• Global community
    • Language:
      • Deutsch
      • English
      • Español
      • Français
      • Português
  • 日本語コミュニティ
    Dedicated community for Japanese speakers
  • 한국 커뮤니티
    Dedicated community for Korean speakers
Exit
0

DSLR conundrum: Canon 6D or Nikon D600 or ???

People's Champ ,
Nov 10, 2012 Nov 10, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I want the best, least compressed, 1080p HD video available from a DSLR camera at the under $3000 price point (including one lens).

How do I get it? Is Canon the best way to get HD video, or the Nikon even better?

Or is the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Mirrorless worth waiting for?

I am so confused. There are too many choices and I am tired of reading camera specs when what I really want to know is which one produces the highest quality HD video? I can't seem to find that comparison. Are they all storing at about the same compressed rate, or is the advertising about 72Mb/s and/or I-Frame only what I should be looking at?

Is it important to have a high number of focus points like the Nikon? It sounds like it to my untrained brain.

Comparing the three leads me to the Nikon except for the videography notes on the Canon make it seem like I can store less compressed video. But even totally uncompressed video is useless if the focus isn't perfect. Right?

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_eos6d&products=nikon_d600&produ...

I want really, really nice video. Otherwise it isn't worth buying any of these.  I can stick with HDV for a while longer if I must.

Perhaps if I spell out what I want to do with it you might be able to provide better answers. I want to shoot pictures in a hurry at Disney World, in Hawaii, in Mexico and all the other places we go on vacation. I want to take video in those same places. Generally with a tripod or a Monopod, but sometimes not. I want to focus automatically, and quickly. But I want to be able to easily set up a rack focus when I feel like it.  I want to eventually buy a lens that will allow me to shoot extreme closeups of snails, and bugs and icky crawly things in motion as well as at the full frame size of a still. And I eventually want the biggest baddest telephoto lens I can get past my wife. I am going to want to do some greenscreen work and product shots in a lightbox.

I want a flash if I am not giving up higher quality, I don't think I need a built in GPS but it couldn't hurt. Wireless? Really? OK, I guess that could be handy. HDMI output is nice. I might be inclined to shoot 720p now and then if it means twice the frames to use for slow motion in post. A headphone jack is not always necessary but it could be important now and then. I would give it up for higher quality video if I really had to. Good in low light would be nice too.

Mono or not, I would like a decent microphone built in. My old Canon ZR-10 has a much better internal mic than my much more expensive Sony HDR-FX1. Carrying external mics on vacation isn't always something I want to do.

Am I missing a brand that makes more sense for me? 

I learned a lot from the last thread I opened about DSLR cameras in general and have researched the different lenses enough to know what kind of trouble I am walking into. But all is for nothing if I can't shoot some truly stunning video given the right lighting and subject.

artofzootography.com

Views

25.4K

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines

correct answers 1 Correct answer

LEGEND , Nov 10, 2012 Nov 10, 2012

I want the best, least compressed, 1080p HD video available from a DSLR camera at the under $3000 price point (including one lens).

Hands down, no question, the Panasonic GH2 using the Cluster v7 'Apocalypse Now - DREWnet' 12/15 GOP Soft hack.  Bitrates go up to 90 Mb/s and artifacts are non-existent even with the most difficult to encode material.

If you can hold off, then yes the GH3 would be worth waiting for.  If you can't wait, the GH2 will serve you very well.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gh2+vs&oq=gh2+vs&gs_l=youtube.3..0l10.1325.2932.0.3457.13.7.0.0.0.3.73.427.7.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.Mw_5ozLMgL4

Votes

Translate

Translate
replies 191 Replies 191
People's Champ ,
Nov 24, 2012 Nov 24, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I just took a look at the specs on the Nikon D800.  Some of those specs are truly impressive. The maximum resolution is HUGE!  The 7360 x 4912 versus the 4608 x 3456 of the GH3 is remarkable. You could shoot billboards with that thing! I watched a video about a guy who printed a 5 foot poster from the GH3 that came out extremely clean. But the D800 has over twice the number of pixels. Nice large sensor. Of course, it is more than twice as much money too.

