Video GH1 v Canon 7D

Hey all,

My wife wants video, and I want a new camera, so I will probably get a new camera that does video.

Has anyone compared the GH1 and Canon 7D as far as video goes? Looking for all comments comparing the two.

Thanks!
--
Rob aka NoTx...
-Film: Fuji GX680, Leica M6TTL, Contax G2, Contax G1
-Digital: Olympus E1 x2

Go on vimeo and there are lots of examples there.

I would say get the GH1 with eh 14-140 lens. Its the closest thing to "automatic"everyhitng with the 7D you will be out of focus 50-70% of the time...

"the 7D you will be out of focus 50-70% of the time..."

That's not a fair statement! If the clips on the 7D are out of focus, that is the operator's fault, for the most part. Manual focus requires some care on the part of the user.

--
Roger Bloemers

GH1 is one of the timeless cameras, 7D is not.

GH1 is small and very smart and you have choice of all any lens (via adapter). Picture quality is great, autofocus and operation fast, e. viewfinder amazing, price much lower then 7D. After two years 7D will get old, GH1 not...
7D is a fat fast beast, but suffers from high resolution - weaker colors, noise.

Roger Bloemers said:

"the 7D you will be out of focus 50-70% of the time..."

That's not a fair statement! If the clips on the 7D are out of focus, that is the operator's fault, for the most part. Manual focus requires some care on the part of the user.

Click to expand...

...which is precisely why he says that you will likely be out of focus with the canon 7d most of the time. Manual focusing on static subjects for a photograph is cakewalk compared to manual focusing moving scenes in video. It is very difficult to do candid scenes in manual focus. And if you attempt it at some of the wide-open apertures you can get to w/ a gorgeously bright lens, you will really have fun trying to get that focus locked on.

--
'I have no responsibilities here whatsoever'

GH1 group http://www.vimeo.com/groups/gh1
7D group http://www.vimeo.com/groups/eos7d
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic
G1 gallery http://www.pbase.com/picnic/temp_g1

Is the GH1 better than the 7D in that regard? As in subject tracking for AF? Wonder if the 7D has it.

Also, haven't read through it completely yet but the DPReview 7D review is up. I'm looking at the 7D as a replacement for my 40D.

7D is the better still image, camera BY FAR.. its Canon's pro APSc body.. GH1 is a toy compared to it.

GH1 is probably better at video, since its designed from the ground up for video... as long as you use Panasonic m43 lenses you are good.

NoTx said:

Hey all,

My wife wants video, and I want a new camera, so I will probably get a new camera that does video.

Has anyone compared the GH1 and Canon 7D as far as video goes? Looking for all comments comparing the two.

Thanks!
--
Rob aka NoTx...
-Film: Fuji GX680, Leica M6TTL, Contax G2, Contax G1
-Digital: Olympus E1 x2

Click to expand...

Interesting and the first I've heard of this. GH1 is out since I'm looking to keep my Canon lenses and video isn't my primary use. Looks like Canon went too high with the resolution again.

To my knowledge, the GH1 is the only one of the video DSLRs that has AF. I can't even imagine how difficult it would be to use manual focus on a moving subject. Like Roy said, particularly with a fast lens. Kids or sports would be out of the question unless you are trained and experienced.
--
Just for fun!

Jim

I have both currently. If I"m going to be taking videos, the GH1 w/ 14-140 lens is 1000x easier to use and has equal (if not better) VQ (video quality). The 7D (especially on 720p) exhibits a lot of resampling artifacts (jaggies).

For casual use, the Canon's are somewhat frustrating to use for video. Manual focus for any dynamic subject is a pain and me reaching around and adjusting mid-shoot is distracting (bump, bump, noise, noise). Using contrast AF during the shoot is VERY distracting (aperture opens up, pic gets brighter, focus hunts, buzz, buzz, OK...in focus). In Lens IS is also loud enough to come through with the 7D. With the GH1, it silently AFs continuously if that's what you want it to do, and IS and aperture is silent.

Yes, with a carefully planned shoot at 1080p, the 7D will give you better results (less compression), but90% of what I shoot is impromptu, so the GH1 fills my needs much, much better.

Now, if we go to stills, the 7D is definitely master, particularly at higher ISOs. And the lens selection is infinitely better as well.

I'm lucky enough to be able to use both. It you are primarily interested in video and not want to compromise much on the still side, the GH1 is ideal.

If you are primarily concerned with still IQ, particularly at higher ISOs, then the 7D is a great camera and can produce great video as well with careful planning.

--
Rick Krejci
http://www.ricksastro.com

I have been looking extensively for a camera that can do short high quality video clips and at the end of the day, every time, I haven't found a digital camera that pulls off video very well and have ended up with a much-compromised solution (see below).

Resolution on all video-enabled DSLRs and EVILs is really bad compared to their still modes - perhaps in a few years there will be a camera that can take video with a quality that approaches downsampled still images, but right now what you end up with is video that is not much higher than standard definition, even if it does say 1080p on the box. None of them come remotely close to that. Now compared to consumer camcorders, yes, either camera can do decent video, as can the GF1, T1i, EP-1/2 etc, but frankly that's a pretty low bar to surpass. Most people are so dazzled by the clarity and shallow depth of field possible from these cameras that they quickly forget about their subpar resolution

For me, I've given up on waiting for a truly high quality video mode to appear in a camera model in the near future and got an EX-F1 to take short clips using its burst mode. Sony's superfast 6mp sensor was announced, amazingly, almost 3 years ago but Casio is the only company to use it in a digital camera . It essentially gives me a few seconds of unaliased, unbinned 1584p video when I use it in burst mode and convert it to video in Photoshop. The results are breathtaking and miles better than any current video; it is nothing less than a prelude to what true high-definition video will look like in a few years. But at the rate technology is progressing I suspect most companies will simply wait for this kind of speed to appear in a larger sensor instead of trying to build a new hybrid camera around a 3-year old sensor.

