How much better is GH2 over Canon T3i?

Jeff Harper · July 28th, 2011, 07:38 PM

14-42 huh? Lloyd, I just ordered a another cam, and got the kit lens with the 14-42 for fun. It is far from being a great lens, but I wanted it for some reason, and it was nearly free so why not?

So do you have any samples of your lens on a merlin? When and where do you use it? I'm about to order a Glidecam, and was thinking the lens might be good outdoors, but what do you do indoors? For first dance? Don't you have to change lenses and re calibrate your Merlin?

Evan Lloyd · July 28th, 2011, 09:16 PM

Indoors I use either the 20mm and just keep a safe distance to stay in focus, or I switch to the T3i with a wide angle lens. I've gotten good results with this as well. Although I will always go for the 14-42mm if the light is sufficient. It's not a great lens, but if you use it for a specific purpose like flying, it is very useful. I'm not sure, but I would assume the 14-45 would also do the trick with slightly better optics.

Nigel Barker · July 29th, 2011, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evan Lloyd

I use the 14-42mm for auto focus shots, and it works great. I use it on my jib and on my Merlin. Hunting for focus has never been a problem. I usually set the Aperture to around f4 and try to pause a second or two before I begin my move. The 20mm sucks for auto focus. The 14-140mm is usable but not great. the 100-300mm has been effective when I've been shooting surfers, but I can't say it has reliable auto focus in all situations. For whatever reason the 14-42 has been great for auto focus.

Evan

Aha! That must be the solution. I have the 14-42mm as it is the kit lens that was bundled with the GH2 but I have barely used it as I have all those other better lenses, at least they are better for everything except for auto focus it would appear. I shall have to try & remember where I put it & try it out.

Greg Fiske · August 1st, 2011, 10:51 AM

One thing I wonder about is why the guys like still motion, Joe Simon have not migrated over to the panasonics? Is it because they are too busy to learn the new cameras? Although I hear that still motion got an Epic. Is anyone doing +$8k weddings using the panasonics?

Jeff Harper · August 1st, 2011, 10:57 AM

Greg, what do you shoot with, and what do you charge? Are you using the Canon DSLRs?

Greg Fiske · August 1st, 2011, 11:30 AM

I shoot with a 5d mark II, t2i and a gh1. I deliver a trailer, short film and backup documentary edit of the ceremony and speeches. Gh1 I use for the documentary footage. Packages start at $1k, I'm just starting out so hopefully that will improve down the road.

I follow and study the work of Canon shooters on vimeo. Maybe its because its more prevalent? I see that most of the support rigs on the market are catering to the Canon shooters.

Nigel Barker · August 1st, 2011, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Fiske

One thing I wonder about is why the guys like still motion, Joe Simon have not migrated over to the panasonics? Is it because they are too busy to learn the new cameras? Although I hear that still motion got an Epic. Is anyone doing +$8k weddings using the panasonics?

I am not doing +$8k weddings but I imagine that the guys like Joe Simon continue to use the Canon DSLRs for the same reasons that we do. If you are used to the Canon 5D Mk II then the GH2 is a tiny little plastic toy in comparison. The ergonomics are just awful. Plus like us they have invested more in Canon lenses than in cameras & there is no way decent way to use them on the GH2. The video from the GH2 is technically better quality with higher resolution & no problems with moire or aliasing however it does not look as rich & filmic as the video from the Canon DSLRs. The images from the Canon DSLRs just look better.

Jeff Harper · August 1st, 2011, 12:15 PM

I agree Nigel, I hate the ergonomics of these things, but otherwise they are phenomenal.

Patrick Janka · August 1st, 2011, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

rich & filmic as the video from the Canon DSLRs. The images from the Canon DSLRs just look better.

I agree that the Canon "look" is superior to the Panasonic, but why do you think that is? How can the video be "technically better" and "higher res", but not look as nice? Some people mention the depth of field, but with my Voigtlander f/.95 I can get pretty shallow dof. It can't be the color, because that can be fixed in post.

Nigel Barker · August 1st, 2011, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Janka

I agree that the Canon "look" is superior to the Panasonic, but why do you think that is? How can the video be "technically better" and "higher res", but not look as nice? Some people mention the depth of field, but with my Voigtlander f/.95 I can get pretty shallow dof. It can't be the color, because that can be fixed in post.

I imagine that part of the Canon 'look' is down to slightly softer focus due to less resolution plus the different DoF characteristics. I am not sure that it's true that the colour can simply be fixed in post at least not unless you are a Hollywood post-production facility anyway.

Martyn Hull · August 2nd, 2011, 12:58 AM

Straight from the Canon's lips, if they can better this GH footage I have yet to see it.

Martyn Hull · August 2nd, 2011, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Janka

I agree that the Canon "look" is superior to the Panasonic, but why do you think that is? How can the video be "technically better" and "higher res", but not look as nice? Some people mention the depth of field, but with my Voigtlander f/.95 I can get pretty shallow dof. It can't be the color, because that can be fixed in post.

I have owned canon DSLRs soft video with color that GH2s can match easily.

Steven Thomas · August 2nd, 2011, 02:10 PM

I believe (and most others) the Canon takes one of the best still pictures.

But for video, for technical reasons the images do appear soft. This would drive me nuts thinking i'm not quite in focus. I'm not sold on the color vibe at all. Give me an image that as not been saturated and properly exposed, I'll create the look in post. This is normal for many video post engineers and certainly all of the RED camera clan.

I must admit, the GH2 is quite remarkable, even more so when shooting 24P at 60mb/s AVCHD!

Patrick Janka · August 2nd, 2011, 09:16 PM

Martyn, those videos look excellent. I wonder why the DP framed the interview with the man speaking to the edge of the frame as opposed to the other side, however. He was also a bit underexposed.

Brian Luce · August 8th, 2011, 11:11 PM

Canon image is a little more filmic than GH2 because it has higher color depth. GH2 only has 8 bit, Canon is coming through 14 bit I think. But GH2 has sharper image and no alias and moire nightmares. GH2's can be hard to find also. The crop factor difference is 1.6 versus 1.9. Not that much.

July 28th, 2011, 07:38 PM	#16
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: How much better is GH2 over Canon T3i? 14-42 huh? Lloyd, I just ordered a another cam, and got the kit lens with the 14-42 for fun. It is far from being a great lens, but I wanted it for some reason, and it was nearly free so why not? So do you have any samples of your lens on a merlin? When and where do you use it? I'm about to order a Glidecam, and was thinking the lens might be good outdoors, but what do you do indoors? For first dance? Don't you have to change lenses and re calibrate your Merlin? __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

July 28th, 2011, 09:16 PM	#17
Evan Lloyd Regular Crew Join Date: May 2008 Location: Fresno Posts: 111	Re: How much better is GH2 over Canon T3i? Indoors I use either the 20mm and just keep a safe distance to stay in focus, or I switch to the T3i with a wide angle lens. I've gotten good results with this as well. Although I will always go for the 14-42mm if the light is sufficient. It's not a great lens, but if you use it for a specific purpose like flying, it is very useful. I'm not sure, but I would assume the 14-45 would also do the trick with slightly better optics.

August 1st, 2011, 10:51 AM	#19
Greg Fiske Major Player Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Santa Ana, CA Posts: 499	Re: How much better is GH2 over Canon T3i? One thing I wonder about is why the guys like still motion, Joe Simon have not migrated over to the panasonics? Is it because they are too busy to learn the new cameras? Although I hear that still motion got an Epic. Is anyone doing +$8k weddings using the panasonics?

August 1st, 2011, 10:57 AM	#20
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: How much better is GH2 over Canon T3i? Greg, what do you shoot with, and what do you charge? Are you using the Canon DSLRs? __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

August 1st, 2011, 11:30 AM	#21
Greg Fiske Major Player Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Santa Ana, CA Posts: 499	Re: How much better is GH2 over Canon T3i? I shoot with a 5d mark II, t2i and a gh1. I deliver a trailer, short film and backup documentary edit of the ceremony and speeches. Gh1 I use for the documentary footage. Packages start at $1k, I'm just starting out so hopefully that will improve down the road. I follow and study the work of Canon shooters on vimeo. Maybe its because its more prevalent? I see that most of the support rigs on the market are catering to the Canon shooters.

August 1st, 2011, 12:15 PM	#23
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: How much better is GH2 over Canon T3i? I agree Nigel, I hate the ergonomics of these things, but otherwise they are phenomenal. __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

August 2nd, 2011, 12:58 AM	#26
Martyn Hull Major Player Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: England Posts: 444	Re: How much better is GH2 over Canon T3i? The Streets of India on Vimeo Straight from the Canon's lips, if they can better this GH footage I have yet to see it.

August 2nd, 2011, 02:10 PM	#28
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	Re: How much better is GH2 over Canon T3i? I believe (and most others) the Canon takes one of the best still pictures. But for video, for technical reasons the images do appear soft. This would drive me nuts thinking i'm not quite in focus. I'm not sold on the color vibe at all. Give me an image that as not been saturated and properly exposed, I'll create the look in post. This is normal for many video post engineers and certainly all of the RED camera clan. I must admit, the GH2 is quite remarkable, even more so when shooting 24P at 60mb/s AVCHD!

August 2nd, 2011, 09:16 PM	#29
Patrick Janka Major Player Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 623	Re: How much better is GH2 over Canon T3i? Martyn, those videos look excellent. I wonder why the DP framed the interview with the man speaking to the edge of the frame as opposed to the other side, however. He was also a bit underexposed.

August 8th, 2011, 11:11 PM	#30
Brian Luce Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,290	Re: How much better is GH2 over Canon T3i? Canon image is a little more filmic than GH2 because it has higher color depth. GH2 only has 8 bit, Canon is coming through 14 bit I think. But GH2 has sharper image and no alias and moire nightmares. GH2's can be hard to find also. The crop factor difference is 1.6 versus 1.9. Not that much.