After I stopped drooling, I went deeper and realized that there were some features on the GH3 I liked better. I began to get the impression that while the D800 was certainly a considerably better camera for stills, I am not at all certain it is better for video. I could easily be wrong on this, since obviously I am not even qualified to be an apprentice photographer yet. But I know a little about video.

The fact that the video is stored at 24Mb/s is rather limiting, unless you are recording via the HDMI in which case it is better. But I don't capture via HDMI. I like the possible use of 72Mb/s on the GH3. It may turn out to be unnecessary to go past 50Mb/s but 24Mb/s sounds like they are not taking video as seriously as Panasonic.

I do occasionally want the Optical Image Stabilization offered on the GH3, although I usually shoot with a tripod. But in Greece, for example, tripods are not allowed in ancient sites. So I used a monopod that sat in a special cup on my belt. Worked great but still needed a little stabilization in software. Which reminds me. I need to get that footage out again now that Premiere Pro has stabilization built in.

As for some other issues:

The D800 wins hands down on the number of focus points, 51 to 23.

If I knew what the focal point multiplier actually did, I might say the GH3 wins that one.

I am excited as can be about the built-in wireless on the GH3. If I can set up the camera to do an interview by focusing on the subject, then walk over to do the interview and see the image on my cell phone with only a slight delay, that opens up a whole new world for me.

I like the fact that the GH3 has a stereo microphone, but I am not sure how good it really is, so I don't know yet if it matters, It might.

I have to admit I like the USB 3.0 on the D800. Not critical, but certainly handy. I wonder why a brand new GH3 would use USB 2.0?

I like that the GH3 is a 350g lighter, but I am a pretty big guy, so it probably wouldn't matter.

As for moire, colors, distortion, etc.... I think that the only way to know if the camera is suitable is to actually shoot with the darn thing. So I am going to take the plunge and see what happens. I have watched enough tutorials now to be dangerous. Another few hours and I will be ready to pick up the camera, turn it on, set a few options and start shooting. I may just take the time when I first get it to take pictures over and over again, each time changing one parameter. If I write down each setting as I go, I might just figure out what suits me the best.

All I know for sure is that I will start out my testing with the deepest DOF I can get, and keep reducing it until I have trouble focusing. But for video, I will probably keep it deep more often than not. Once I am comfortable with the camera, I will start playing with narrower and narrower DOF but my guess is that since I never had a decent way to change the DOF, I won't miss it for video.  But I really want to get into taking photographs with a very narrow DOF. It just looks like fun.

Thanks again. Your assistance has been immeasurably valuable. I am in your debt.

Oh well, I get to spend time with my family this weekend. Brothers, sisters-in-law, nieces, nephews, and a bunch of little ones running around. It is my opportunity to show that Great Uncle is a description as well as a title.

artofzootography.com

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Guide ,
Nov 24, 2012 Nov 24, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

hope you have a good time with family, sounds like fun. Hope you don't end up like " uncle buck " in the beginning of day...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098554/

I'm learning too from this thread...as I'm going from film to digital now, and not only that but a persons research and perspectives on this fast changing technology is usually valuable information.  So what you post about GH3 and your concerns etc is helping me too. Thanks for saying I'm being helpful but really it's a 2 way street, as I am learning from your posts and point of view etc also. I wouldn't have looked at ( googled ) the GH3 and checked out specs etc if it weren't for your posts.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
People's Champ ,
Nov 26, 2012 Nov 26, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

OK. I pulled the trigger. I overshot the $3K budget by $726.58

When I get the GH3 is still a mystery and all B&H can say is that I am now in line for a first come first served situation. I just have to hope that I get it before the end of the year.

What did I order?

The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Mirrorless Digital Camera (Black)

The three year warranty for drops and spills (I know, I know - it is probably a waste of money but the last time I bought a camera warranty from B&H I was glad I did.)

An extra Rechargeable Lithium-ion Battery

One memory card. I figure they are cheaper elsewhere but I want one in the box.

A soft pouch to protect it while it is around my neck that is easily removed yet still hangs from the strap.

Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm f/2.8 ASPH. MEGA O.I.S. Lens

The Tiffen TIDEFK46 46mm Digital Essentials Filter Kit for the macro lens above (I wish all my lenses took the same lens caps and filters but they don't. All three are different.) This has the UV, Polarizer and ND filters.

Clip on Lens cap for the Macro lens

The Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 14-140mm f/4.0-5.8 ASPH./MEGA O.I.S.  My main lens? I am getting a gradient filter kit from a local store. More on that later.

62mm Circular Polarizer Glass Filter for the 14-140

Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F/4.0-5.6 OIS Lens

67mm Circular Polarizer Glass Filter for the 100-300

67mm Ultraviolet UV (C) Haze Multicoated Filter

67mm Center Pinch Snap-On Lens Cap

I may have outsmarted myself, but I only bought two lens cases thinking with three lenses one will always be on the camera. I will probably have to buy a third somewhere down the road. I can do that locally, I think.

Speaking of locally. I went to "THE" camera shop in this area today. I got 45 minutes of one on one attention from a knowledgeable sales clerk. We talked about extension tubes (which is why I ended up with the Macro lens after all). We discussed all three of my lens choices, and discussed filters. He pointed out an interesting contraption that allows me to put an adjustable gradient filter in front of any of my lenses. I then went to the other one. Oops. Film only. No digital. Some really nice ancient cameras on display though.

I checked the price of the filter kit and it is only slightly higher at "THE" camera shop than online so I can support my local guy. He also sells a Joby Gorillapod SLR-Zoom Flexible Mini Tripod w/ BH1-01EN Ballhead for a reasonable price - or at least low enough that I can  justify buying it there instead of at B&H. I really like the idea of buying locally when I can. The fact that neither of the real camera stores in this area carry Panasonic made the descision to buy from B&H again pretty easy. The six months same as cash at B&H doesn't hurt.

I wanted help understanding zoom lenses and he was helpful but did not have the answer.

Has anyone produced a chart that shows something like how far away from a six foot tall man do you stand when using a 300mm lens with a four thirds sensor to have the man exactly fill the frame? He said that 300 on my camera is like 600 on a 35mm camera. OK. I knew that. But where is the chart for the 35mm camera?

artofzootography.com

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Guide ,
Nov 26, 2012 Nov 26, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

That's great news.. good going..hope you get everything soon.  It will be fun to hear how you like things etc.

I have a mamiya so I checked out some stuff for the nikon d800..and it might apply to you at some point..

like, maybe buy the largest filter size mm of your filters and look into stepping rings for the other smaller mm filter sizes..

So you may be able to get by with one set of filters for all the lenses ?? You have to be careful with thin polarizing filters ( circular for digital probably ) as they sometimes get "stuck" on the lenses or stepping rings...like, you thread it on and if you put it on too tight it is hellish getting it back off...Tiffin isn't bad, some people like hoya, but I think maybe B&W is really good

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/newsLetter/filterIntro-revised.jsp

my own plan to buy camera lens filter stepping rings info below

RB 67 lenses = 77 mm

nikon d800 fx lens filter sizes ????

Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm F/2.0 ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F Mount filter size 58mm

Zeiss Planar T* 85mm f/1.4 ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F-Mount Cameras filter size 72mm

AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR filter size 67mm

step up rings for above lenses at b&h

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=tiffen%20stepping%20rings&N=0

to compare with 35mm film 'lens' it gets a bit tricky..see the pdf about sensors compared to the film standard...

About the comparisons of focal lengths...that's pretty funny cause everyone in the world wants to know that usually at some point...The info below might help out. Browse through the links below, especially the 2nd one down once you glance at the first one.

35mm and digital sensors , abelcine ( based on super 35mm standard film size in yellow )

http://resources.abelcine.com/files/2012/04/35mm_digital_sensors_042012.pdf

so now you have to figure out your own sensor size compared to these...and THEN do the comparison between lenses ( focal lengths and angle of view ).. LOL...good luck !

This might help you...

http://www.abelcine.com/fov/

on left use standard 35mm (super 35 16:9 is a bit wide but close maybe)..now check out the bottom for equivalents...and overlay... try 16mm as your right side choice...might be close to your sensor ??  I don't know...but check it out.

good luck.

in a way your lucky you can basically find the equiv focal length stuff for same angle of view at 35mm and then half it to your lens size ??

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Guide ,
Nov 26, 2012 Nov 26, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

ahh, found it for 35mm film ...this should do the trick for you...

http://www.panavision.com/reference?category=84

This is what you get...the file is excel ( xls )...spreadsheet...

after you use the thing...DONT SAVE IT.... so when you open the xls file it's always the way you got it originally...

sample xls see tabs at bottom too copy.jpg

get it from tech reference area ...

panavision xls cine calc copy.jpg

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Guide ,
Nov 26, 2012 Nov 26, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

moving to 70 feet.jpg

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
People's Champ ,
Nov 26, 2012 Nov 26, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

It is going to take a while to digest this. It is a little more than I can grok just yet. Talk about a stranger in a strange land!

I can see where this could be a very handy tool. I was starting to wonder if I could break it up into smaller bits for my Smartphone and found some free apps for calculating DoF and ND. I don't know if they are any good yet, but I am certainly looking forward to finding out.

As for sharing filters between lenses, the kit I will be buying locally will be purchased with three different rings to attach the contraption to that holds the actual filter. The most important reason for the kit is to be able to adjust the gradient filter for sunrises, sunsets, etc, over water in particular. I will want a polarizing lens and the gradient as far as I can tell.

The cool part of this is that I can shoot hundreds of stills for testing and not spend a penny on developing them. I can't imagine how people did this with film. I am way too anxious to try everything out that I can. The amount of money I would have to spend to do that with film would be stunning.

Onc e again, thanks.

artofzootography.com

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
People's Champ ,
Nov 26, 2012 Nov 26, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I am thinking about having a cardboard stand made at exactly six feet tall. It should probably have a test pattern to focus on. Or maybe two meters would be better for our friends overseas.

I want to know for each millimeter setting on each lens where I have to stand to capture the image at exactly  the same apparent size from test to test. I understand that this would only be good for this camera's sensor size, but those are the breaks.

If I can get that calculator to do that, or the apps I just downloaded, I would be a happy camper.

artofzootography.com

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Guide ,
Nov 27, 2012 Nov 27, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Here's another calculator..but it is based on changing the circled number in feet or meters in whole numbers...

you can put in 1 and click calculate, then 2, and click calculate and it gives the focal length mm to keep the image object ( size of object in image ) the same..

This uses the longest portion of frame or 'horizontal' in normal use for the object size.. so if you have a 2 foot long snake in the horizontal frame and you want to move back a foot but keep the snake 2 feet long, you can see what mm you have to change to.

You can of course 'imagine' a six foot person in the horizontal frame and calculate for that, as it's just a matter of turning the camera 90 degrees to make that a vertical frame.

If you roll mouse over the image at the website link just below this calculator, you can see the "lamps" on wall stay the same size but because of going to a wide lens the background perspective is changing dramatically..which of course happens with all your lens changes to some degree as you move closer or further away while changing focal lengths to maintain the subjects size.

In most cases I've seen this used on sets it is for one of 2 reasons...

a) you want to match coverage already shot but don't have the physical space to put camera where you want...so you get as close as you can to keep the subject the same size, and change focal length.

b) you want to do a dolly track move where subject stays the same size, but background dramatically changes 'around' the subject ( used as a sort of effect )... So you would put camera at far point from subject and frame it, and note the mm and distance. Then put camera at closest point ( on track usually ) and measure distance, and do calc to get subject the same size..and change to that mm.  Now the Assistant camera guy will zoom smoothly from point a to point b as the camera dollies into the subject so that the end mm is where he marked it at the end of move. Tape marks are put on floor in 1 foot increments or so... so that as the dolly moves the wheel he marked can be associated with marks on the zoom mm ...so it is smooth and steady zoom all the way through the move.

Anyway, here's the calc...

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm

another calculator copy.jpg

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
People's Champ ,
Nov 27, 2012 Nov 27, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

You two are seriously in danger of becoming some of my favorite people. That is a great site. I understand what those people are saying. (Imagine the sounds of the Hallelujah chorus coming from on high.)