BUT, when this technology comes to larger-sensor cameras look out!!! It's gonna blow your socks off. Until then you'll have to settle for a compromised solution. I bet by the time Scarlet comes out from RED, Sony or Canon or Panasonic will already have a much cheaper camera that can do comparable work. If it were me I wouldn't spend too much on a video-SLR or EVIL right now, the results are all comparable, and in a couple of years they'll be nearly worthless once real hi-def cameras come out. I'd spend as little as possible today, just enough to get a passable video mode, and save it for that camera you'll really want in a couple more years

What's the point of shooting in higher res than 1080p unless you happen to own a cinema to view your home vids on? Going for a system that records in a higher bit colour space would be better though

The info I've gathered second-hand from the internet is:

• the GH1 shoots video more easily (autofocus, articulating screen, continuous aperture)
• the GH1 is cheaper, especially if you compare the cost of 'body only'
• the 7D has better stills quality
• the 7D has better low light capability
• the 7D codec is more robust at 1080p, less liable to cause 'mud'
• a lot of the good GH1 stuff on the net comes from semi-pros who aren't using the kit lens
• some GH1 users swear they only get the mud issue if they don't shoot fully manual, and it isn't a problem
• the 7D shoots native 24p, the GH1 doesn't and a pulldown step is required to get footage to conform to a 24/25p timeline

So it's not clear to me from all this which would be better.

I'm getting the GH1 tomorrow, mostly because video is as important as stills to me, and I want a small system that I would be OK carrying around

Can't wait!

I was very interested when I first read the 7D's video specs. Even though it can't continuously AF, at least it can refocus during videos when you press the AF button. Like all SLRs I've owned that can AF in liveview (Nikon D700/300/90/5000), it is painfully slow, 3-5 seconds. Totally useless.

Having to hold that camera with arms stretched out to take videos, it got tiring pretty quickly, and the demo has the relatively light 28-135IS lens on it.

I'm sure with stills it will blow the GH1 out of the water, but if you're equally interested in videos, the GH1 works much better - fast C-AF, hi-res viewfinder, swivel screen, and much lower price.

--
NIK0N D9O/18TO1O5VR/35MM1.8/SB4OO
PANAS0NIC LX-3 & ZS-3 & TS-1 & GF-1/2OMM1.7/14TO45IS/14TO14OIS

Get your wife the TZ7/ZS3 camera. It is great for video and she will love it.
Now that the important stuff is taken care off, get yourself the GH1.

Good luck.

--
Tod Yampel

Duck Club member

It is 100% totally fair. I never said it would be the camera's fault. But you have to manually focus and if you are shooting anything that moves you will be out of focus. Even the best of them cannot pull focus 100% of the time. AND the 7D has shallower DOF and most people abuse that (because they can) and the images are all out of focus. Philip bloom shoots with one and a lot of his stuff that have to do with people is too narrow DOF and is out of focus.

A camera built around an Electronic View Finder is a much better match for video than an SLR with it's mirror and optical view finder. You can't take video at the same time as the mirror is in place so the optical view finder becomes useless.

From there comes another engineering choice that favors the GH1 over the 7D or other SLR's. Not using a mirror means the GH1 went with contrast detection auto focus instead of phase detection like the 7d uses. Phase detection auto focus won't work in video mode, while contrast detection does. Advantage to the GH1.

The mFT lenses are designed from the ground up to work with contrast detection auto focus. The Canon lenses are designed for phase detect autofocus which means that even if Canon adds contrast auto focus, their lenses aren't going to perform well at all. Hence you have no continuous auto focus on the 7D.

Now if you do professional video then the 7D might be better for you. You get to control where your actors move and stop so manual focus works fine. For the rest of us wanting to take videos of the kids soccer game, we need a camera that will adjust to the event and the GH1 blows away the 7D in this department.

One reason I want a video camera is so that I can set up the camera and record my volleyball games while I play. For this the camera needs to function in a fire and forget mode. The GH1 allows me to do this, but for some reason Canon decided to implement European video length restictions. As a result you can't record for more than 30 minutes on the 7D.

Fine details are rendered much better, and the TV isn't the bottleneck it's the cameras. All of today's so-called "1080" video modes don't come anywhere close to offering that much resolution, there is much room for improvement that you can notice on even a modest set. Think of 2 megapixel images that were shot out of an old 2mp camera versus a 2 megapixel image that came from an 6mp+ camera then downsampled. Though the pixel count is the same the image from the higher mp camera will deliver a much better image if properly downsized. The same holds true with video.

At any rate if video is important to you by all means you should get the camera that best suits your needs within your budget, but if you want good quality be prepared to buy all over again in a couple of years when the technology will have produced dramatic strides. Think of what a rapid pace digital still photography was progressing at ten years ago versus today's mildly incremental improvements - video in 2009 is about where still photography was in 1999