Jump to content


Photo

canon 7D or Panasonic GH2


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 ziad Chahoud

ziad Chahoud

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 06 February 2011 - 08:46 AM

hey Guys, I need some help here about the Canon 7D and the Panasonic Lumix GH2. I'm still confused which one is better, concerning the quality and the processing power. and as for the 7D, is it true that we can update a firmware to film at 2000 frame per second ? so which one do you recommend to use for professional filming and experimental videos. thank you for your advice.
  • 0

#2 Anton Papich

Anton Papich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Other
  • Vinkovci, Croatia, Europe

Posted 06 February 2011 - 09:58 AM

hey Guys, I need some help here about the Canon 7D and the Panasonic Lumix GH2. I'm still confused which one is better, concerning the quality and the processing power. and as for the 7D, is it true that we can update a firmware to film at 2000 frame per second ? so which one do you recommend to use for professional filming and experimental videos. thank you for your advice.


Panasonic GH2. With no doubt. I will buy myself one, when I get some money. That little thing can accept almost any lens ever made. With Canon that is not so possible. Also, keep in mind that GH2 is made exclusively for cinematography ( I would rather say that, then video ), unlike Canon, which is made for still photography.

Just to give you a glimpse what GH2 can do ( considering aestethics ):


  • 0

#3 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 February 2011 - 11:28 AM

Also, keep in mind that GH2 is made exclusively for cinematography ( I would rather say that, then video ), unlike Canon, which is made for still photography.


First I heard that GH2 is exclusively made for cinematography. The AF 100/101 would be that animal rather than the GH2.

The 7D offers up to 720 60p, getting up to 2000 fps would be a lot more that you'd get from a stills camera that also does video.
  • 0

#4 Anton Papich

Anton Papich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Other
  • Vinkovci, Croatia, Europe

Posted 06 February 2011 - 12:00 PM

First I heard that GH2 is exclusively made for cinematography. The AF 100/101 would be that animal rather than the GH2.


Nope. I would say GH2 outperforms AGF 100/101, considering videos I saw. At best, they are the same. Both come with same kit for example - I want to point this out to show you why I said that GH2 is for video.

Also, check Panasonic press release:

http://panasonic.net...ease/gh2.html#1

The 7D offers up to 720 60p, getting up to 2000 fps would be a lot more that you'd get from a stills camera that also does video.


It is just still camera with very good video performance. That Panasonic kit lens is designed exclusively for video. Does Canon has something similar in their DSLR range of models? Although, GH2 is DSL, not DSLR.
  • 0

#5 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 February 2011 - 02:05 PM

Nope. I would say GH2 outperforms AGF 100/101, considering videos I saw. At best, they are the same. Both come with same kit for example - I want to point this out to show you why I said that GH2 is for video.


I don't see any XLR audio connectors on the GH2. I'd call the GH2 a hybrid rather than a video centred camera.
  • 0

#6 Anton Papich

Anton Papich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Other
  • Vinkovci, Croatia, Europe

Posted 06 February 2011 - 04:36 PM

I don't see any XLR audio connectors on the GH2.


Nope, but you can have it with adapter. Better thing is to have audio separately recorded.

I'd call the GH2 a hybrid rather than a video centred camera.


That's why I said for cinematography, not video. :)
  • 0

#7 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 February 2011 - 07:00 PM

That's why I said for cinematography, not video. :)


Regardless, it's still recording video.

To go part of the way to giving answer to the original question. Here are some tests that one person did.


  • 0

#8 Vincent Sweeney

Vincent Sweeney
  • Sustaining Members
  • 686 posts
  • Director
  • LA at the moment.

Posted 06 February 2011 - 07:34 PM

so which one do you recommend to use for professional filming and experimental videos.


Professional? Neither, they are both toys.

Experimental? You'd have a lot more fun with an old Bolex or even a S8mm cam.
  • 0

#9 Anton Papich

Anton Papich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Other
  • Vinkovci, Croatia, Europe

Posted 06 February 2011 - 08:28 PM

Regardless, it's still recording video.


When I wrote that, I wanted to make distinction between DSL( R )'s and camcorders, since in my opinion, DSL( R )'s because of their capabilites have more cinema aestethics then camcorders.

Professional? Neither, they are both toys.

Experimental? You'd have a lot more fun with an old Bolex or even a S8mm cam.