I like this calculator. It answers my main question quite simply.  What it says under the CALCULATE button is easy enough to deal with.  In a 16:9 frame, if the 2 meter tall man (that's pretty tall - I am only 1.9 meters tall) is standing up straight, I just apply a little math.  Rounding off a bit, I just assume my guy is about 3.5 meters tall when he is stretched out on the ground. (Can you say Reed Richards?)

No problem. Take the height of the person or thing I want to shoot and multiply by 1.75 before using the calculator. Simple. Of course, it may not mean that at all. I may be using the wrong ratio. I might have to use the approximately 4:3 ratio of the sensor, but I can adjust for that when I test the camera.

What I now know is that I can probably put myself 176 feet away from the camera when I have the telephoto on the 100-300 all the way zoomed in and almost pefectly fill the frame. If I started on that site the research would have taken a lot less time, assuming I understood it back then. I think I may have had to research the whole thing to get to the point where this was an easy calculator to understand.

I hope you guys are enjoying watching me go through this process. I hope someone finds it useful and is able to avoid some of the pain I have endured to get to this point.

I spent time with my brothers this past weekend. The oldest is really into black and white photography and when his dark room facility in Los Angeles was going to close, he bought it in order to save it. He recently sold the majority ownership and the name changed. In any case, we sat down to have a conversation about my intended purchase and I was able to actually carry on a relatively coherent conversation about aperature, focal length and ISO.

I really need toget back to work on finishing up my web site redesign since this is my last vacation day and I need to go back to work tomorrow, but I thought I would leave you with the following fantastic video. This is what I want to be able to do. This is one of my main goals. This answers Jim's question about why I want a Macro lens better than words can say.

What Goes On In The Garden When You Aren't Watching


artofzootography.com

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Nov 27, 2012 Nov 27, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

What I now know is that I can probably put myself 176 feet away from the camera when I have the telephoto on the 100-300 all the way zoomed in and almost pefectly fill the frame.

Calculation test: With the 100-300 lens and applying ETC (see post 9) how much of a diving Osprey can I frame at 100 yards? Okay; make it easier. It is sitting in a tree with its wings folded - 2 feet tall.

Jim, does that ETC really work? The review I read suggested it does.

I hope someone finds it useful and is able to avoid some of the pain I have endured to get to this point.

Oh, yes. My new pain is that other expenses are pushing me to consider the GH2.

Jim, how sorry will I be if I go GH2?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Nov 27, 2012 Nov 27, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Jim, does that ETC really work?

I use it just fine.  (Does NOT work with RAW stills, though.  Only JPEG and video.)

Jim, how sorry will I be if I go GH2?

Depends.  If video quality is the target, you simply can't get any better until you hit $5,000+.  If convenience and ergonomics are more important, you'll hate it.  I'm not now and have never held myself out to be a photographer, so I won't comment on that aspect of the GH2.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Dec 13, 2012 Dec 13, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Jim, a little busy and did not get back to this. Thanks for your info, and thanks to Steven for starting this thread.

Jim, how sorry will I be if I go GH2?

Depends.  If video quality is the target, you simply can't get any better until you hit $5,000+.  If convenience and ergonomics are more important, you'll hate it.  I'm not now and have never held myself out to be a photographer, so I won't comment on that aspect of the GH2.

When you say hate it, is that in comparison to the GH3, or to a camera designed for video?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
People's Champ ,
Dec 13, 2012 Dec 13, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I have had my hands on a lot of DSLR cameras lately. I think he probably means in comparison to a video camera. It seemed a bit awkward to me. The first time I held one I realized I was going to have to completelky change the way I thought about holding a camera and preparing a shot. Depending on the lens, the entire balance of the camera changes. Not a problem with the old camcorder.

On the other hand, with some lenses, the balance can be comfortable and with others, the light weight is a relief compared to my Sony HDR-FX1.

artofzootography.com

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Dec 13, 2012 Dec 13, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

is that in comparison to the GH3, or to a camera designed for video?

Compared to a real video camera, and applies to any DSLR.  Shooting video with them S-U-C-K-S!  (At least, for the run-n-guns shoots used in my work.)

