Canon 5DMkII vs Panasonic GH1

[Steev Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Robert Rogoz

Oh please! DOF - why are you so obsessed with it?

I'm obsessed with it because I love the look. It's seen everywhere on every film, commercial, and music video. It's a core look. Is it the only thing that matters? NO. But it's been one of the most difficult aspects to obtain with "prosumer" video gear.

Take a look at the alternative imaging part of this site, and you'll see some real obsession - R&D, discussion, money, effort, battles, and risk, that has gone on for 6+ years leading to the launch of new businesses formed, manufacturing and selling tons of 35mm adapters for the DOF-hungry. This all stemming from people not being able to afford a $10k product (P+S technik) in addition to the $2000-$6000 they'd spent on their video camera. Obviously, a lot has changed since then.

Now we're looking at cameras that can do it in compact form, with an ease and price that has been dreamed about. Last year, seeing "the look" being packed into the $1000-$2600 camera range with the Nikon D90 and the Canon 5DMkII.

Obsessed? You're damn right! :)

Lastly, to your point...

Originally Posted by Robert Rogoz

"It's the story, acting (along with directing), editing and sound (including the music) that make for a good movie."

Yes, and the process of doing all of that successfully is a tremendous amount of work. When it comes time to actually capture the imagery, people want it to look the way they have dreamed. Control over depth of field is, and will continue to be, high up on the list.

-steev

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Robert Rogoz

It's a full frame still camera with very limited video capability. Doesn't even come close to a motion picture camera. Panasonic isn't even full frame. In all Canon is a professional still camera with limited video, new Panasonic is just an expensive toy.

The 5D2 *IS* a 35mm motion picture camera... sure, it has some significant limitations, but there is no denying what it does.

Obviously, you don't like the 5D2 or the GH1... but if you don't have anything useful or creative to add about the original topic, please refrain from any further posting in this thread. Thanks.

[Steev Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Robert Rogoz

It's a full frame still camera with very limited video capability. Doesn't even come close to a motion picture camera. Panasonic isn't even full frame. In all Canon is a professional still camera with limited video, new Panasonic is just an expensive toy.

I'm replying to this, merely because I think it allows for a very important distinction to be made and to remember. These cameras are for very low budget projects/productions. I think the mere fact that there's any attempt to compare to something like an industry standard high end motion picture camera, is.. well it's amusing, but more importantly, it's simply impressive to the 5DMkII and GH1's credit.

Ultimately, I know this stuff is not for taking out on a big budget production. Neither company is even close to marketing it as such. They've left that to Red. But for anyone who can afford these cameras, and wants to get creative as far as they feel comfortable or inspired to do so, the time is now.

-steev

[Valeriu Campan]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

I don't know any movies that were shot on the 5D2... BUT... I can name some that were shot on 35mm (which the 5D2 is)... Godfather, Psycho, Lawerence of Arabia (edit: oops, no it wasnt), Star Wars, Gone With The Wind, Titanic, Casablanca, Apocalypse Now, Seven Samurai, Alien, Forrest Gump, Chinatown, Das Boot, Pulp Fiction... Now how many more can you name that were shot on a 2/3" chip or 16mm?

But 35mm DOF isn't the reason I chose the 5D2... and I do agree with you, after all, Citizen Kane has the deepest DOF of all...

My reason is availability and range of lenses. A 2x crop factor dramatically changes the nature of a lens and limits the cinematic potential. That's all. I can buy manual lenses and deal with the roaming shutter speed and ISO of the 5D2. This won't be my last video camera, just my camera for 2009.

Oh, and I still have my JVC HD100 for shooting commercial projects.

Dylan,

The films you mention were all shot on 35mm, but on 35mm cinema format where the image area is about to half of the FF35mm stills camera that 5D2 replicates.

5D2 is closer to vistavision 8 perforations v 4 perforations that 35mm cine format has. The DOF is much shallower, focus is much harder to control and in a real world production environment, more time consuming and expensive. Just to maintain a decent DOF of few centimeters, no more that 0.5m, to keep dialog scenes in focus requires to stop down the lens a bit. Most of the films you mentioned in your post were shot at apertures of 2.8 - 4, rarely above 5.6. (Citizen Kane, Paper Moon - as exceptions, Godfather at T2.8). You have to stop down a little bit, not only to manage the DOF for some complex action scenes, but also to get the optimum contrast, definition from the lenses in use.

Stop down a lens and you'll increase the lighting level and from here, the budget and crew size in no time at all.

