GH2 vs Canon EOS 60D

Panasonic has a wide range of video cameras, including a $60,000 varicam. To say that they can't compete with the Sony CineAlta is laughable at best. Thanks for the laugh. If you really think no production or broadcast studio would use a "cheaper (in terms of money)" camera like Panasonic AG-HPX370 $11,000 or less, you have something to learn. You would probably be suprised what cameras are used for professional broadcasts. They are not all $80,000+ cameras, nor are they all Sony, lol.

http://www.panasonic.com/business/provideo/cat_camcorders.asp

ET2 aka. Ichiro...You remind me of one of my so-called friends that also bashes Olympus/Panasonic. He is a Canikon guy and thinks anything else is no good. He did buy an E-PL1, but he clearly stated to me that it was for his wife . He said it like the camera wasn't good enough for him. Too bad all of his photos on his website that were taken with Canon Mark II and III are no better than what anyone else can do with a P&S camera. He just thinks that if he buys an expensive camera, that it will magically make his photos better. Have you bought a camera yet for yourself, ET2?

Wow! Maybe not the worst thread ever, but if we hear further misinformation from ET2 it may come close.

Dan Clark said:

That thing is 3 times the cost of the AF100 and 15 times the cost of the GH2. GET REAL! Read. My. Lips. Sony has NOTHING in this market!

Click to expand...

Exactly. Pana is not competing against Sony in pro market. It's playing at consumer level. Did not I say that?

Everdog said:

ET2 said:

5D, D7000, GH2 and AF100 all have crappy video....

Click to expand...

I am bookmarking this one. It's your funniest post ever.

Click to expand...

Yeah, keep laughing. The video quality of these cameras is pathetic compared to a proper camcorder (even the small sensor ones). The only thing they offer is shallow depth of field, but since the sensor is designed for still photography with huge number of mega pixels crammed into sensor, they have to do line skipping and scaling, and that means moire and aliasing.

The IQ quality of these cameras cannot compete with something like F3 where the sensor (even though it's larger than APSC) only has 2 MP pixels. The upcoming NXCam scheduled for next year with E-mount will have the same sensor that is in F3, and that means each pixel will have four times larger surface area than Canon 5D Mark II (GH2 pixel size is even smaller).

• Sony F3 - 12 microns (2MP on a Super 35 sensor - approx APS-C sized)
• 5D Mark II - 6.4 microns (22MP on a photographic 35mm full frame sensor)

Unfortunately, that's true. Panasonic GH2 can not compete with a similar priced (in Japan) camcorder like Panasonic HDC-TM750 in terms of video quality, except swallow DOF.

dunca said:

Unfortunately, that's true. Panasonic GH2 can not compete with a similar priced (in Japan) camcorder like Panasonic HDC-TM750 in terms of video quality, except swallow DOF.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Almost every camcorder has better IQ than these hybrids. Unlike these hybrids where the sensor is designed for high resolution still photography, camcorder sensors don't have that many pixels crammed into sensor even if the sensor is small. The only advantage that these DSLR hybrids have is shallow depth of field due to larger sensor, but video IQ overall (aliasing, moire, artifacts) is worse than an average camcorder.

Are you sure about that? I'd expect the GH2 to murder any small-sensor consumer camcorder in anything but outdoor lighting as well. Dynamic range should also be in favor of the GH2.

What are you basing that on?

The TM750 does offer some advantages, like 1080p60, but does it also offer better iq?

dunca said:

Unfortunately, that's true. Panasonic GH2 can not compete with a similar priced (in Japan) camcorder like Panasonic HDC-TM750 in terms of video quality, except swallow DOF.

Click to expand...

Jon Rty said:

Are you sure about that? I'd expect the GH2 to murder any small-sensor consumer camcorder in anything but outdoor lighting as well. Dynamic range should also be in favor of the GH2.

What are you basing that on?

Click to expand...

Even if the sensor is smaller on camcorders, the sensor is made for video. That is, it's not crammed with 16 MP. It just needs 2 MP on that small sensor for HD video. GH2 requires 16 MP for resolution needed by still photography. More pixels = smaller pixels. How could that be good for video?

It's a myth that large sensor hybrids have better video IQ. The only plus is shallow depth of field. That's all. That's the beginning and the end of advantage. The pro video future does not belong to hybrids like GH2 and 5D Mark II. No way hybrid would be able to compete with a large sensor camcorder that has a sensor made specifically for video (such as F3 and upcoming NXCam).

It's not myth, it's physics. Bigger sensor, more photons captured, better IQ. Shallow DOF is just one of the advantages. Ceteris paribus the bigger sensor will have better DR, better ISO performance, and better color-depth. It will also require lenses that resolve less. It's no coincidence that all high-end cinemas are shot with big sensor cameras.

Now, if GH2 is able to to capitalize on it's big sensor or not is the question, but from the samples I've seen the GH2 seems to be at least comparable in good light to the TM750.
http://vimeo.com/14725884

In worse conditions it's the camcorder isn't even in the same league: http://vimeo.com/17062701

DSLRs have been used for high-production shoots, for instance a episode of House was shot with 5DIIs. They wouldn't have used cams like that if they didn't find the IQ good enough, as money isn't a issue. Yet, I can't say I've ever heard of anyone using a consumer camcorder in broadcast, let alone in a high-production drama like House.

The point isn't that the 5DII competes with 100 000USD cams, but it's on offers IQ good enough for prime-time TV. Can't say the same about a consumer camcorder.

ET2 said:

Even if the sensor is smaller on camcorders, the sensor is made for video. That is, it's not crammed with 16 MP. It just needs 2 MP on that small sensor for HD video. GH2 requires 16 MP for resolution needed by still photography. More pixels = smaller pixels. How could that be good for video?

It's a myth that large sensor hybrids have better video IQ. The only plus is shallow depth of field. That's all. That's the beginning and the end of advantage. The pro video future does not belong to hybrids like GH2 and 5D Mark II. No way hybrid would be able to compete with a large sensor camcorder that has a sensor made specifically for video (such as F3 and upcoming NXCam).

Click to expand...

Jon Rty said:

It's not myth, it's physics. Bigger sensor, more photons captured, better IQ.

Click to expand...

Or, smaller pixels, worse IQ. Since GH2 has a 16 MP crammed into sensor for still photography, the pixels are smaller than they could have been if it had sensor developed specifically for video only. The sensor also requires line skipping and scaling, effecting IQ.

Jon Rty said:

Shallow DOF is just one of the advantages. Ceteris paribus the bigger sensor will have better DR, better ISO performance, and better color-depth. It will also require lenses that resolve less. It's no coincidence that all high-end cinemas are shot with big sensor cameras.

Click to expand...

Those "high-end cinemas" cameras have video sensor. They do not have a sensor made for still camera.

Jon Rty said:

DSLRs have been used for high-production shoots, for instance a episode of House was shot with 5DIIs.

Click to expand...

Oh, duh. 99.99% of everything you watch on your TV is shot with smaller sensor camcorders.

So the score for DSLR vs smaller sensor camcorder is something like 9.99% vs 0.001 (or probably a lot worse) for DSLR

Jon Rty said:

In worse conditions it's the camcorder isn't even in the same league: http://vimeo.com/17062701

Click to expand...

That video was captured by a special prime lens. DSLRs have the advantage of changing lenses. If you compare DSLR and a good camcorder using a similar lens, camcorder is better.

Jon Rty said:

Yet, I can't say I've ever heard of anyone using a consumer camcorder in broadcast, let alone in a high-production drama like House.

Click to expand...

That's because camcorder do not have shallow DOF as I said before. DSLRs have that advantage.

There is a review with low light comparison of GH1 and camcorders at http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Panasonic-Lumix-GH1-Digital-Camera-Review-20751 . It shows that GH1's Video: Color Score and Low light sensitivity are worse than a small sensor camcorder Panasonic HDC-HS300. They say "We expected a better low light sensitivity performance coming from the GH1, mainly because the HS300 did so well with this test, but also because it is a DSLR with a huge CMOS sensor. "

Reading-comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? I said consumer camcorder, not small-sensor camcorder. So, go ahead, show me one broadcast shot with consumer camcorders.

And that's my point. Even though a DSLR isn't comparable with dedicated, 20 000USD+ video-cameras, they still offer significant advantages compared to similarly priced consumer camcorders

As you should know by now the Smaller pixels, worse IQ phrase is a myth. Compare the D80 to the D90 to the D7000. Smaller pixels, better IQ. You might not know this, but the Sony 35mm video sensor aren't 2mp either. They're higher MP sensors that use either stripping or binning to output 2mp.

ET2 said:

Or, smaller pixels, worse IQ. Since GH2 has a 16 MP crammed into sensor for still photography, the pixels are smaller than they could have been if it had sensor developed specifically for video only. The sensor also requires line skipping and scaling, effecting IQ.

Those "high-end cinemas" cameras have video sensor. They do not have a sensor made for still camera.

Click to expand...

ET2 said:

Oh, duh. 99.99% of everything you watch on your TV is shot with smaller sensor camcorders.

So the score for DSLR vs smaller sensor camcorder is something like 9.99% vs 0.001 (or probably a lot worse) for DSLR

Click to expand...

Did you read the same review I did?

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Panasonic-Lumix-GH1-Digital-Camera-Review-20751/Video-Low-Light.htm

"The GH1 did a bit better than the Panasonic HS300 in this test and the comparison images above show confirmation of this fact. The HS300 has a dark, somewhat washed-out image, while the GH1's colors are bright and vibrant. The Canon T1i had the most saturated colors of this set, but its image was also the darkest."

"Most impressive is the fact that the GH1's noise levels are roughly 3x lower than the Panasonic HDC-HS300. "

"you can see that the GH1 has a clearer image than the HS300 and it is easier to make out small details like the numbers and vertical dots"

And this is from the 2 year old GH1, with documented problems in low-light. The "Video: Low Light Sensitivity" test is deeply flawed, as the lux value they measure is totally dependent on the lens used. If the kit lens requires 17 lux on the GH1, as tested, then that means that the 20mm F/1.7 which is around two stops faster only needs 4.25 lux. And considering that the HS300 has a F/1.8 lens, the 20mm F/1.7 is a far better comparison than the kit-zoom.

dunca said:

dunca said:

In worse conditions it's the camcorder isn't even in the same league: http://vimeo.com/17062701

Click to expand...

That video was captured by a special prime lens. DSLRs have the advantage of changing lenses. If you compare DSLR and a good camcorder using a similar lens, camcorder is better.

dunca said:

Yet, I can't say I've ever heard of anyone using a consumer camcorder in broadcast, let alone in a high-production drama like House.

Click to expand...

That's because camcorder do not have shallow DOF as I said before. DSLRs have that advantage.

There is a review with low light comparison of GH1 and camcorders at http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Panasonic-Lumix-GH1-Digital-Camera-Review-20751 . It shows that GH1's Video: Color Score and Low light sensitivity are worse than a small sensor camcorder Panasonic HDC-HS300. They say "We expected a better low light sensitivity performance coming from the GH1, mainly because the HS300 did so well with this test, but also because it is a DSLR with a huge CMOS sensor. "

Click to expand...

Jon Rty said:

Reading-comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? I said consumer camcorder, not small-sensor camcorder. So, go ahead, show me one broadcast shot with consumer camcorders.

Click to expand...

Almost everything you are watching on your TV is shot with a camera that has much smaller sensor than GH2.

Jon Rty said:

As you should know by now the Smaller pixels, worse IQ phrase is a myth. Compare the D80 to the D90 to the D7000. Smaller pixels, better IQ. You might not know this, but the Sony 35mm video sensor aren't 2mp either. They're higher MP sensors that use either stripping or binning to output 2mp.

Click to expand...

That's not a myth. The sensor technology has improved since D80, D90 and D7000. What you are looking at here is advancement in sensor technology. Each pixel collects light, so if you have two smaller pixels, each gets half the light. The problem with DSLR video is that your video is only 2 MP. Why would you put 16 MP on your sensor if you only need 2 MP? How could that be good for video IQ?

Still not really paying attention to what you are reading? I said consumer camcorders , not small-sensor camcorders. Do you see the difference now? So, what broadcast is shot with consumer camcorders? And for your interest, for instance Lost was shot mainly with Panavision 35mm gear. As are other high-production broadcasts.

Did you happen to miss the fact that the 35mm video-cameras from Sony, like the F35 or F3, also use sensor with more than 2mp and then use stripping or binning to output 2mp? The F35 for instance is said to use a 5,760 x 2,160 sensor. You use a higher resolution sensor because then you can use binning to capture color-information from multiple sensels, and then combine that to a higher-quality video than otherwise possible.

There's no way to get Full-HD video with 4:4:4 color using a 1920x1080 sensor. That's why pro cameras use sensors with more pixels than in the output video.

A sensor thats a given size collects the same amount of light no matter how many pixels there are on it. As the pixel-count goes up each individual pixel gets less, but as they're combined to produce the final image, the total amount of light collected remains the same. Thus, there's no disadvantage.

ET2 said:

Almost everything you are watching on your TV is shot with a camera that has much smaller sensor than GH2.

That's not a myth. The sensor technology has improved since D80, D90 and D7000. What you are looking at here is advancement in sensor technology. Each pixel collects light, so if you have two smaller pixels, each gets half the light. The problem with DSLR video is that your video is only 2 MP. Why would you put 16 MP on your sensor if you only need 2 MP? How could that be good for video IQ?

Click to expand...

I should say the same thing. Did you read the same review I did?

"Color accuracy is acceptable, but can't match what a good HD camcorder is capable of."

"the Panasonic HS300's colors were more accurate in our testing, and its saturation level was higher."

