[Closed] DSLRs - Do I sell all my Canon gear and buy a Lumix GH2 (for bike shooting)

Another disadvantage with the Lumix is that it's harder to get shallow depth of field because of the 2x crop factor (as opposed to the 1.6x on the Canon). Also the kit lens is only f/3.5-5.6.

The other option is the Sony a33 or a55 (or the immanent a35). Very similar to the GH2 but APS-C and lots of second-hand lenses available.

Having said that I think the GH2 probably has the edge for video thanks to the digital (cropping) zoom.

Yes 5th, that is an interesting video feature - just been reading all about it.
I wasn't even aware of the Sony's as video cameras - I'll take a look as their kits are often great value (or were last time I was looking).

GH2 and a55 have been reviewed on [url= http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/ ]Luminous-Landscape[/url]. Worth a read.

Would I miss the optical viewfinder? I use it all the time despite having Live View on the 40D.

I think that while the GH2 has very good AF - it's still not going to be as good at tracking moving objects as the phase detection AF on an SLR. That said, I think a lot of people use prefocussing anyway for bikey action shots - and the GH2 video is awesome. One big advantage if you are into video is that it has usable autofocus in video mode - most video DSLRs don't.

The EVF on the GH2 is very good - personally I don't see it as much different to the OVF on an SLR, but some people do.

Another disadvantage with the Lumix is that it's harder to get shallow depth of field because of the 2x crop factor (as opposed to the 1.6x on the Canon).

I think this is slightly bogus tbh - maybe compared to a full frame camera, but the actual sensor size difference between a 4/3 and APS-C is really not that great (owner of 4/3, APS-C and full frame cameras 😯 )

I have used the GH1 for more than a year, including carrying all over the Alps cycling last summer. It is a great camera and IMHO the best of the smaller systems, including APS-C cameras.

Shallow depth of field is really something for full frame cameras IMHO - if you are really going for that, get one of them. The difference between APS-C and Micro Four Thirds isn't enough to warrant lugging about an APS-C camera.

After saying that, you can get adapters for most all old school manual lenses for the GH1 /GH2 etc, and then use (for example) old Canon 50mm f1.4 lenses which you can pick up for under £100. This will give you the equivalent in 35mm terms of a 100mm focal length and in terms of DOF f2.8, which will give you plenty shallow depth of field for hardly any money.

8mm Fisheye
[img] [/img]

20mm f1.7
[img] [/img]

14-45mm
[img] [/img]

14-45mm
[img] [/img]

Thanks for the first hand info Grum and 7hz
One of the problems I've got is that I don't know how much I'm going to take to the video side of things.
I've dabbled with my LX3, but find it limiting.

Could you not keep the camera kit & get one of the HDD video cameras as well?

Or do they not allow you get get particularly creative?? I've not really got any experience of them.

[b]stumpy01[/b] I could, but to get one which allows shallow depth of field and manual controls, I'd be looking at a lot of money. My budget is essentially as close to zero as possible.

I did wonder what the DOF was like on 'handycam' style things, coupled with the fact that most of them seem to be 'point & shoot' with very little adjustability thrown in.

I don't think they're in the same league if you're trying to be creative until you get to the models with interchangeable lenses.
They're more for recording events in the best quality possible. AFACT anyway.

Another disadvantage with the Lumix is that it's harder to get shallow depth of field because of the 2x crop factor

Never been a problem getting shallow DoF on my 4/3 camera. How shallow d'you want? I spend most of my time trying to get MORE DoF so I can get both the front and back of something in focus, for instance.

Surley DSLR is pants for video since you can't focus whilst shooting?

Unless you spend seriously silly money then a dedicated video camera will have a MUCH smaller sensor than a DSLR (limiting it's low light performance and creative shallow DOF potential). And you won't be able to change lenses.

Molgrips - most serious film stuff is manually focussed anyway - depends how serious you want to get with it all really but for raw video quality DSLRs (and GH2 etc) offer incredible bang for buck.

most serious film stuff is manually focussed anyway

I'm guessing this is not a serious film stuff thread though 🙂

Surley DSLR is pants for video since you can't focus whilst shooting?

Not that MF is necessarily a problem though. Depends on what you're doing.

Ah yes, the focusing abilities of those Sonys almost had me buying one.

I ride with a 7d + 50 1.4 + 10-20 all with padded cases in my dakine amp 18 rucksack.. its quite a compact set up and doesn't sacrifice on photo taking power!

I'm guessing this is not a serious film stuff thread though

I've been making some short films using manual focus, and it's not really a problem - I'm not a 'serious' film maker, but you do have to put some extra work in compared to just picking up a camcorder.

The GH2 AF in video mode is also good - maybe not as good as the Sony, I don't know.

Some kind of stabilisation is important for video though - a decent ish video tripod, steadicam, or shoulder rig. The Sonys have some kind of IS built in to the body which will help if you do need to shoot handheld - with the Panasonic it's only in some of the lenses.

Do you find it easy to find focus manually?

Also, as you say, what about stability? Doesn't it wobble the camera when you turn the ring?

Hang on - I thought silent mid-video AF was a strength of the GH2?
Not that I'm absolutely sure I'll need it, but it would definitely help for the more casual videos of my 2 boys, etc.

As for it not being a serious film stuff thread. My intention is for the video side of things to be as serious as the still side of things. i.e. it's all just for my amusement and for the recording of my children's lives, but I like to find out how it [b]should[/b] be done as a learning exercise.
I fully intend to MYOG some tracks and jib and have a play for example.

My intention is for the video side of things to be as serious as the still side of things

Interesting point, then. Lots of serious still cameras on display in Currys etc but what does a 'serious' amateur video camera even look like?

Hang on - I thought silent mid-video AF was a strength of the GH2?

Where is it available for £699?

Thanks

Plum

oh I see - you're using the literal SLR (or SLT in the Sony's case) - as opposed to the GH2 having no mirror or optical viewfinder.

I found it confusing because I'd just come back from where everyone was referring to the GH2 as a DSLR versus Camcorders 🙂

[b]plumber[/b] - here apparently:
http://www.jacobsdigital.co.uk/p-48885-jacobs-digital-panasonic-lumix-gh2-14-42mm-lens.aspx?affiliateid=10052&awc=3099_1304501802_a152fb5ef90d32a4e2e127c440e6fc1a

Found the price on
http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/

edit: that top link probably makes camerapricebuster some affiliate money - you may be able to get quidco instead - haven't checked.
edit2: 3% Quidco apparently

Thanks Alex 🙂

Why not just get a Canon 550D/600D? 550D bodies are around 500, same sensor as 7d 60d etc so u can use your lenses etc, and you know the canon menus. I went from a 40D to a 550D and its a much better camera, the video is great aswell, Ive started shooting way more video as a result and I dont miss the extra buttons of the 40D, (or the weight carrying it around all day)

The 550d was definitely on my shortlist for all the reasons you specify, but in the end decided that the non-articulated screen might be a nuisance compared to the 600D or GH2.

I used to have a 400D and was really pleased to upgrade to the 40D, but it seems the gaps have narrowed greatly between the two ranges.

hmmm - reading about Magic Lantern firmware for the 550D.
As ever, I've opened up a world of pain!

I've spent alot of time mulling this over

Its about the stills video balance

I think you'd be mad to buy a camera without proper phase detect autofocus, unless stills is a very low priority

sony do some great budget kit but loads of their lenses are very expensive. Is the issue that only sony have cracked AF during video on a true slr?

sony do some great budget kit but loads of their lenses are very expensive. Is the issue that only sony have cracked AF during video on a true slr?

Sony lenses aren't particularly expensive. They're pretty much the same as anyone else and they've got a strong lineup of good value primes and are well supported by 3rd parties too (Sony own a big chunk of Tamron which helps). And of course there's a huge used market thanks to the Sony dslr division actually being Minolta.