Eh Vincent, if that could be so easy. I see you are writing from LA, center of film industry. Now imagine if you would live in some relatively poor central european country where developing of Super8 is literally science fiction ( I don't know anyone who develops this, and I doubt ordinary photo store would do that ) and telecine of 10 mins of Super8 is made in amateur way in MPEG format on DVD. Anything better, well, you can always go to Austria.
I mean, if topic opener has conditions ( that means money ) to experiment with 8 mm/16 mm I will always say go for it, since I'm also a film fan.

Edited by Anton Papich, 06 February 2011 - 08:30 PM.

  • 0

#10 Ari Davidson

Ari Davidson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 124 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 February 2011 - 09:48 PM


  • 1

#11 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11939 posts
  • Other

Posted 06 February 2011 - 11:31 PM

Herewith my opinion only.

The only camera that really has that rather undefinable "niceness" that DSLRs are famous for is the 5D. I think this is probably because of its microscopically low noise and very high dynamic range, which is also a characteristic of the most desirable current single and 3-chip digital cinematography cameras. The problem is, it also has abysmal moire patterning, overheats readily, and suffers other inconveniences such as the lack of HD monitoring, if you accept it's HD to begin with. It needs lenses with lots of coverage and a mechanical design that misses the large, full-frame mirror. Focus pulling is absolutely brutal. The 5D is fantastic; the 5D is a pain.

The other stuff - the 7D, 550D, and the GH series - do not (quite) have the same "niceness" that the 5D does, probably because they're smaller sensors with (given the same technological basis) lower dynamic range,. The 7D is a bit "nicer" than the GH2; the Panasonic cameras have the poorest dynamic range of all of them. The Canon stuff also has somewhat better colorimetry control and is generally better built. The 7D and 5D also take CF cards, which I view as somewhat more desirable than SD cards due their improved physical robustness, availability, and speed. The Canon stuff records a higher bitrate, in my view leading to better recordings, but this is difficult to express quantitatively without low-level knowledge of the codec electronics. The GH1, which has been hacked to allow much higher-bitrate recording at the cost of some loss of reliability, misses several useful updates available only on the more recent GH2.

So, the Canon cameras are generally better, but for two things: the GH series has far, far less objectionable and less visible moire than any Canon camera, the rolling shutter artifacts are (I suspect) less, and it is possible to fit almost any lens to a micro-4/3 mount because of the comparatively tiny back focus distance of that mount. Because there is no mirror, the sensor is very close to the front of the camera, and most µ4/3 mount adapters (to things like PL or EF) are quite bulky things to step the lens out far enough from the sensor. Compare this convenient situation to the Canon situation where using anything other than EF or EFS lenses is a constant fight for mirror clearance. If you already own lenses, this may be a deciding factor.

I came very close to buying something like this at the end of last year. I didn't, because the rental prices, at least in London, are such that I could take a 5D body out about for about 30 days, not including long-duration deals, before I'd paid for it. Considering the immense pace of change in the field, current equipment probably has a shelf life of no more than twelve to eighteen months, especially with NAB now just a few weeks away.

I consider purchasing these things a questionable idea unless you have a very specific project attached to it.
  • 0

#12 Shidan Saberi

Shidan Saberi
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 74 posts
  • Student

Posted 06 February 2011 - 11:53 PM

I've looked into it. The 7D does not have 2000fps. Some guy made a slow motion vid using canon 7D and computer programs with the bmx's.

If you want a affordable DSLR camera with high frames per second your only option would be the casio ex-f1 at 1200fps

Posted Image

Sadly the higher the fps on this camera the lower the quality. So basically at 1200fps it's super slow but very low quality.
  • 0

#13 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 07 February 2011 - 04:00 AM

I suspect the only reason to continue with the DSLRs at the end of year for shooting video will be your budget. However, there will be trade offs to allow uncompromised stills resolution on the DSLR and keeping the costs down in what is their main market.
  • 0

#14 Peter Moretti

Peter Moretti
  • Sustaining Members
  • 306 posts
  • Other
  • Sherman Oaks, CA

Posted 07 February 2011 - 09:11 AM

Just a note, apparently the 60D has better video controls than the 7D. Just wanted to let you know if you wind up going the Canon route.
  • 0

#15 georg wachberg

georg wachberg
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Director

Posted 16 March 2013 - 04:33 AM

i feel these comparisons are usually a little unfair. with ones

own gear one knows how to get the max out of it in both

shooting and post. 
 

from this clip alone one could argue that a red is not much

better than a 5D, which is misleading IMHO. 


  • 0


Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

CineTape

Opal

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport