Mirrorkisser

@ronjbase: i dont know any settings, but try personal-view.com there is a big crowd with knowledge there, too.

[url="http://www.amazon.de/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH2-Unofficial-Quintessential/dp/193395289X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books-intl-de&ie=UTF8&qid=1349536356&sr=1-1"]http://www.amazon.de...49536356&sr=1-1[/url] [url="http://www.amazon.de/Digital-Filmmaking-Handbook-Sonja-Schenk/dp/1435459113/ref=sr_1_4?s=books-intl-de&ie=UTF8&qid=1349536394&sr=1-4"]http://www.amazon.de...49536394&sr=1-4[/url] or take a look at Andrew Reids book. People here are very nice and helpful. Everybody has been a newbie at a certain point. But please also use the search function and google. If that does not help you can still ask...

get the panasonic 14mm f2.5, that is the cheapest wide lens available for the gh2. Besides you might want to consider the canon fd 35mm f2 and the 85mm 1.8.

Well that depends on your timeline. It can be 2 more months until the gh3 is available in big quantities. Right now it seems the GH3 is improved in several aspects, but also seems to have some short comings. It also depends on your budget, because the gh3 will cost almost double.

The lens you suggested is a very good one, i got it too. I got mine for 60euros together with a deflector.

You need an adapter for canon fd lenses. Fotodiox has one. Make sure its the adapter for the right line. You dont want any leica, Olympus or Minolta Adapter. But Canon and for the FD line not any other. Several brands make one, i think you should be alright with the fotodiox one... The canon fd 50mm 1.4 is by the way a very good lens to start with as it is not too expensive. Lenses can be for a life time, if they are good. I own several Canon FDs and they are in average 30 years old but still excellent. There are sometimes even older and excellent lenses outthere. Camera technology changes fast though. So who knows, you might put that lens in 20 years on another camera that nobody could have thought off today... by the way...the SSC version of the canon fds has a radioactive coating on the lens. Some think its bad, some think it does not matter at all. Just a fact to consider...

Yep, if you just take the footage from the camera, there are just slight improvements with less macroblocking at flowing water or motion looks slightly more natural. But its not a huge change. You have more opportunities though with grading the hacked material. But i agree i doubt even the setting developers can tell all their settings apart. I would stick with unhacked, until you notice anything you dont like, then try a hack and see if that helps...my 0,02 $ Also the unified hack is not a very stable one. You might want to try something like flowmotion. You can get it on personal view (http://personal-view.com/talks/discussion/3337/gh2-flow-motion-v2-100mbps-fast-action-performance-reliability-for-class-10-sd-cards/p1) Or try sanity v5.

cheers, i go for the canon fd probably, i get it below 200$ and i dont have to buy an adapter. but the cosina really looks good, too. It is slower though and costs the same here :)

Thank you Andy! I love the fd lenses in general aswell, once you know how to use them and know how to avoid the image gets too soft under certain conditions. So you made good experiences with the 20mm? What is a reasonable price for it in your opinion? Thank you very much!

I am very curious about that lens. Some say that modern wide angle lenses are a lot better than the old ones, but i would get this one relatively cheap and its almost the 35mm equivalent on a gh2. Anybody? Cheers a ton!

Yep, i got the same pancake 14mm. Its the cheapest you can get. Can not say anything about the adapter. From the reviews it seems to be alright. I ordered mine over ebay in Poland, its not out of plastic and handmade. But to be honest i relied on the advice of some other site members in my choice. (ciecio7 is the seller name on ebay) 14mm or 20mm does not say too much about a film look. I also recommend trying to find your own look. Many people are after a look that is characterized by other dslr shooters as film look. There is no such thing as THE film look. And if everybody shot flat, soft and with a super duper shallow depth of field, then it would become really boring to look at in a short time. There are good books about cinematography, you might want to take a look at those, too. www.amazon.com/The-Filmmakers-Eye-Cinematic-Composition/dp/0240812174/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1349032853&sr=8-1&keywords=breaking+the+rules+of+cinematography This is a book i really like. Its easy to get in and gives some good technical advice, too. For a wide lens i would go for 14mms though. 35mms and then (if you have the money, 50) and 85mm. Those were the first 4 primes i bought. Trust me, you will really enjoy the gh2. canon certainly has a huge fanboy cult. And honestly they make really good cameras, but they did not improve as much as other developers over the last years and they cost a lot more. For the amount of money you want to pay, there is nothing in the league of the gh2.

wait with the follow focus rig. For the start you need some decent primes and a decent tripod. Without a decent tripod you wont do good. Then later you can think about a decent microphone. But primes and tripod first. The gh2 onboard mic is ok for the start, not for professional work of course. I suggest you get a wide lens (14mm) and 28 or 35mm. Then perhaps a lens like 85mm. The kit lens is not that bad if you can get it cheaply. ND filters you need for filming with shallow depth of field during the day or with a lot of sunlight. But i tell you, you will need patience to get used to all kind of settings and till you find out how things work. It took me quite a while when i entered the DSLR-world (although technically the gh2 is not a dslr) to start figuring out which option does what. This forum is a good place to learn about things. Same as personal-view. But always try to search the forums first, because most of the starting questions have been asked many times.

Try the ciecio7 adapters. You can find them on ebay, they are handmade and very good. Canon FD glass is also pretty nice and cheap. Or use the the other recommended lenses. If you want to take still pictures only i would choose the canon 60d over the gh2. If you want to film, i would go 100% for the gh2. Unfortunately there is a real canon-fan-boy culture out there. Just like with apple, partly its more about the hype. So some canon people tend to bash people who dont share their cult. Of course i know some pretty cool and nice canon users, too :-) If the canon 5dmkiii would cost the same as the gh2, then i would go for the 5d, but the 5d costs 4 times as much as the gh2.

Have you considered the GH2? Bang for a buck especially with the GH3 around the corner. You also get a lot of very nice old prime lenses on ebay for little money.

[quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1348827358' post='19137'] Yeah i loaded that Gh3 emulator patch up last night. My first thoughts are, it's fairly clean in the shadow transitions... But it's funny how much of an effect Placebo can have after trying the other 97 patches out there... Lol. [/quote] I agree, most things are just visible in frame to frame comparision. Or with lots of movement and many many details. As far as i understood high dynamic range was reserved for still mode only?! I stick with my gh2 for the time being. I dont see anything in the up to 2000$ price range that really gives me that super improvement. It also remains to be seen for how long it will take until the gh3 is hacked and good settings are made available. Were you referring to the new gh3 emulating setting with your bitrates germy?

[quote name='Per Lichtman' timestamp='1348793995' post='19126'] Not sure how useful it will prove to be, but as an exercise @driftwood quickly mapped the matrix used in the 72 mbps ALL-I on the GH3 footage so far to the GH2 in 24L (similar bitrate) and a higher bitrate (24H). There were several issues in the process (the 8x8 matrices from the GH3 are apparently more efficient and unavailable on the GH2 from his comments) and I would still suggest taking advantage of the settings more tailored to the GH2, but here is the link. Note that the other settings (720P, etc.) have NOT been patterned off the GH3 and have NOT been optimized. [url="http://personal-view.com/talks/discussion/comment/88806#Comment_88806"]http://personal-view...6#Comment_88806[/url] [/quote] I saw it too, but since we also get into the 140mbs bitrates, i doubt it adds anything over sedna, quantum 9b etc. I think for now i will stick with flowmotion. When i want really a soft image go to valkyrie and when i dont fear any space issues and want a good allround intra, will go to sedna. I find it difficult anyway to distinguish between gop3 and intra. gop6 i can recognise with a lots of camera movement in very detailed areas. valkyrie would really be da bomb, if it would not feature intra-like bitrates...

I just got my gh2 6 months ago and will keep it for sure, too. The step does not seem big enough. Even comparing gh1-gh2 footage, the step is not gigantic (less macroblockin in flowing water etc. and some nice add ons), although it is a step. the next model after the gh3, gh4 or gh5 (4 is like 13 in western culture?!) i will be on board again, unless bmcc2 or something else is better by then.

Did i understand him correctly, that higher codec bitrates were not included in the gh2 for temperature reasons? thx for the interview.

One other thing this camera prooves: You dont need 150mbs for an all intra codec. I wonder what impact that has on the developement of settings/patches for the gh2. A very good all intra setting below 100mbs would be awesome.

I read it too at personal-view and tested it: its true. Really weird. It also happened with other settings, not only flowmotion. I wonder what the issue is. Its not much of a deal if you know the workaround, still its another routine to go through...

I like the canon look, too. But its too much in fashion now. I was working at a tv station and people were already telling the cameramen 3 years ago: Uhh i want that canon look, that super duper shallow depth of field. The result was, that even in situations where its totally unnecessary or unneeded, there is this super shallow depth of field now. Also in many forums you get the feeling that almost everybody is after that look. But how boring would it be if all footage looked like that? The new hack by driftwood is supposed to take some of the sharpness out of the gh2, but ungraded i dont see too much difference to be honest. End of the day though, no matter whether its canon or anything else, its the person behind the camera and the feel of that person. Instincts for composition and making the audience feel that you put something of yourself into that footage. I know quite some people who would beat me anyday with worse things than an iphone. No matter what i had.

The 5d is a lot softer than the gh2, some like it, a lot dont. Canon FD glass is a very good value for money deal. 35mm f2, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, for a wideangle the pana 14mm 2.5 is a cheap buy. Andrew recommends some good lenses in his book about the gh2. But if you take the time to google you will find them, too.

If the GH2 was priced equally as the 5dIII, i would certainly go for the 5d. But for the price of the 5d you are way better off with a fs100(add a little cash on it), the d800 or wait for either the black magic cinema camera,the gh3 or sony alpha 99. But i would always choose the gh2 with a good lens park over the 5dIII with shitty lenses.

@ andrew, i suppose the same mount does not automatically mean, that i can use my canon fd glass with the same gh2-adapter as the distance to the sensor would certainly change?

GH3!!!!! I really hope it wont be too far beyond the 2000 € mark. And i hope i can put my gh2 lenses on it. An additional headphone plug would be marvellous, too.