Id prob get the GH2 if I was you or wait of course

We've already said that the GH2 is a very satisfying stills camera, but a huge part of its appeal lies with its advanced video capabilities. Taken as a whole, the GH2 offers arguably the best video specification available outside of a dedicated video camera. Enthusiasts and casual users will the convenience of the GH2's EVF, the high quality of the 1920 x 1080 60i video footage, and will be grateful for the abilities of the (surprisingly good) inbuilt stereo microphone. But the expert will appreciate the depth of field control possible with a large format sensor, the high-quality 24P Cinema mode, the generous amount of manual control over shooting settings and the provision for an external microphone.

In summary, we really like the GH2. It offers a highly competitive specification, including (crucially) greatly improved AF compared to previous G-series cameras, and in most respects it is at least a match for the best of its DSLR competitors when it comes to still imaging. It wouldn't be our first choice for shooting fast action, and we wish that Panasonic's JPEG color and tone curve more closely resembled that used by certain other manufacturers (we're thinking specifically of Olympus)) but these are relatively minor grumbles. As far as video is concerned of course, for the time being the GH2 is in a class of its own.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgh2/page21.asp

A m43 camera will not hold you back for stills...

http://2guysphoto.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/a-lasting-impression-meet-bob-tullis

Also take a look at the Olympus M Zuiko 9-18mm... an insanely small wide angle lens for the m43 system

The competition within m43 can only be a good thing too

Autofocus is rubbish for proper video to be honest, it can wander so it's always better to manually focus. More of a pain especially if shooting handheld action stuff with shallow DOF, but auto is not that good for video if you want to do it the "proper" way rather than quick fun videos - there's a reason that people get paid to pull focus rather than leave it to auto!

You may want to look into the "GH13 hack" - I think it's a firmware mod for the GH2 series and seems to get a lot of praise.

Thanks for the info [b]Conqueror[/b]. I keep flitting back to these reviews and the GH2 isn't exactly 'bad' for stills.

[b]_tom_[/b] The GH13 hack is for the GH1 and most people report that the GH2 unhacked is better than GH13.
I'd decided that as the GH2 was just about in budget, that I wouldn't consider the GH1.

the contrast detect AF of any mirror less camera will never track a bike or child. phase detect autofocus will and this is a huge benefit with moving subjects.

If you want to go small I'd be tempted to go smaller again to a true commact where at least AF is less critical as depth of field is huge

Is the issue that only sony have cracked AF during video on a true slr?

They are the only people to use 2 AF sensors I think it is.

_tom_ The GH13 hack is for the GH1 and most people report that the GH2 unhacked is better than GH13.
I'd decided that as the GH2 was just about in budget, that I wouldn't consider the GH1.

Ah fair enough! I read of people claiming the GH13 was on par with their 7D footage.

They are the only people to use 2 AF sensors I think it is.

SLT, that the semi transparent mirror?

Yes, "single-lens translucent" (bit dodgily worded isn't it)

Any more thoughts today anyone?
At the moment I'm leaning towards going for it (with the GH2 and kit lens).
I went into local Wildings this morning and didn't really like the handling of the camera, but I can see that it's small enough to go in my camelbak (especially with the pancake lens). And the size and weight will help massively when it comes to any cablecam or jib rigs I make.

You're not bothered about losing the extra reach of your Sigma 70-300? Because you'd need to add an extra lens to the GH2 setup to replicate what you already have, which narrows the price difference between that and upgrading to a 60D body. I know what I'd do 🙂

I know what I'd do

You won't miss the extra length for video though. The clever cropping digital zoom takes care of that.

I probably need to do some more experimentation with long lenses, but so far I've used the 70-300 very very little.

For a start it's not that great a lens, then there's the narrow aperture - most of my photography involves being wide open.

I looked at the stats on Lightroom and apparently of my 9415 clicks with the 40D, I've only kept 35 taken with the 70-300. I've just looked through them and I can't say I'd upload any of them to flickr or put them in the family album except 2 of the Gormley statues on Crosby beach. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tryingtimes/sets/72157600337567537/

Clearly I'm not being creative enough, but it goes to show that I wont really miss that lens currently.

Oh - Seb - thanks for jumping in - only just saw your username!
Have you had a go with the GHx? Dabbled in video?

Long zoom is only really useful for wildlife or paparazzi isn't it? Or sports I suppose.

Birds and animals are pretty much the only time mine comes out, and really the reason I bought one after seeing tons of cool critters in Estes Park in Colorado (including a bear 🙂 ) and coming away with a load of tiny teeny pics.

Hmmm - just found this other 70-300 shot which must have been before I switched to Lightroom.
[url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3025/2904632391_5acde77392.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3025/2904632391_5acde77392.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/tryingtimes/2904632391/ ]Camouflage [/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/tryingtimes/ ]tryingtimes[/url], on Flickr

I like that. Good use of zoom imo. Not just framing something a long way off but picking out details from something closer.

Nice Alex.

A big advantage of zoom/tele is separating backgrounds nicely (and compressing perspective).

Seb could say it nicer himself, but if you browse the photos on his blog (which is good btw) notice how many are done with the 200mm f2. So include bike/sports photos in your need for the telezoom.

Tele is also nice if you want to get nice shots of field sports, as you can shoot from the end of pitch rather than the side. Got some nice pics at my rugby club recently with my 120-400 (/dreams of 400mm 2.8.....//).

There are no fast tele options available for m4/3 at the moment, unless you are happy manually focussing.

even at f5.6 tele separates backgrounds better than wide-standard.

To be honest, I don't personally think that the small mirrorless cameras (or even very small SLR bodies) suit tele lenses well. With increasing focal length I've been glad of increasing body size (plus grip) for stability/balance/handling.

Manual focus for film is okish, for stills of mountain bikers - erm... I guess I'd have to learn new techniques - prefocussing for example.

Telephoto is great for compressing perspective - it's probably why most amateur mountain bike shots always look less dramatic than it was in the flesh.
I have actually been meaning to try telephoto on steep stuff, but I only really have my LX3 with me on rides (which maxes out at 60mm 🙁 )

some compacts seem to do ok at the tele end. I've been thinking about an Olympus mu tough for biking duties, which goes to about 120 or 140 (off the top of my head). Depth-of-field/background separation is always going to be a bit naff with a compact sized sensor though.

I'd say for MTBing you need the lens that gives you the shot from the limited vantage points you have. For example if you are on a steep hillside you have to be near the trail and riders, so wide angle.. but if you have to be on the other side of a ravine or something..

My fave from Seb's site is the really wide one of the Lakes hillside with the bikers in it. The texture of the hill really reminds me of being out there and scanning the views myself..

Hi Alex 🙂

I've dabbled in video, but only with 'proper' video cameras. I'm not especially convinced by the dSLR + video thing, though I think you can make a case that it makes more sense without the mirror thing getting in the way. But still... a stills camera with HD video built in is, at best, a big compromise on the video side (downsampling, dreadful video ergonomics, usually poor audio, etc. etc.). Most of the excitement around it is because limited depth of field with video used to be insanely expensive... and now it isn't. But like all 'looks', it'll wear thin over time. There's more to good video than incredibly narrow dof in every shot.

If you're happy with the Canon for stills but fancy dabbling in video I think you should approach it from that angle, personally, rather than throw the baby out with the bath water. So to speak 😉

The last episode of House Season 6 was shot entirely on the 5DMKII and looks incredible 🙂

Cheers Seb - I must admit, I find myself clicking on vimeo videos which have the most bokeh in the thumbnail! 🙂
I can't see myself in a financial position any time soon to be able to buy one of those Voigtländer f/0.95 lenses though 🙁

I'll sleep on it another night - this afternoon was spent photographing my Canon gear ready for putting on sale though!

I can't see myself in a financial position any time soon to be able to buy one of those Voigtländer f/0.95 lenses though

Thanks 5th - that looks like a great way to have a play!