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Panasonic-Lumix-GH1-Digital-Camera-Review-20751/Video-Color-amp ;-Noise.htm

"The Canon T1i pulled out a slightly higher sharpness score when we used its 1920 x 1080 video resolution setting."

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Panasonic-Lumix-GH1-Digital-Camera-Review-20751/Video-Motion-amp ;-Sharpness.htm

"These are decent low light color scores, although it is slightly worse than the numbers put up by both the Canon T1i"

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Panasonic-Lumix-GH1-Digital-Camera-Review-20751/Video-Low-Light.htm

Jon Rty said:

And this is from the 2 year old GH1, with documented problems in low-light. The "Video: Low Light Sensitivity" test is deeply flawed, as the lux value they measure is totally dependent on the lens used. If the kit lens requires 17 lux on the GH1, as tested, then that means that the 20mm F/1.7 which is around two stops faster only needs 4.25 lux. And considering that the HS300 has a F/1.8 lens, the 20mm F/1.7 is a far better comparison than the kit-zoom.

Click to expand...

Even if that's the reason for the low score of GH1, it shows a merit of a camcorder with a small sensor. You would need a huge and expensive lens for GH1 to have F/1.8 and the same zoom range of HS300.

This was your original post:

dunca said:

That video was captured by a special prime lens. DSLRs have the advantage of changing lenses. If you compare DSLR and a good camcorder using a similar lens, camcorder is better.

Click to expand...

And then you linked to a review that repeatedly said that in low light the GH1 is better than the HS300 they used as a benchmark. So again, in low light a camcorder isn't better than a DSLR with similar lens. Even the review you linked to shows that.

Would care to explain why you decided to post quotes from parts of the review that had nothing to do with low-light?

dunca said:

I should say the same thing. Did you read the same review I did?

Even if that's the reason for the low score of GH1, it shows a merit of a camcorder with a small sensor. You would need a huge and expensive lens for GH1 to have F/1.8 and the same zoom range of HS300.

Click to expand...

You silly person;-) they compared the GH1 with a 14-140 f4-5.6 lens to a camcorder. Anyway, you want to make videos buy a camcorder, you want to make exciting-interesting motion pictures buy a GH2, you decide, but dont expect video to look like a cinema real, but do expect a GH2 to be very close ;-)

ET2 said:

Almost everything you are watching on your TV is shot with a camera that has much smaller sensor than GH2.

Click to expand...

This is at least partly because large-sensor professional cameras have been very expensive up to now. This is exactly why the $5000 AG-AF100 that you like to disparage is being called revolutionary.

ET2 said:

The pro video future does not belong to hybrids like GH2 and 5D Mark II. No way hybrid would be able to compete with a large sensor camcorder that has a sensor made specifically for video (such as F3 and upcoming NXCam).

Click to expand...

That's likely true; once pro cameras with similar capabilities at a comparable price point become available, most pros will stop using adapted consumer cameras. (By comparable price point, I mean something like "under $10000". The pro cameras will not sell for the $1000-$2000 that the consumer cameras do, but that's not the real cost either, since a lot of surrounding equipment must be added to the consumer cameras to do pro work.) Heck, most pros won't start using such cameras until a professional version is available; so far it's just a handful of people experimenting.

I actually agree that the NXCAM that Sony has announced could be a very interesting competitor to the AG-AF100, but it's pretty clear that it wouldn't exist if Panasonic hadn't produced that camera. All Sony had at the announcement was a hastily assembled prototype; they were essentially caught with their pants down.

This was one of the main points of the Luminous Landscape article you keep misquoting. Sony apparently didn't want to make such capabilities available in an inexpensive camera because they were afraid it would impact sales of their more expensive cameras (as it very likely will). Panasonic pushed them into it by producing the AG-AF100. So it looks like Sony, at least, considers them a competitor.

--
Joe

Jon Rty said:

And then you linked to a review that repeatedly said that in low light the GH1 is better than the HS300 they used as a benchmark. So again, in low light a camcorder isn't better than a DSLR with similar lens. Even the review you linked to shows that.

Click to expand...

They say the opposite. They say "We expected a better low light sensitivity performance coming from the GH1, mainly because the HS300 did so well with this test, but also because it is a DSLR with a huge CMOS sensor. "

Jon Rty said:

Would care to explain why you decided to post quotes from parts of the review that had nothing to do with low-light?

Click to expand...

I did not only comment on low light when posting that link. I said "It shows that GH1's Video: Color Score and Low light sensitivity are worse than a small sensor camcorder". Therefore I added 3 quotes about "Color Score " in the next post. There was one extra quote about "sharpness ", but you can ignore that.