Per Lichtman

[quote name='Simco123' timestamp='1347792083' post='18224'] There is a price increase from GH1 to GH2 going by your calculation. I hope you are not an accountant or doing someone else's :blink: GH1 - June 2009 MSRP (with 14-140mm) $1499/1500 minus price of lens at $850 leaves you $650 body only. GH2 MSRP $900 gives you about $250 increase over GH1 MSRP GH3 MSRP $1300 is about $400 over GH2 but with a much bigger jump in build quality and feature upgrade Its about right to me. [/quote] I will thank you to accurately represent what I said, if that is not too much trouble. :) The lens was not available separately at launch for the GH1. The GH1 was not available as body only at launch. The body depreciated rapidly - the lens did not. I quoted the price for the body "later on". The lens had not yet depreciated significantly when the GH2 launched. It has depreciated greatly since then. In other words, a lens that had not depreciated and a brand new body with improved functionality across the board (MJPEG going from 4:2:2 to 4:2:0 being the only exception) sold for the same MSRP. I stand by my original statement and evaluation.

[quote name='Simco123' timestamp='1347789978' post='18218'] I don't know were you got this "many people" from. GH2 had a small price increase over GH1 and GH3 with a lot more thrown in over GH2 and it appears GH3 has gone upmarket and targeting some section of the pro market competing with the alternative FF rivals. [/quote] I understand your quote about differing markets (no qualms that need to be addressed yet in that area) but the price increase? GH1 - June 2009 MSRP (with 14-140mm) $1499/1500 Later on the lens sold for $850 alone but too much time passed before a body only configuration was available to give useful data] GH2 - At Photokina 2010 MSRP (with 14-140mm) $1499.95 (With 14-42mm) $999.95 Body only $899.95 I do not see a price increase from the GH1 to GH2: they both launched with the same MSRP in a kit lens configuration. We see a pretty strong price increase from the GH2 to the GH3 in a body only configuration.

@QuickHitRecord I hope that 3rd party power options that used the power adapter still work.

@Simco123 If the GH3 can meet or exceed the GH2 in every aspect, and it adds a better build and some new features, then a price increase is justified. My comment was about the specifics of that price increase. The body only is launching for 44.4% more than the MSRP for the body only GH2. I think many people expected no more than a 30% price increase, etc.

@Matt, you may want to correct the typo currently near the start of the post: it is "Samy's" not "Samsy" :)

A little odd about ISO 200 - on the GH2 we could at least get ISO 160. Does anyone else think they may have priced the camera out of the range of many would-be upgraders?

@peederj @germy1979 I know what you mean. :) Anyway, a lot of the complaints that @germy1979 mentioned about the music industry in general were the reasons I loved working with Joanna St. Claire and Hila Plitmann so much. We'll be releasing the HD audio masters for Joanna St. Claire's "Stream" pretty soon, but that was an album that really was given the time it needed to develop (even for the "standard" release in 2010). Have a listen and you'll see what I mean - this one took a lot of time to do and there are some really, really good players on it from the U.S., South America and throughout Europe. [url="http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/stream/id375698520"]http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/stream/id375698520[/url]

[quote name='EOSHD' ][color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif][size=3]With a 24MP full frame sensor we can expect similar low light performance in video mode to the 5D Mark III.[/size][/font][/color] [/quote] That seems like it would remain to be seen. The 5DMkIII uses an SLR design - when it shooting video, the light transmission should be more effective than with a partially reflective mirror. Some of the previous Sony designs took an ISO hit because of this. It would of course be great if it could match the 5DMkIII, but the assumption is not affirmed by the data so far. If the sensors seem equal, then the mirror-design could be a differentiating factor in terms of ISO performance, so the Sony sensor would seem to have to work harder to match the performance. It will be interesting to see how it turns out. :)

Germy1979 makes a good point, but the # is slightly off. A 1920x1080 frame is about 2MP, not 3MP. Just multiply 1920x1080 to find the exact #.

[quote name='markm' timestamp='1342947116' post='14301'] Changed my mind went out on a shoot this morning and lost 3 damn good shots using Driftwoods day hack. Will only use something they say is ultra stable. Lesson learnt! [/quote] I am sorry to hear you lost the shots: normally I only have that happen during the testing phase for a new setting but it would suck to have it happen on a shoot.Anyway, in the in the interest of trying to help you avoid having it happen again, what hack setting, shooting settings, SD card and lens were you using and what format were you recording in? The GOP1 settings are normally more thoroughly tested (and stable) in24H mode than in others, though recent ones have shifted emphasis a bit. If you were shooting 24H with a manual focus (so no electronic communication) lens and using a SanDisk 95MB/s 64GB card, then you should definitely use a different setting next time and I would be happy to help suggest one if you message me and you might want to report the issue in the appropriate thread on PV.If it was in a non-24H mode, then I have to say that most of the best options are not based on GOp1 settings (that is to say, usually not ones that GOp1 in 24H mode)..

