GH1 vs. A55/A33

With recent drop in the GH1 price, is it a better hybrid still/video camera than A55/A33? Panasonic has very expensive lenses (the choice is between 4-5 lenses). Probably Sony has lenses that are better opticaly but not standarized for video. Also all decent stabilized lenses are Sigmas (it seems that Sigma has problems with NEX adapters and video on Nikon, for A mount a fix is available). I am planning to use a camera for 60% stills and 40% video. I am thinking that A mount will be probably abandoned by Sony within the next 5 years.

The GH1 has always been a better hybrid video/stills camera - and I don't see how a price change would affect that technical evaluation.

Video in the A55 is quite limited, at least for serious pro types according to what I've read, though of course it has the advantage of continuous PDAF during video.

No, there are virtually no OIS lenses for Alpha mount - because they are the original IBIS cameras - and the A55 does allow image stabilization during video, at the cost of a clip length limit to protect the IBIS actuators.
Walter

A55 is very good for images, but not as good as the Sony DSLR-A580 which is the samething without the translucent mirror that blocks light from the sensor.

The GH1 is much better for video because it does not have all the restrictions that the A55 has and it does not overheat.

The GH1 is also smaller and lighter and as you know the Alpha lenses are very much larger and have a smaller crop factor (meaning you need even larger lenses to do the same thing).

Also, as you point out Alpha lenses are not the future. They don't work well with video or CDAF. They make noise when changing aperature (which Sony won't let you do) and more noise when focusing. The A55/33 seem to be a temporary thing while Sony gears up NEX over the next couple years. They can't afford to support full-frame, APS, translucent mirror and NEX cameras all at the same time. Meanwhile Panasonic (a larger corporation) is focusing on only one format and putting all of their money in to that (micro four thirds).

Oh, and if you just want images, the Nikon D3100 is a good bet too.

If you want video go for the GH1...and check out this site and read about the many feature films being shot on a GH1. If it is good enough for pros and movie theaters, then it should be good enough for you...
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?208-GH13-Footy-Grabs

Is Auto Focus on GH1 fast enough for moving kids? With GH1, I am trading shallow depth of field GPS and Dynamic Range for better control of video and longer zoom lens. Therefore AF may convince me one way or another.

The auto focusing is not bad at all.
Tell me if you see any auto-focusing issues in my old videos.
http://vimeo.com/6272829
http://vimeo.com/6273188
http://vimeo.com/6256427

As for last few example, please do not pay attention to the live concert audio not sounding as good as it could have sounded. I believe I only used the audio from the built in HV30 mics or I might have combined it with the GH1's. It is what it is and I wouldn't have been able to get a feed from the mixer even if I did had a Zoom H4N at that time. At least the 2 kids aren't bad singers. Their very good musicians. Sorry that I'm bragging. I can't help it!!

Anyway the HV30 was on stage and the GH1 was held by me in the middle of the crowd. Basically both cameras was completely hand-held.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-vaRvZbZj8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=webBureetv8
This last one is like the first concert link but with just my camera.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FywuF77SwXk

Keep in mind the the 14-140 lens have just recently gotten a firmware upgrade in the auto focusing so that shots could have looked even better.

I've decided to show 1 more clip and this time it's with the 20mm lens.
http://vimeo.com/8503910

Keep in mind that the auto focusing works the hardest when the lens is at f/1.7 and shooting at night but it didn't do bad at all. Still, chasing kids that are running might be an issue since it's not nearly as fast as the 14-140 lens. They both complement each other very well.

With all that said, I'm selling it and getting the GH2. The focusing will be even better. Theirs a 2.6x and 3.9x crop mode in the 1080p/i and 720p modes respectively which increases your zoom range by a significant amount. A slow motion feature in which the chip outputs 1080 60p and gets recorded as 24p. Last but not least, the low light capabilities are significantly better. I mean the 3,200 ISO examples I've seen are surprisingly clean!

I have constantly used the GH1 like a camcorder ever since July of last year without any overheating issues and really don't want to be restricted by a time limit. Plus I don't believe the A55 has the same level of manual control for the video as the GH2. I don't like restrictions period and that's why for me, the GH2 will be the better choice.

