Panasonic Lumix GH2 vs Canon 5D mark II 1080/24p, comparison footage

[Crosby!]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIR0bze3Gqo

[jet]

http://vimeo.com/18650026
This is GH2 and as good as i have seen, i suspect a lot of post p as i cant match it [yet]

[Frank]

This is GH2 and as good as i have seen, i suspect a lot of post p as i cant match it [yet]

I suspect they used a very fast shutter speed; it looks very sharp and very jerky. There is almost no motion blur that I can see.
Definitely not the classic "film look".

[Frank]

Also, looking at the downloaded file, there is some strange artifacting on the guy's striped shirt starting around 48 sec in. Some of it looks like classic moire/aliasing.

[Frank]

There is something odd about that fashion shoot video; every place where you might expect to see dslr moire (like thin parallel lines on clothing) there is a strange blurriness and lack of detail. It almost makes me supect someone went through it and selectively blurred out all the visible aliasing.

[jet]

Dont talk to me about moire/aliasing or lack of detail i had a 550D ,the camera work is not the fault of the camera.

[Frank]

Dont talk to me about moire/aliasing or lack of detail i had a 550D ,the camera work is not the fault of the camera.

Well, I have a 7D which has obvious aliasing under certain conditions, which is one reason why I'm interested in new cameras like the GH2 and look at any video I can find from them. We have been told that the GH2 has "very little" or "much less" or "almost no" aliasing, which is not the same as "no aliasing". This is a bit vague, and I am curious as to exactly when and how much aliasing occurs. Hence my observations about this video.

I'm not sure I understand the comment about the camera work; my main observations are:
A. Smearing of fine lines on clothing in the video which I think is the result of "fixing" moire in post.
B. Aliasing, which comes from the camera, not the operator.

True, you can work around aliasing if you're careful, but that is exactly what people are trying to get away from in their Canon DSLRs.

[jet]

Dont get me wrong if i had not been offered a full refund after 6 months as i had already had one exchange i would have kept my 550D it had given me a lot of pleasure and if used with a tripod real nice looking footage.But after a real lot of soul serching i decided to get a GH2 instead,as its midwinter i have only had a chance to go out for two days proper testing and like with all new cams/ dslrs mistakes are made in the process of getting set up and testing using it,there is a lot less moire and aliasing but it never troubled me with the 550 as tripod work does not show it much anyway i found, there are loads of color options and i would say the colors are at least as good as the 550 and the picture is sharper.The best thing i like is the 14-140mm lens plus the 2.6x and 3.9x E-T-C in 1080 and 720P modes respectively,with the canon i used manual focus all the time but the GH2s AF is top notch, there are some things i dont like one being the menu which can be rather fiddly but being new to a cam does not help,all in all i am pleased.you probobly check for info but just in case
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?175-Panasonic-GH-Cameras plenty of GH info.Good luck with what ever you decide

http://vimeo.com/18484574 This is definately GH2, a bit too much fast panning at times for me though.Some debate about the other one Crosby in dvxuser they say its a GH2s

[Crosby!]

The notes say it was actually shot with a GH1 and 14-140. "thought it was GH2 but check date of clip it's GH1, daylight and static shot GH1 is amazing !"

http://vimeo.com/18650026

Jet, we're both editing at the same time, funny. The poster of the clip said it's a GH1. Either way, it's is pretty impressive to me.

[Frank]

Crosby and jet,

Thanks for the clarification about the fashion video being GH1.

I think the "smearing" I am seeing on some shots is actually "mud" – a loss of detail in areas showing motion which apparently affects the GH1.

jet, thanks for the Africa footage; I'll take a look at it when I'm at home.

[Ian-T]

Here you go for some stunning GH-2 videos.


http://vimeo.com/18345432


http://vimeo.com/18155086

[1]

I hate threads with links with NO verbal description or conclusion.

[jet]

My friend has purchased the Canon EOS 5D Mark II (http://camerasuggestions.blogspot.com/2009/02/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-review.html) and I was just playing with his camera found the images just a bit too soft for me. Since image quality is the thing I was looking for I went with Panasonic. Along with best image quality some of the best point are ability to shoot HD video and also has excellent macro mode.
The 5D Mk2 records what I would call "memo quality" audio with it's internal, mono microphone. You really notice the AGC raising and lowering the recording volume.The camera's signal-to-noise ratio is very good and very clean. It's a more noise-free video picture than my $80,000 Sony F900R HDCam... except for the color red. Red objects are noisy.
I like some features
-Full frame = Real wide angle. My 17-40 lens can now work as it's supposed to.
-High ISO with amazing quality.
-High quality LCD with a light sensor, so no need to adjust LCD brightness from time to time. It's neat.

Just a mite confused you went for the GH2 correct,you also have a $80000 HD cam
wow,so the GH2 quality compares quite well with the HD cam,one point i dont get noisy reds with my GH2 which is strange.

[Kostas]

I think that sharpness is truly overrated these days.
You hear that many people are after "the film look"; one day they shoot everything wide open, mostly in focus, to get a shallow depth of field, and then next day they go pixel peeping about sharpness.
don't get me wrong, the gh2 appears to be a very interesting camera and I may get one too someday to complement my 550d (if I don't go full frame).
But sharper is not necessarily always better.
I have recently viewed some of my clips on a led hdtv for the first time, and initially I was shocked. Too crisp and sharp. Then I played a bit with the settings, removed all the smoothing and took sharpness all the way down. Now that was better!...