I am totally for DOF control, it's a major part of the arsenal a filmmaker has in telling a story, but only one of the tools.

5D2 is a great stills camera, but lack of consistent manual control over movie mode exposure parameters puts it out of contention for me. I was even considering it when it was released to shoot my last feature. I tested it and it was a NO GO big time. I have a nice set of some of the best Canon L glass but couldn't use it. We went in the end with RED ONE and Nikon manual focus lenses I used and collected through the years. I am still hoping that Canon will do something about it but I doubt it. Even the newly released 500D has the same issues.

I want one for personal and smaller projects, but the only hope for something like this looks the Panasonic G1H, with a sensor only marginally smaller than RED ONE, twice larger than S16, 2/3". I presume that its pixel size of 4.5µm will deliver also pretty good pictures with low noise and decent dynamic range. Not to mention the possibility of using almost any lens one can imagine (except the Canon EF - bummer).

[Bill Koehler]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

And this would be a 19.9 mm diagonal or 2.2 crop factor, meaning the lens would be not 28-280 mm equivalent as stated, but 31-310.

It would not only be me who couldn't live with that but also a lot of photographers.

Hence I think the sensor size discussion is important. If one of the wranglers reads this, could you please split the sensor size discussion out of this thread, as I don't want to hijack.

In a separate thread, we could also constructively discuss how we can evaluate the real sensor size once the camera has shipped (eg. FOV comparisons to full frame).

Agreed. Sometimes I would like to be wrong.
Your version yields a slightly larger sensor size.

Originally Posted by Robert Rogoz

In all Canon is a professional still camera with limited video, new Panasonic is just an expensive toy.

And what do you have against toys? ;-)
What is a toy to you looks very, very nice to others.
Personally, I am hoping Panasonic announces a u4/3rds based video camera at NAB, along with more lenses.
It most likely won't happen, but I can dream.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Valeriu Campan

Dylan,

The films you mention were all shot on 35mm, but on 35mm cinema format where the image area is about to half of the FF35mm stills camera that 5D2 replicates.

I know. I figured someone had to bust me on that. :)

I only made that point as a counterpoint to the post about good films being shot on smaller sensor cameras. I agree with you on all points, especially stepping down for more DOF/less focus issues (I shot my last piece on a 5D2 with Nikon lenses at f8). The 5D2 has one massive advantage here over film though... where you'd normally have to pump in a ton more light to shoot stopped down, you can ramp up the ISO on the 5D2 to compensate. That's an advantage that almost no other camera has. Less lighting needs = less gear/money/time.

[Thomas Richter]

LOL - now my world is "back in order". I was surprised to read a full frame sensor being called 35mm in the motion picture context.

On of the initial criticisms to the homebuilt 35mm adapters in comparison to the professional PS Technik adapters is that they don't have filmic depth of field BECAUSE they use the full frame.

No matter how the GH1 sensor size really pans out, it'll be between 1.2 to 1.4 crop factor compared to cinema film. If a crop factor of 1.6 means 1 F-stop (see page 1 of this thread), then the GH1 crop factor of around 1.3 is roughly half an F-stop.

It was written earlier that the Godfather was filmed on T2.8. With the lenses at that time that will equal around F2.5. Open your lenses to F2.0 on the GH1 and you can get the shallow Godfather DOF. There are plenty of F1.4-F1.8 photo primes from 35mm and up. For the 20mm you can use the Panasonic F1.7 pancake lens announced and for wider shots DOF is not such a big issue.

Happy days, I'd say.

[Vic Olam]

Originally Posted by Bill Koehler

16:9 = 17.30mm wide x 9.73mm high

That is MUCH, MUCH larger than Super 16mm.

Plenty of feature films are shot on Super 16 and blow up to 35mm.

You will be able to play with DOF plenty.

Peace,
Vic

[Bill Koehler]

To reiterate various format sizes, now including 16mm movie film, and where the GH1 seems to fit in (preliminary).
Sensor size specs, using Wikipedia, RED, and Panasonic as references for film+sensor sizes.