I also can't help the fact that I might be selling you on a GH2 instead of a GH1. The price of the GH1 at $1,000 isn't bad at all especially since that includes the 10x lens but the extra money for the GH2 is fully worth.

--
My Vimeo videos: http://vimeo.com/pauloteixeira/videos
My Flickr photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pauloteixeira/

basic state of ignorance said:

With recent drop in the GH1 price, is it a better hybrid still/video camera than A55/A33?

Click to expand...

A55 is better still camera. Better low-light, more resolution, faster PDAF AF for action stills, 10 fps (it's 3 on GH1), GPS to tag photos, HDR, multi-shot NR, panorama. A55 is also cheaper.

Middle Path said:

Panasonic has very expensive lenses (the choice is between 4-5 lenses).

Click to expand...

Not all Pana lenses are optimized for video. I think they have one HD lens that is very expensive. The cheaper kit lenses are noisy.

Middle Path said:

Probably Sony has lenses that are better opticaly but not standarized for video.

Click to expand...

SSM/HSM lenses are quite.

Middle Path said:

I am thinking that A mount will be probably abandoned by Sony within the next 5 years.

Click to expand...

How many lenses did they release this year? $1200 24mm Zeiss, 35mm F1.8, 85mm F2.8. They also announced a new zoom for A77 that will be released next year with the camera. And also, $5000 500mm F4 is being released next year with A77. Mockup was shown at PMA. Doesn't look A-mount is going anywhere for the next 5 to 10 years.

saghost said:

No, there are virtually no OIS lenses for Alpha mount - because they are the original IBIS cameras - and the A55 does allow image stabilization during video, at the cost of a clip length limit to protect the IBIS actuators.
Walter

Click to expand...

There are around 9 lenses with OIS available for the A33/A55. Don't think the GH1 has a much larger range available, at the contrary.

I hadn't realized Sigma had released that many OIS lenses in Alpha mount.

The point I was trying to make was that the reason most lenses for Alpha mount (including every Sony lens I'm aware of) don't have OIS was a design decision, and that Sony has tried to compensate for the impact to the camera, making it one of the few cameras that can take video with a stabilized fast prime, for instance. It's actually a point in the A55's favor.

(if Pentax came out with a camera like that, or Sony had a line of sharp pancake primes like the Limiteds, I'd be really tempted...)
Walter

Take a look at the GH1 compared to the A55 by using dpreview's comparison tool at the end of either camera's review:

GH1 has better metering and focus accuracy.
GH1 has better RAW image quality (with A55 slightly better at jpeg)
GH1 has significantly better video/movie mode

A55 has better build quality and more features.
A55 has better low light performance
A55 has significantly better performance (speed) and $$ value

The rest of the comparison is pretty much equal (viewfinder quality, etc)

What's most important to you? For me, although the A55 is a very nice size DSLR, I wanted an even more compact system - GH1/GH2.

I shoot stills primarily RAW, so that's the GH1/GH2. Metering and focusing accuracy is better on the GH1. Lots of people talk about speed, but if focus is off or metering is not accurate, what good is it? I see this argument a lot in lens comparisons. Many say "my lens focuses faster than yours" - but does it focus accurately at that speed?

Finally, video mode is significantly better on GH1.

I'm not saying the GH1 is better for you (like it was for me). But I found dpreview's comparison tools at the end of each camera review to be very helpful. Obviously, no camera is perfect. If you need 10 fps, GPS tagging, in camera HDR, etc. - the GH1 won't make you happy. Just be sure you understand what you're giving up in order to get something else.

Best, Pete

ET2 said:

A55 is better still camera. Better low-light, more resolution, faster PDAF AF for action stills, 10 fps (it's 3 on GH1), GPS to tag photos, HDR, multi-shot NR, panorama. A55 is also cheaper.

Click to expand...

MrPete said:

GH1 has better RAW image quality (with A55 slightly better at jpeg)

Click to expand...

But that's just false. The proof of that is dxomark. GH1 scores better than Nex for RAW too on DPRreview but dxomark score proves otherwise. There is no way GH1 has better RAW.

Panasonic has several lenses that work great with video and Olympus has more. There are no Alpha lenses made for video. This is why Sony locks the aperature and and won't let you change it (Even the SSM lenses make loud noises changing aperature).

