like there is huge difference between 1080 and 2k when in fact they are very similar - definitely no leap in technology required as you claim earlier.

2048x1080 is not 16:9 though.

That is a huge difference.


It's still too early to tell because it's not available world-wide yet, but it certainly has some interesting features. Full HD 4:2:2 HDMI output and 1:1 crop mode will be big selling points for some people. And the picture quality is supposedly better than the hacked GH1 - ie it's what the GH1 should have been!

For many, the difference is more than 10%. 2K and above necessitates a film workflow for me since my, and other NLEs do not do 2K on the timeline. It constitutes a paradigm shift in how we work. Also of note is that digital cinema is 2K, not 1080, so delivery can also be vastly different.

Peronne, maths isn't my strong suit, but I make that a 6.6% difference - remember you only measure the horizontal.

FWIW I've projected a 1080p project uprezzed to 2K and it looked great. I've seen it in 16:9 and 1.85:1 and I've seen it on one of the biggest screens in London. It wasn't difficult to do and I didn't need new editing software either, nor did I need a film workflow - I simply edited in 1080p as normal and changed scale on export. You can use pixel mapping software to eek out as much resolution as is possible if you want (I've done that with 4K projects before), but in this instance it was all pretty straightforward. Sure, if it was camera original 35mm scanned to 4K it would have looked better, but for what it was it looked great and that's my point - quality no longer has a prohibitive price tag, it's available for everybody.

Nope, that would be 2048 x 1152 and if you are projecting in a theatre your aspect ration would more than likely be 1.85:1, which in 2K is 2048 x 1107, still not a million miles from 1920 x 1080.

Wrong camera. I was talking about this one:

Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EOS-1Ds Mark III

I'm not sure why you're bringing up the 1D Mk. IV because that's not what I was referring to. In an earlier post, Patrick Janka had said that the more expensive cameras aren't necessarily the most up to date. I was reinforcing his statement by pointing out the fact that Canon's most expensive D-SLR, their current top-of-the-line EOS flagship -- the 1Ds Mk. III -- is also the least up to date by virtue of its age. As I said, it's the next one due for a new version.

I'm not sure why I have to point out that the 1D is not the same thing as the 1Ds, but there it is.

Because I missed the "s" on the end of the name.

Patrick...if Canon's product line doesn't serve your needs, spend your hard earned dollars with another manufacturer. There's plenty of good cameras on the market. Brand loyalty only benefits the manufacturer, not you.

Yes, the GH2 is a good one to look at as is the AF100. The EU limit is 30 minutes not 12. Neither the GH2 nor the Sony HD DSLRs have the 12 minute limit that the Canon's do but the EU model has a 30 minute limit.

Also, the micro four thirds design throws out the mirror which gives some advantages for the videography not the least of which is the plethora of inexpensive fast glass with a simple mechanical adapter. Here's the lens lineup:
Digital Interchangeable Lenses | PRODUCTS | LUMIX | Digital Camera | Panasonic Global

There's some reviews coming out now that it is starting to ship. The flip out screen and focus tracking is nice too. There's good info in the Lumix GF/GH Series group on DVInfo.... this just in today:
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasoni...m-f0-95-a.html

And a pre-review on dpreview:
Panasonic DMC-GH2 Preview: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

Just a note here, Les is correct, the EU tax limit is indeed 30 minutes of video recording, not 12. The Canon D-SLR's do not have a 12-minute limit as is so often suggested around here. What they have is a "30-minute time limit or 4GB file size limit, whichever comes first." In standard definition video recording, the Canons run into this limit at 30 minutes. In HD video recording, the Canons run into this limit at 4GB, which usually occurs around 12 minutes, but may happen sooner than that -- or, depending on conditions, it will record HD longer than 12 minutes. Either way, it is *not* a 12-minute limit. It is a 30-minute or 4GB limit, whichever comes first.

That's interesting information but it comes down to a 12 minute limit for HD which is something that the GH2 and others don't have. It's a bit of a head scratcher that the limitation hasn't been fixed in even the recent models cameras. This is perhaps what the OP is concerned about: plunging ahead with a current Canon model that finally soon gets rev'd with that major annoyance fixed.

Hey, Les, thanks for the response. This is all so overwhelming. It's not that the Canon wouldn't serve my needs, but the 7D seems to be nearing the end of its life cycle. The Panasonic seems to have fixed a lot of the moire/aliasing/verticle banding/artifacting problems of the current Canons, as well as the GH1. It seems the Canons have more available lenses, but is the mirrorless design where these things are headed? The Canons have a bigger sensor, but apparently the GH2 gets a better picture. The Panny doesn't shoot in 30p in full HD, and it shoots 60i instead of 60p. They give the highest bit rate to 24p. Why? Overall it seems Panasonic seems to have designed this camera with a lot of consideration to the video function with the articulated lcd, uncompressed HDMI out, etc. With the 7D the video was an afterthought. I'm hoping the next rendition of it is designed in part with the filmmaker in mind. The GH2 seems attractive, but I think I want to hold out to see Canon's response.

btw, I've done stand-up comedy and filmed other comics at the New York Comedy Club on Glades. I'll try to get a date back next year.

I think the way to look at it is that video DSLRs are still cameras with video added. My interest in a video DSLR is as a b-camera not a main camera. The frustration at Canon for continuing to put out 12 minute cameras is only because of a false expectation that they replace a traditional camcorder. They aren't and they don't. I think the GH2 is the best of the lot as far as video goes but as you point out, it has compromises too.

As a sub $2000 DSLR with video, like any camera, there are going to be compromises. A large sensor camera that has the flexibility, record modes and other features of a pro etc is not going to be priced at the same point as the 7D, 60D etc. All that engineering comes at a cost. Frankly, in this economy, and given it's late entry style, I don't expect Canon to lead in this DSLR as a replacement for a camcorder space. Time, of course will tell.

I actually think the hey day of the video DSLR is pretty much over with the AF100. That will siphon quite a bit out of the market which will, in turn, restrict/slow development.

The AF100 looks nice, but I want the traditional form factor of a still camera. The DSLR thing got me interested in photography, to be honest.

I don't agree. I think the market segment who really wants a video camera, but didn't want to, or couldn't afford to, fool iwth a 35mm adapter will return to the traditional camcorder now. And i think the market for whom these DSLRs was originally designed will continue to use them in large numbers. As will those filmmakers for whom the limitations are not a large concern.