But like I said, with a hacked GH2, you just can't get a better image until you hit $5,000 or more.  That's not so bad for a $600 body.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
People's Champ ,
Dec 13, 2012 Dec 13, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Well, I hope to prove that wrong with my GH3 as soon as it arrives. Still waiting for it to ship.

Theory has it that if 24Mb/s wasn't good enough and the hack took it to 50Mb/s or so, then the 72Mb/s the GH3 should be able to achieve will be stellar!

That's my theory and I am sticking to it until I prove it or cry about it. One or the other.

I guess I just don't run and gun much anymore. I am more inclined to put the camera on a tripod, fiddle with all of the controls and get it just the way I want it, then take the shot. Now, with wildlife I imagine that would change. But to be honest, I have learned that I am never going to use shaky footage, so taking last week for an example, there was no way I would have shot any video on the Animal Kingdom Safari. However, I would have killed for a fast shutter speed to capture some wildlife as we rolled by. I had time to focus, assuming a fairly deep DOF, but with a moving vehicle I really needed a fast shutter speed to avoid bluring.

The good news is that even if I am unhappy with the video, I really needed a good still camera.  Now that I understand that the camera is cheap compared to the accessories, I can always upgrade the camera and keep the rest. But from what I have seen so far, I think I am going to be perfectly happy. Once again, that's my theory and I am sticking to it.

One thing I have been wondering about. Is my Plasma HDTV good enough to see the difference in quality between the different settings of the camera? I can't really afford a large enough studio quality calibrated monitor, good enough for me to take a hard look at the pixel level and I use LCD monitors to edit with. I wonder if my eyes are even good enough to see the difference.

I might have to make friends with someone who owns an enormous HDTV, as well as someone with extremely high quality monitors.

If any of you are in the San Francisco Bay area and fit one of those two categories (or both) and happen to be interested in looking at the output of my new camera, let me know. It could be fun.

In the meantime, I am thinking I might print out some charts that will allow me to easily test DOF at different settings. I don't have the right words for what I want to do exactly, but I figure if I have some complicated image I can shoot I can tell if the pic is in perfect focus at each setting, distance, etc.  Or maybe I am over thinking this, and I can just shoot pictures of my wife as yell out - back, back, now up, now back.... etc. I wonder, will a range finder like they use in golf help? Is that done in the photography world?

artofzootography.com

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Dec 14, 2012 Dec 14, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Well, I hope to prove that wrong with my GH3 as soon as it arrives. Still waiting for it to ship.

I'm still a little skeptical.  In the tests I'm seeing, I still think the GH2 produces the overall better image, especially where moire inducing patters are concerned (something I encounter often with clothing in my line of work).

Though admittedly, I'm probably in the minority on that assessment, at least when it comes to the opinion of folks who have actually used both cameras.  Time (and much more testing) will tell, I guess.

Theory has it that if 24Mb/s wasn't good enough and the hack took it to 50Mb/s or so, then the 72Mb/s the GH3 should be able to achieve will be stellar!

Couple of points.  First, my hacked GH2 produces bitrates of 90 Mb/s, so on that front the stock GH3 can't compete.  Second, while more bits is usually considered better, there's another factor to consider.  The basic formula is that you need to double the bitrate for I-frame over GOP encoding to get the same quality.  That means you'd need 100 Mb/s in All-I mode to get the same quality as 50 Mb/s in GOP mode.  So the GH3's 72 Mb/s may fall a little short, and in some reports I'm seeing, that seems to be the case.  People seem to think the 50 Mb/s GOP mode on the GH3 has the better image over the 72 Mb/s All-I mode.

Finally, to follow that line of thinking, the GH3 would need bitrates approaching 200 Mb/s to compete with my hacked GH2s GOP mode, something it may well be capable of down the line (if hacked), but certainly not out of the box.