If it is just images a person cares about then the A580 is a better camera (same sensor and no mirror blocking light) and the D3100 are a better choices too.

If it's video that is important, nothing can touch the GH1. Even Sony says the A55 is not primarily for video because it overheats after 6 minutes of use (according to Sony) and once that happens the camera is completely unusable for a while. This means if you shoot video for 4 minutes, stop for 1 second, start again, in about 2 more minutes, it overheats and you are done. You can delay this by turning off IS and keeping the camera out of the sun, but it will still happen eventually.

As for the GH1, users have reported using it for over an hour without any issues.

ET2 said:

MrPete said:

GH1 has better RAW image quality (with A55 slightly better at jpeg)

Click to expand...

But that's just false. The proof of that is dxomark. GH1 scores better than Nex for RAW too on DPRreview but dxomark score proves otherwise. There is no way GH1 has better RAW.

Click to expand...

Tell DPReview, not me. DPReview doesn't agree with you or dxomark.

According to dxomark, the NEX-5 sensor measures better in three areas than: Leica M9, Nikon D300, Sony A700, Canon 1D Mark 2, Canon 60D, Canon 7D, etc. So what does this tell you about the real world value of these measurements? According to these measurements, lots of Leica M9, Canon 7D, Canon 60D and Nikon D300 owners will soon be selling their cameras in order to buy a NEX-5 for better image quality? Yeh, right.

DPreview's rating is for "RAW image quality". i.e. - What is the totality of the RAW IMAGE quality in the real world. The RAW image quality, which DPReview rates, is often greater than (or less than) the sum of the individual parts of the sensor/camera. This is due to "synergy" (or lack of synergy). This phenomenon of "synergy" (or lack of) is true in many areas of modern manufactured products - automotive, high end audio, computers, etc.

The dxomark is equal to the sum of three parts. It is the quantification of 3 narrow sensor measurements - nothing more, nothing less. Although interesting, the three measurements do not define a finished, printed image. There is no synergy or lack of synergy reflected in the dxomark This is why the above Leica, Canon and Nikon camera users will not be trading in their cameras for an NEX-5 any time soon. At least not for better image quality.

Does the NEX-5 have a better sensor than the GH1 according to dxomark's three laboratory measurements? Indeed it does.

According to DPReview, does the GH1 have better RAW image quality than the NEX-5? Indeed it does. The keyword here is "image quality" - not sensor measurements.

As I said, dxomark's three sensor measurements are interesting and informative. But in the end, they are too narrow in my opinion to measure the overall RAW image quality of a camera. Why? Because dxomark doesn't take the synergy of a camera into account when measuring RAW image quality. DPReview obviously does.

It'll be interesting to see the dxomark for the A55/33. Let's hope dxomark can get the sensor data from them before they overheat or image ghosting sets in (lack of synergy).

DPR rating are personal opinion of different reviewer and can be wrong. In fact, I can prove the rating are contradictory in some cases. For example, in A55 review they claim that A55 EVF is better than all Sony APSC DSLRs, but in fact they rate A550 viewfinder better than A55. That's a contradiction between a review and rating. What does that mean? It means nothing. It just means DPR rating can't be taken seriously. They were rated by different people at different time, an year apart from each other. There are many other such contradictions that you can find if you look for it.

MrPete said:

According to dxomark, the NEX-5 sensor measures better in three areas than: Leica M9, Nikon D300, Sony A700, Canon 1D Mark 2, Canon 60D, Canon 7D, etc. So what does this tell you about the real world value of these measurements? According to these measurements, lots of Leica M9, Canon 7D, Canon 60D and Nikon D300 owners will soon be selling their cameras in order to buy a NEX-5 for better image quality? Yeh, right.

Click to expand...

Yes, right. Indeed. Nex RAW is better than many of these cameras. DPR is just wrong to claim otherwise.

Besides some points mentioned above (and I can not believe that a 4/4 sensor should be better than an aps-c) I think it is also a question regarding lenses.

In one way (AF-lenses) m4/3 is pretty limited regarding faster glass. m4/3 zooms ares slow, there are not many primes available. Here the Sony system offers much more options.

On the other side you can adapt all kinds of lenses to m4/3 as soon as your ok with manual focus.
Personally some faster m4/3 lenses are what I really miss.

You buy into m43 mainly because you're looking for a compact system. The a55 is quite a small camera though, but a bit thicker. You can't change the size of the A mount lenses though, and they're mostly bigger and heavier.

Everyone screams for fast zooms, but I'd rather them be smaller and lighter, as a slow lens will take a better picture than the one I left at home.

ET2 said:

DPR rating are personal opinion of different reviewer and can be wrong. In fact, I can prove the rating are contradictory in some cases. For example, in A55 review they claim that A55 EVF is better than all Sony APSC DSLRs, but in fact they rate A550 viewfinder better than A55. That's a contradiction between a review and rating. What does that mean? It means nothing. It just means DPR rating can't be taken seriously. They were rated by different people at different time, an year apart from each other. There are many other such contradictions that you can find if you look for it.

Click to expand...

Dxomark just added A55 score. A55 loses some light to the pellicle mirror. Despite that, it's the highest rated APSC camera on dxomark, at least until A580, D7000, and K-5, that use the same sensor as A55, are added to dxomark.

1) not buying a camera that produces ghosting instead of just clipped highlights and ruins every city night image

2) the kit lenses are not all noisy. The 20mm pancake is the exception. All other lenses make virtually no noise.

--
Everybody loves gadgets, until they try to make them
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thinkfat
http://thinkfat.blogspot.com

If you just read the m43 threads around here and on the web, esp relating to GH-1 and GH-2, you'd think that the GH series was a camcorder with some still photo capabilities. Indeed, the GH camera should be your pick if video is the most important thing above all else.

If you care about fast primes, zeiss, dynamic range in still photo, and high ISO, the Sony is for you. There is definitely bifurcation of the Sony line. The NEX will be morphing into a more video-centric line while the Alpha will stay more photo-centric. Both lines will be able to do both video and photos, but one is better than the other for specific needs. I highly doubt the Alpha line will end within 5 years unless Sony comes out with a serious pro version of the NEX and get rid of the silly chrome plating on their NEX lenses.

I got a chance to play with the A33 for two weeks. I will echo what many people on the web have said. It is one amazingly fun camera. All the features were really fun to use. I also hardly noticed the weight. I almost decided to keep it, but in the end, it came down to the system. Their lens lineup is small compared to Canikon. Panasonic lens lineup is miniscue in comparison. Just look on this forum. They're all talking about using Canon, Nikon, Leica lens on their m43. The D7000's weathersealing and those new sweet weathersealed 1.4 Nikkors convinced me to go for the small Nikon instead.

Anyway, it sounds like you just need a toy to just shoot around and don't really know if you really need video or want video. That's your deciding factor. Personally, between these two, I'd get the Sony. It's really fun, and you can get autofocus Zeiss.

claiming that gh1 has better RAW performance than A55 is too stupid. DPR reviewers are not new to making stupid claims.

ET2 said:

ET2 said:

DPR rating are personal opinion of different reviewer and can be wrong. In fact, I can prove the rating are contradictory in some cases. For example, in A55 review they claim that A55 EVF is better than all Sony APSC DSLRs, but in fact they rate A550 viewfinder better than A55. That's a contradiction between a review and rating. What does that mean? It means nothing. It just means DPR rating can't be taken seriously. They were rated by different people at different time, an year apart from each other. There are many other such contradictions that you can find if you look for it.

Click to expand...

Dxomark just added A55 score. A55 loses some light to the pellicle mirror. Despite that, it's the highest rated APSC camera on dxomark, at least until A580, D7000, and K-5, that use the same sensor as A55, are added to dxomark.

Click to expand...

--
::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.

Yes, despite losing 30% of light, A55 is #1 rated APSC camera on dxomark. The first Canon (60D) shows up at number 40. All top cameras have a Sony's sensor. D7000, K-5, and A580, are going to set a new record on dxomark with this sensor.

And let's wait once this sensor shows up in a Nex body next year : )

Plus there are rumors that A77 will have a even better sensor than this -- a 24 MP APSC.

ET2 said:

Click to expand...