[Frank]

Then I played a bit with the settings, removed all the smoothing and took sharpness all the way down. Now that was better!...

Did you turn down sharpness on the camera or the TV?

I agree with you that sharpness can work against you; most movies are not very sharp-looking (not to be confused with out-of-focus). More important is resolution; sharpness can be added, resolution can't.

[Kostas]

Sharpness on the t2i is all the way down (flat setting).
And I have also lowered it significantly on the tv screen to watch the clips.
The gh2 apparently resolves more detail than the EOS cameras, but in many cases it ends up looking like "video".

[Crosby!]

Some people like to shoot everything as flat as possible. Drop the in-camera settings pretty low and then tweak the footage to their desire in post. Saw some raw footage from a Red One that looked pretty bad as it was, flat, dull almost muddy looking. Then saw it after some post work and it was very impressive. It all depends on what you're doing, how you like things, and how much tweaking you want to do.

[jet]

Sharpness on the t2i is all the way down (flat setting).
And I have also lowered it significantly on the tv screen to watch the clips.
The gh2 apparently resolves more detail than the EOS cameras, but in many cases it ends up looking like "video".

not too much softness for me, people here are continualy moaning because of bbc hd lowering the bit rate and bbc hd now has soft look ,unless you have owned the 550D and GH2 like me it is nor fair to comment about the picture qualitys ,i gave the reasons why i prefer the GH2 and picture quality was not the only one,one thing i must say is for film look the GH2 is comparable with canon.http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?179-GH1-GH2-Still-and-Motion-Gallery
love my 550 as i did the GH2 is a step up.

[Ian-T]

The gh2 apparently resolves more detail than the EOS cameras, but in many cases it ends up looking like "video".That I think has more to do with the shooter, how he/she shot, and what they do in post production than the camera. I used to think the same thing about the GH-1 videos I watched before I bought one. I had a 7D at the time. It aint about sharpness...but it is about detail and overall aesthetics. The Canons have nice aesthetics out of the box (many folks hate the skin tones and poppy colors)...but detail is not there. Tweaking the colors can all be duplicated between cameras (depending on what mode it was shot in) but you can't replace detail that was not there to begin with. Certain modes in the GH-X cameras don't have harsh edges like some.. It's just that many shooters think the sharper...the better....which translates into a more video like look. There are a number of Red One owners who easily match up the GH-1 cameras with that camera. I imagine most of those owners are professionals who know what look they are after and can make the lower costing cameras work just like how they want. So...I don't blame the camera...I blame the user (for the most part).

[Ian-T]

I hate threads with links with NO verbal description or conclusion.Yeah I hate that too. :)

[Ian-T]

Some people like to shoot everything as flat as possible. Drop the in-camera settings pretty low and then tweak the footage to their desire in post. Saw some raw footage from a Red One that looked pretty bad as it was, flat, dull almost muddy looking. Then saw it after some post work and it was very impressive. It all depends on what you're doing, how you like things, and how much tweaking you want to do.Yeah...but as you know..RAW vs highly compressed 8bit codecs leave most of us to try and get in right "in-cam." In the latter case I would still keep sharpness all the way down though.

[Crosby!]

Yeah...but as you know..RAW vs highly compressed 8bit codecs leave most of us to try and get in right "in-cam." In the latter case I would still keep sharpness all the way down though.

In-cam, post, as long as you can get what you want I'm not as concerned about the methods. That's why it's so nice to have options, features and controls. I still want real RAW and unprocessed...for less money. :)

Also, I don't mind when my video looks like video. This doesn't mean I want jerky stuttery looking footage though. Liked when my film looked like film, too. :) Just hated keeping track of emulsions and paying and waiting for processing. Don't get me started on splicing... :hv20-smilie02:

[Ian-T]

Ha ha... I'm glad I never went through those horror stories.

[estimeh@yahoo]

http://vimeo.com/18650026
This is GH2 and as good as i have seen, i suspect a lot of post p as i cant match it [yet]
This is GH1 I thought I shot this video with a GH2 but Its GH1, that what you see no movement and some video problem, its shot camera in hand. I have some GH2 but when I check the date of the footage the gh2 was still in route.

[Crosby!]

This is GH1 I thought I shot this video with a GH2 but Its GH1, that what you see no movement and some video problem, its shot camera in hand. I have some GH2 but when I check the date of the footage the gh2 was still in route.

Welcome to the forum, Harold. I posted what you said further up (#9), but whatever you shot it with, it's still nice. Was it a hacked GH1 or straight?

[njfinestmax]

GH2 wins... but at the end of the day it depends who's behind the camera. I put my hacked GH2 to the test by shooting a music video.

GH2 -- Love the video sharpness. Love the video quality. Love the price. Love the size of camera. Hate the still mode. Hate the x2 crop factor.
5Dmkii -- Love the video/stills quality. Not too happen about it's body size. Hate the price big time.
Other DSLR cameras -- Hate all the other dslr cameras.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aReu01CYC4

hacked gh2 150mbits
zeiss lens (20,35,50,85)
nikon lens 135
pic of rig http://maxsainvil.com/2012/01/13/263/