1/3" 4.8mm x 3.6mm Wikipedia
2/3" 10.1mm x 5.35mm RED
16mm 10.26 x 7.49 mm Wikipedia
Super 16mm 12.52 x 7.41 mm Wikipedia
Ultra 16mm 11.66mm x 7.49mm Wikipedia
G1/GH1 17.3mm x 13.0mm Panasonic
APS-C 22.2mm x 14.8mm Wikipedia
Red One 24.4mm x 13.7mm RED
S35 30.0mm x 15.0mm RED
FF35 36.0mm x 24.0mm RED

To go by the above numbers, and using the sensor width as a proxy for size, The GH1 is

1/3" x 3.6 = GH1
2/3" x 1.71 = GH1
16mm x 1.69 = GH1
Super 16mm x 1.38 = GH1
Ultra 16mm x 1.48 = GH1
APS-C x 0.78 = GH1
Red One x 0.71 = GH1
S35 x 0.58 = GH1
FF35 x 0.48 = GH1

[Evan Donn]

I think area might give us a more meaningful comparison than width ratio does:

1/3" = 1/13
2/3" = 1/4.2
16mm = 1/2.9
Super 16mm = 1/2.4
Ultra 16mm = 1/2.6
GH1 = 1
APS-C = 1.5x
Red One = 1.5x
S35 = 2x
FF35 = 3.8x

With these numbers it's apparent that the GH1 is closer to S35 than it is to 16mm, although not by a lot - but in any case it's significantly larger than just about any previous camera on the market, and compared to typical 1/3" prosumer cameras the DOF difference should be significant.

[Chris Scherf]

To me, one of the biggest appeals of the GH1 doing video is its ability to silently and (hopefully) effectively autofocus, especially tracking a moving subject. Neither the Nikon nor the Canon can do that, and in a documentary or run and gun situation, as previous posters have said, that beautiful 2.8 DOF is going to be a bear to work with. Shoot, even on an indie film with planned blocking it's not all that easy! Your footage is not worth much if half of it is out of focus. That said, I really DO wish that the GH1 had faster lenses, considering the crop factor. Now if only Canon or Nikon could autofocus and do 24P....

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

LOL - now my world is "back in order". I was surprised to read a full frame sensor being called 35mm in the motion picture context.

I'm really surprised I got away with it for so long before someone said anything actually. :) Again, I only said it to discredit the notion that size doesn't matter, and that feature films shoot 35mm and not 16mm for a purpose. It seemed like the best comparison between the GH1 and 5D2.

For those arguing that it will be easier to focus with the GH1 over the 5D2... yeah, you're right. I've been shooting a 50mm f1.4 as my main lens, wide open. Yup, DOF is razor thin, and I've been making a lot of mistakes... but practice helps a lot and I'm much better a month in than when I started. If I actually marked the lens for camera movements and had a focus puller, it would be fine. Of course, if you are shooting live and solo, you better have some mad focusing skills, or yes, you are better off with a camera that autofocuses.

[Scott Dordick]

I was waiting for the 5D MKII but the lack of manual controls is not acceptable for me.

Does anybody know if the GH1 requires button poking and menus to access the manual exposure controls?

And will it be real manual contol or just Apeature and Shutter priority?

I did get to play with the GH1 at PMA but nobody in the Panasonic booth had a clue on how any of the manual functions worked for Video.

The manual focus was very good and the viewfinder was bright.

Does anybody know if the motion jpeg will directly import into PP CS3?

Thanks in advance.

[Adrian Frearson]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Of course, if you are shooting live and solo, you better have some mad focusing skills, or yes, you are better off with a camera that autofocuses.

The way I understand it, the GH1 uses an EVF which aids in manual focusing, another reason the G1 has become popular with manual/old lens fans. So I imagine the GH1 to be fairly workable in this respect, without the need for auto.

Adrian

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

I can name some that were shot on 35mm (which the 5D2 is)... Godfather, Psycho, Lawerence of Arabia (edit: oops, no it wasnt), Star Wars, Gone With The Wind, Titanic, Casablanca, Apocalypse Now, Seven Samurai, Alien, Forrest Gump, Chinatown, Das Boot, Pulp Fiction... Now how many more can you name that were shot on a 2/3" chip or 16mm?

Every single film above plus 99.99% of everything else was shot at 24fps. Yes, I've twixtored 5DMkII footage to 24fps but it's very slow and just okay results.

That matters way, way, way more than the shallow DOF advantage (or disadvantage depending on your focus puller). As pointed out, the GH1 is only a stop or so away from 35mm motion picture DOF and has 24fps native. Huge advantage for digital cinema.

You are right the Canon's lens choices are way ahead but adaptors for the GH1 take care of that for longer - it's really only wide lenses where the 5D has far more options.

We still don't know the codec issue but we do know control is way ahead for GH1, so I'm thinking the d-cinema battle leans towards the GH1 so far.