Now, lest you think I'm trying to poo poo your new purchase, let me add three thoughts.  First, there are many areas where the GH3 is clearly the superior camera, and anyone who has used both will confirm that in spades.  I personally am not convinced image quality is one such area.  It may be better, but only marginally at best, and sometimes may even be worse.  Second, as mentioed above, my opinion on comparative image quality seems to be in the minority.  And finally, compared to any other camera less than $5000 fully operational, the GH3 will not disappoint.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
People's Champ ,
Dec 15, 2012 Dec 15, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Jim,

Funny you should mention the issue with going to an all I-Frame requiring a higher bitrate. I was thinking about that just a few days ago.

I didn't realize that the hack had gotten up to 90Mb/s. My guess is that they will hack the GH3. I am just now at all sure it will matter for me. The vast majority of my video for pay is technical in nature and is generally viewed on a PC screen. I only own a 42" HDTV since moving back to California. So, all in all, will I even really be able to tell the difference? I don't own a studio quality calibrated monitor anymore.

My guess is that 50Mb/s will be sufficient. On the other hand, I have to wonder if the 72Mb/s will be easier to edit since it is all I-Frame?

I read about the moire issues. I can find videos that show the camera has a problem, and I can find some that show it doesn't.  Maybe you should send me some of the problem clothing. I think, like some of the other issues I have read about, we are just going to have to wait to see what results I get.

So, start thinkimng about tests you want me to do when I finally get my camera.

I also have a feeling that I will get pretty wrapped up in taking photographs, not just video.

In any case, I figure that the worst that could happen is I need to upgrade the camera body in a year or two. As long as I can keep my lenses, the costs aren't that great. Not really.  It is getting started that drains the budget, not moving up to the next model.

artofzootography.com

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Dec 15, 2012 Dec 15, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I didn't realize that the hack had gotten up to 90Mb/s.

Some actually go up to 140 Mb/s or higher.

It is getting started that drains the budget, not moving up to the next model.

Agreed.  And with Blackmagic building a m4/3 model Cinema Camera, we also have that to look forward to.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
People's Champ ,
Dec 18, 2012 Dec 18, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Bad news. I finally heard from B&H. Mine was not in the first group of orders. so it could be a while before Panasonic ships enough cameras for me to get one. For all I know it could be months. Nobody knows except Panasonic, and they are not saying anything as far as I can tell. I heard a rumor that they would initially be shipping 15,000 as a first run.  I have not heard how many in the next batch.

Sigh.

I really wanted to have it in time for Christmas, or at worst, in time for New Year's Eve. It may very well not happen.

artofzootography.com

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Dec 19, 2012 Dec 19, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I've heard of people canceling their B&H orders because they found them elsewhere first.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
People's Champ ,
Dec 19, 2012 Dec 19, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Well, I suppose that could happen. I like working with B&H. I trust them.

They gave me a six months same as cash (no interest) deal and another $20 discount came from the people who back the loan. I guess a lot of people end up paying some interest? Not me, but whatever.

I will give them more time, but I will keep an eye out for a better, or faster deal, I suppose. I would regret taking my business elsewhere, but loyalty only goes so far if they didn't plan far enough ahead to get enough cameras for their orders. I thought they had a lot of power with manufacturers, but it is possible that might not be the case.

I do have to say that they are good about keeping me informed. I ask a question, they answer.

So, we'll see.

artofzootography.com

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Dec 20, 2012 Dec 20, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I too find them to be an excellent retailer, and buy almost all of my equipment form them.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
People's Champ ,
Dec 20, 2012 Dec 20, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Have you ever visited the store in NYC.  It is a fabulous place. I went in to get a tripod once, bec ause I really didn't know what I wanted. I told one of the guys what camcorder I had, what I wanted to do with it, and what my approximate price range was. He walked straight over to the stack of tripods, pulled one out, put a camera on it that was almost identical to mine, and gave me a few minutes to shoot some video.

It was almost perfect. He showed my something in a higher price range at my request, let me play a bit, and I was able to decide to buy the first one without feeling too bad about not spending more.

I have been back a few times, and each time the guys really seemed to know their stuff.

So I will give them the benefit of the doubt. I just really wanted to have my camera by Christmas, or the 28th at the very latest. Sigh!

artofzootography.com

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Dec 20, 2012 Dec 20, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I've been there many times.  B&H is my candy store.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines