Canon 5DMkII vs Panasonic GH1

[Dylan Couper]

FWIW, the 2x crop factor makes the GH1 a non-contender for a digital cinema camera for me. I'm now a 5D markII owner.

[Bill Koehler]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

FWIW, the 2x crop factor makes the GH1 a non-contender for a digital cinema camera for me. I'm now a 5D markII owner.

Congratulations!

They are all good. It's what works for you.
I'm curious to see what Canon & Panasonic have to announce at NAB.
Will they formally take their big sensors into a video camera formfactor?

It's only getting better.

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by Bill Koehler

I think your numbers need to be reworked a bit, unfortunately.

If you click on the Panasonic link above, and then click on the 'Specifications' tab, they list the sensor size as 17.3mm x 13mm. So as I understand it everything they are doing is going on in that 17.3mm x 13mm sensor rectangle, irrespective of 4x3, 16x9, or 3x2. So there is no 18.9mm wide for 16x9, for instance :-(

...
But could you still live with that?

Wow, interesting discovery in the specs. Read it and was puzzled. This is extremely interesting, because Panasonic has released 2 contradicting statements everywhere and even within the same website :D

Statement A)
On the link (DMC-GH1 | PRODUCTS | LUMIX | Digital Camera | Panasonic Global) it shows an illustration of the multi-aspect ratio. Panasonic says everywhere that viewing angle (sensor diagonal) is equal in all aspect ratios (except 1:1).

Statement B)
Under specifications it clearly states 17.3 by 13mm.

This does not match, because:

IF the sensor was only 17.3 mm wide, it would have to use this width for the 16:9 setting. As the max 16:9 diagonal we could fit in is 19.9 mm, in 4:3 the image area would be only 15.9 by 11.9 mm.

This would result in a 2.2 crop factor, which directly conflicts with the crop factor stated for the lens :D

That's also the 10% difference Bill and I get. It all dependends which of the two statements you weight higher.

So, what is going on?

I personnaly believe Pana is quoting the actual active sensor area for 4:3 in the specs, same way as it is always only quoting it as a 12.1 mpix camera when the full sensor has 14mpix (only 12 active at any one moment). But that is just an assumption.

Apologise to CH for speculating, but this is just too much fun and lets the time pass quicker before the first cams hit the market.


PS: Math will take approx 10 lines to explain, but I'd happily share that on request.

[Bill Koehler]

For one thing it means some of my assumptions are wrong.

I listed maximum #pixels wide for the sensor as 4352
I listed maximum #pixels tall for the sensor as 3000

That would yield a 13.056 Mpixel sensor.
Taking the Panasonic link, they clearly state on the left the sensor has 14 Mpixels.

I double checked their listed formats (4:3, 3:2, 16:9) and their listed #pixels high x #pixels wide. All the ratios check out.

I checked the diagonals as well. In pixels,

4:3 diagonal = 5000 pixels
3:2 diagonal = 4961 pixels
16:9 diagonal = 4993 pixels

That's a maximum variation of ~0.8% for 3:2. That's pretty constant.

If I take the previous calculation
Panasonic lists 4352 pixels wide in 17.3mm. That gives 251.560 pixels/mm horizontal.

and apply the 251.560 pixels/mm * 13mm sensor height = 3270 pixels high, NOT 3000.

That in turn yields 4352 pixels wide X 3270 pixels high = 14.232 Mpixels, agreeing with Panasonics statement the sensor has 14 Mpixels.

And correcting the calculation for 16x9
from:
(9.73mm/13mm)*3000 pixels = 2245 pixels high

to:
(9.73mm/13mm)*3270 pixels = 2447 pixels high

Which is just one pixel off from what Panny lists. Works for me.
I think my 10% zone of confusion just disappeared.

And it yields

4:3 = 15.9mm wide x 11.93mm high
3:2 = 16.41mm wide x 10.94mm high
16:9 = 17.30mm wide x 9.73mm high

[Peter Moretti]

Originally Posted by Bill Koehler

Congratulations!

They are all good. It's what works for you.
I'm curious to see what Canon & Panasonic have to announce at NAB.
Will they formally take their big sensors into a video camera formfactor?

It's only getting better.

I hope so much that Canon comes out with something to compete against Red's Scarlet. I LOVE Canon's products and would hate to switch over to Red.

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by Bill Koehler

And it yields

4:3 = 15.9mm wide x 11.93mm high
3:2 = 16.41mm wide x 10.94mm high
16:9 = 17.30mm wide x 9.73mm high

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).

[Evan Donn]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

FWIW, the 2x crop factor makes the GH1 a non-contender for a digital cinema camera for me. I'm now a 5D markII owner.

I'm 5DmkII owner too, but still may pick up the lumix... as a replacement for my XHA1. The 5D makes a nice complement to it but can't replace it for some of the general video work I do - but I think the lumix might.

[Valeriu Campan]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

FWIW, the 2x crop factor makes the GH1 a non-contender for a digital cinema camera for me. I'm now a 5D markII owner.

How many movies shot entirely or almost entirely with a 5d2 have you seen in a cinema so far? Do you think there will be many next year and years to come? Haven't heard any rumours yet.

'Slumdog Millionaire' and '... Benjamin Button' were shot on a 2/3" sensor (~4x smaller than a 5d2). 'The Wrestler' on 16mm. It is not the DOF that made these films look great.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Valeriu Campan

How many movies shot entirely or almost entirely with a 5d2 have you seen in a cinema so far? Do you think there will be many next year and years to come? Haven't heard any rumours yet.

'Slumdog Millionaire' and '... Benjamin Button' were shot on a 2/3" sensor (~4x smaller than a 5d2). 'The Wrestler' on 16mm. It is not the DOF that made these films look great.

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 Couper]

Originally Posted by Evan Donn

I'm 5DmkII owner too, but still may pick up the lumix... as a replacement for my XHA1. The 5D makes a nice complement to it but can't replace it for some of the general video work I do - but I think the lumix might.

I'd wait till NAB and see what happens. Actually, I'd probably even wait for Scarlet. I think that's a much better long term solution. I see myself owning both the 5D2 and a Scarlet, since neither the 5D2 nor the Lumix really carry enough "pro" video features for general video work.

[Steev Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

I'd wait till NAB and see what happens. Actually, I'd probably even wait for Scarlet. I think that's a much better long term solution. I see myself owning both the 5D2 and a Scarlet, since neither the 5D2 nor the Lumix really carry enough "pro" video features for general video work.

I agree. At this point, NAB is way too soon to have just spent $3000+ on the 5D, and a month later realize the industry has just granted some major wishes. The technology is there, but it just hasn't hit the market yet. I see it as a rather difficult time for these companies - the economic issues with resource/manufacturing bottlenecks and costs, coupled with pressure to make the right call on price/performance. With the 5D severely out of stock, Canon seemed to either A) totally nail it with their price point, B) resources are strapped and they can't make enough. Meanwhile, we want these products yesterday.

Scarlet may be an answer, but I'd also expect the price of a solution to shift higher with the necessary accessories.

To echo your thoughts on the lack of pro video features on these DSLRs, I also came to a conclusion. After seeing all the 5DMkII footage, I looked over at my HVX200, and shook my head at it. To censor quote the movie Jackie Brown, "What happened to you, man? Your a** used to be beautiful!" However, it's been a mighty 3 years, and a new breed is emerging (rumor of a Canon 5D meets XL-H1), but I quickly reminded myself of everything the HVX200 has that the 5DMkII doesn't.

No rolling shutter, no transcoding necessary, easy DVCPRO HD editing, P2 workflow, proven reliability in recording with no freezes/dropped frames, articulating LCD, fast and fluid zoom feel, ergonomic focus/zoom feel, manual shutter/aperture, built in ND filters, multiple frame rates and sizes, XLR audio with phantom power, zebra, and I saved the best for last... My HVX200 (and all the other small sensor cameras) give deep DOF that makes for far more successfully focused shots in uncontrolled live and run/gun situations.

Now at least the GH1 promises to bring the manual controls and articulating LCD. I can imagine HVX and GH1 making a killer team.

[Robert Rogoz]

Oh please! DOF doesn't mean squat! why are you so obsessed with it? It's the story, acting (along with directing), editing and sound (including the music) that make for a good movie. 99.9% of the projects will end up in someone's closet, and will never be shown in a theater. For some strange reason I never saw Canon 5D on a real movie set.
Changing the subject Panasonic is dropping the ball on this one by releasing this camera body without a decent set of lenses. I think if you are releasing a new camera design, you should equip it with the assortment of lenses. IMO it is way too expensive for what it is. I would gladly use a hybrid of still/video, but the lenses kill Pany and video and size kills the Canon for me.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Robert Rogoz

Oh please! DOF doesn't mean squat! why are you so obsessed with it? It's the story, acting (along with directing), editing and sound (including the music) that make for a good movie.

DOF is a cinematic tool used to create and compose an image to convey feeling/purpose/direction of a scene. It isn't as important as story/acting/directing of course... But that's not the topic of this thread now, is it?

For some strange reason I never saw Canon 5D on a real movie set.

I think a lot of people don't get this point... the Canon 5D2 is a 35mm motion picture camera. "Real movie sets" use 35mm motion picture cameras. Almost every theatrical release film you've ever seen has been shot on a 35mm motion picture camera. The importance of this is not to be underestimated.

[Robert Rogoz]

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, 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?

Lawrence was shot on 65 not 35 mm (Super Panavision 70). The movies were great because they had great story, superior lighting, acting, directing and post. Plus they had a great score. I worked on movies such as "Postmen" (with Costner) and the movie sucked big one! Also shot on 35 mm film. judge the results for yourself. It's the people in front and behind the camera who make the movie great, not the camera itself.
BTW Canon 5D lack key functions to be even considered on a real movie set.

[Robert Rogoz]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

I think a lot of people don't get this point... the Canon 5D2 is a 35mm motion picture camera. "Real movie sets" use 35mm motion picture cameras. Almost every theatrical release film you've ever seen has been shot on a 35mm motion picture camera. The importance of this is not to be underestimated.

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.