Andrew, could you speak a little bit to the buffer performance on the stills side? One of the things I often miss on the GH2 (and even more so on the GH1) as compared to the mid-level APS-C Canon products (like the 50D or 7D) is the the buffer performance. My understanding is that the 5DMkIII is an even better performer in that area so could you take a moment to address: 1) How many shots can you get in full-res with RAW+JPG in each before the buffer fills? 2) Is there a limit as to how many consecutive shots you can shoot in high speed burst mode in stills? I like being able to keep shooting, even if the rate slows drastically after the buffer is filled, and some cameras do not let me do that. When I am shooting concerts with a few cameras around my neck (often a 50D, GH2 and GH1) I often really notice this difference a lot and I would be curious to hear where the OM-D E-M5 lies in terms of that.

Just wanted to emphasize that if you use a SanDisk 95MB/s 64GB and test ahead of time (as Germy1979 mentioned) then you really should not have any problems with a hack. The best GOP1 settings, shooting with that card, have proven to be completely reliable in any 24H shots I have thrown at them. The version of Quantum V9b that they used was an earlier setting than, for instance, Sedna AQ1 A. I have shot music videos with both Sedna and Canis Majoris Night and found them to be completely predictable in their performance. The times I had difficulty were when I used lower performing memory cards or used modes I had not tested before. You just need to spend time with a given hacked setting for a while BEFORE you use it on a commercial shoot. Do not take switching such settings (or a memory card or a lens type) as a trivial thing. Do your prep work and you will the results are very predictable and be able to completely relax on the set without fretting about unexpected glitches.

I am not saying that ISO 25,600 is bad - I am saying that (like any other performance characteristic for a camera) it is possible to take advantage of increases. The higher ISO on the D3s were enough of an advantage for it to be at the top of the list of rentals for very specific shoots. The 1DMkIV could shoot at those ISOs as well (and in 1080P mode, even if the actual resolution recorded was much lower than 1080P) and I was happy with the noise for some of the kinds of footage I wanted to shoot. So if that was the case several years ago, and the newer Canon cameras cannot shoot at those higher ISOs in video mode (even though both Canon and Nikon had models that could in a previous generation) then the limitation really is the camera, not the year. To be clear: I am not saying that people often benefit from the higher ISOs in video mode, but sometimes people do. It seems odd to no longer support them on the 1DX and Cinema 1D and that is all I was saying. So if the older cameras can still do it and the newer ones cannot, what is that saying, exactly?

As Canon confirmed for me at a recent 4K event, none of their cameras (C300, C500, Cinema 1D, 1DX, 5DMkIII) can exceed ISO 25,600 in video mode. That means the D4 is the only mass produced current-generation camera that can do six digit ISOs in video mode. Even the D3s, in 720P, could sometimes shoot results I was happy with in that range. My main question is whether the D4 can do that in 1080P or whether the crop mode results in a noise increase that would mean the D3s (even at 720P) is still the better option for that. The six digit video mode ISOs on the D3s completely outperformed those on the 1DMkIV and I was looking forward to seeing if the 1DX could match the D3s at 1080P in that regard, until Canon informed me that the camera would not shoot that way (unlike the earlier model).

Question: For those that are purchasing the D4 for stills as well as (on the video side) the higher available ISOs (as compared to the 1DX, in video mode only) andu such, and not for a full frame style DOF look, is the video in the crop mode sufficiently sharp to warrant using the D4 for such video at the extreme ISOs? Canon told me at an event that video mode would not exceed ISO 25,600 on the 1DX and there are documentary style scenes I would like to shoot at ISOs that exceed that.

[quote author=nielsi link=topic=853.msg6167#msg6167 date=1339896943] I would really love to see them do a GH2 stock vs. hacked comparison. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills, I just don’t see it, yet everyone is talking about it. Just this afternoon I did some more test shots myself. On tripod, all manual set, studio lighting to take away any variables and make every shot exactly identical, stock vs. 88mbit iframe. I just don’t see it. Not at 1080p, not at 200% zoom. I tried high dynamic shots, shots with movement, boosting shadows in post to see if I find more detail in the hacked version..Only if I compare 24L stock (!) to 88mbit hacked I notice the difference in grain/noise in shadows. Almost as if it has more noise reduction on it. But it doesn’t seem to affect a loss in detail (tiny printed letters in my test shot). I guess it doesn’t really matter since I’m not shooting for the big screen anyway and only have clients who want web material. But you obviously want to get the most out of what your camera can bring and it’s frustrating to see a huge filesize increase without really seeing any visual difference. I’d love to know in which situations it makes a difference and see them explain the data. [/quote] Here is how close to twenty hacked (including both EOSHD options) and non-hacked settings handled being completely starved for light, not syncing to the refresh rate of a computer screen, etc. Note the upper left corner in particular as regards detail in the shadows, etc. You'll see the biggest difference between Stock 1.1 and Canis Majoris Night in this particular shot. Many of the shots have the settings called out during the audio. http://perlichtman.com/pasdenapulse/wordpress/gh2-hack-reference/ On DVXUser, questech posted some tests of his own (with an evaluation closer to your own) but I have not had a chance to review them yet. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?274008-Why-do-we-need-a-GH3-Isn-t-the-GH2-enough-What-should-Panasonic-do-for-GH3&p=1986160574&viewfull=1#post1986160574

Yes, it seems possible you have it installed properly. The max bitrate shown is higher than the stock settings, so if that was what you had on there before, I would say it installed properly.

You can do great things with a GH2 and the lens selection is a huge plus. The lenses Andrew mentioned are all good choices, as are used Rokkors with an Minolta MD/MC to M43 adapter. I recently shot a music video that mixed RED Scarlet footage with a multi-thousand dollar Cooke 20-100mm lens with a GH2 using Rokkor glass (and for a few shots, a Tokina 28mm). While I think the Tokina is "alright", the bokeh on the Rokkor MC 58mm f/1.4 is nothing short of amazing for the price and it one of my favorites that I have used on that camera (almost as good as the Nokton f/0.95 options). I shoot most of my stills with Canon but most of my video with the GH2.

Looking forward to your review Andrew. Send me a message when it goes up and I will link to it. :)

[quote author=riogrande100 link=topic=848.msg6149#msg6149 date=1339868230] [quote author=Andrew Reid link=topic=848.msg6115#msg6115 date=1339779721] Nick's patches are all here http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/3454/driftwood-quantum-x-settings-series-5-cluster-v4-mysteron-crossfire-quantum-9b-sedna-etc.../p1 Quantum is actually quite old now. The updated ones are nicer. [/quote] Noob question: How do we download the patches? [/quote] You have to register on the site - then you have access to them when you are logged in. It's a different system, since EOSHD make their settings available without any need to login.

Axel, dealing with that level of extreme contrast is a normal part of my shooting. That is one of the reason I love doing HDR timelapse. :)

Here is a link to the video alongside my comments so far. Will be updating throughout the day. [url=http://perlichtman.com/pasdenapulse/wordpress/2012/06/15/revenge-of-the-great-camera-shootout-2012-my-impressions-on-part-1/]http://perlichtman.com/pasdenapulse/wordpress/2012/06/15/revenge-of-the-great-camera-shootout-2012-my-impressions-on-part-1/[/url] Andrew, I will be adding a link to your blog shortly as I think it will help to prepare people for watching the video.

@Evil_Thought2 In my experience shooting with a GH2 for close to a year, I have never had the "dropped frames" mentioned, with any setting. It either recorded properly or it stopped entirely - nothing in-between. And that's coming from the perspective of one of the people that has done the most testing outside the settings authors themselves. Also, the author of the second quote states their suppositions as objective fact. The C300 may (or may not) have primarily had the image quality issues due to using internal recording vs. an external recorder. Based on my brief hands on time with the C500 (which has some really, really beautiful image quality characteristics) I might guess the same thing, but I would not state it as objective fact. Based on my experience with the RED Scarlet, there is a huge difference in the way that colors and dynamic range are handled on an Epic vs a GH2, so if the test stressed those areas, I would not be surprised by the observations. But I tell you, if you construct the shoot to the GH2s strengths and are outputting to 2K, the performance delta shrinks rapidly and the two can be intercut very well. But if you are shooting with a very wide dynamic range, the Epic/Scarlet will completely outperform the GH2. I say this with love: the GH2 is currently an unbeatable value. The fact that it can be used to intercut footage AT ALL against these other impressive cameras is a huge accomplishment and a boon for the low-cost market. But lets not pretend that there is no reason to use the more expensive ones. My client loves both the GH2 and RED footage from our last music video together and we have used the GH2 before, but they were still impressed enough by the RED footage to start looking at how to afford renting it on more projects in the future (even though we have been doing GH2 shoots at a fraction of the price).

I enjoyed reading that and agree with much of the sentiment. I do think you overstated the point a bit though by saying "So next time you are about to drop $1500 on a lens – make sure it is either an anamorphic, or something unique. " Why not spend the serious money on the sharp glass but leave enough in the budget to get some inexpensive character bokeh glass? Either way, great to see you broadening the horizons of those not already examining this approach.

@bradleyg5 The reasons why the Nokton "look" is better than a "plastic-fantastic" are varied and great in number, but the first one you might want to look at is bokeh. If you are using Canon lenses, the ones you want to compare it to are the L series. The price does not seem out of line viewed in that league and both the Nokton and SLR Magic offerings are faster lenses than the Canon offerings commercially available at this time. That means that when the lens (rather than the sensor) is the limiting factor, low light performance will be superior with the Nokton. Now, if your only concern is depth of field, consider that the combination of buying 5DMkII or 5DMkIII and a "plastic-fantastic" will still add up to more than the cost of a GH2 and a Nokton. Is one better than the other? It depends on your application, but neither is over-priced. If you are talking primarily about the SLR Magic offering, it remains to be seen how it the CA gets handled. The test pictures above show a clear advantage for both the Leica and Nokton in this area and unless it is remedied before launch, I forsee the sales for the new lens being based only on shooting workflow concerns rather than image quality (where it would be lagging behind the competition). However, if that CA is addressed, the increased resolution and differing design could make it attractive to people that want an alternative to the Nokton with less "character" and more sharpness. In other words, the point is to address a market gap at a competitive price-point. It seems unfair to attack a lens based upon a preference for a different sensor, doesn't it?