GH2 vs. Sony Alpha

[mbartov]

Hi,

I'm new to DSLR and HD DSLR photo shooting. Up until now I've being taking HD video with a Sanyo (now Panasonic) HD-2000 - a Full HD camcorder which allegedly can do stills (not good ones..). At the time I had a hard time choosing between the Sharp and the Canon 550D but the fact that I was interested primarily in Video I chose the Sanyo. Over time I accessorized it and even built a DOF adapter for NIKON lens.

Now it's time to move on and I feel it's time to revisit the DSLR scene.. (you know DOF, movie style)..

I've read a lot of reviews and I pretty much narrowed it down to the GH2 when I stumbled across the reviews for the Sony Alpha A57 or A37.

I hope I will not raise hell with the following questions, I would like to kno why not choose Sony Alpha A57 over the GH2? Assuming that I will be 70%-60% videographer and 30%-40% photographer.

It seems that for the same amount of money you get with Sony better built camera, larger sensor, good continues autofocus, larger selection of original lenses, much better back screen and higher resolution for stills.

I've big hands and I spoke today with a former GH2 owner who complaint that the GH2 was on the "too small" side for him.

Thoughts? Ideas?

[hoodlum]

If you are concerned about the size of the camera than you should definitely try them out. As a GH2 owner I found the A37 grip even smaller than the one on the GH2 (A37 grip is not as tall). Here is a size comparison.

[url="http://camerasize.com/compare/#166,326"]http://camerasize.com/compare/#166,326[/url]

[Mondo]

The GH2 can get much higher quality video thanks to the hack. You also have tons of more lens options (maybe not native) since you can mount anything to Micro Four Thirds with the proper adapter. With the Alpha mount you're a bit restricted as far as lens options go. I don't necessarily use auto focus for video so features like that don't really swing me towards any specific camera.

But again, I only use my GH2 for video. If I'm going to shoot photos I'm going to pick something else haha. Also from what I've skimmed it appears that the codec for the A57 is not as strong as the GH2. Again, just from skimming.

[Julian]

The sensor in the Sony is much better for photography, the sensor in the GH2 (hacked) is much better for video. You can find plenty of GH2 vs Sony videos (if you can't find A57 just look for NEX 5N, it's the same sensor). The GH2 will give much more detail.

For video autofocus should be no issue. For serious video you'll want to use manual focus anyway because autofocus just doesn't look smooth.

For video the lens compatibility of the GH2 is a huge plus in my opinion. It's very difficult to adapt older lenses to the A-mount. For the GH2 you can get plenty of great glass for next to nothing. Lenses are a big part of the actual image, so that's something to consider.

[xenogears]

I'm a Alpha/Nex Sony user, but if you want go mainly on video, the choice is the GH2, the only complaint to me of the GH2 is the IQ compared against the Sony, but the GH2 has many advantages over the Sony alpha:
-No time limit recording.
-Manual audio control.
-Big lens selection.
-Quality of the video thanks to the Hack.

[mbartov]

Hi folks,

Thanks for the enlightening comments. I'm going GH2 and I will start now to see how I can get one (as they are running out of stock quickly..)

Moshe

[kirk]

Good choice! Just bought my second GH2 ... Use them mainly for video. I'm in no hurry to upgrade B)

[mbartov]

BTW:

I've checked, and there are seems to be convertors from any type of lens to a SONY mount..

See here: http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p5197.m570.l1313&_nkw=canon+fd+adapter+sony+nex&_sacat=0&_from=R40

Am I missing something? Amazon is now selling the NEX 5N for $479 which is $300 cheaper than the GH2.. No external mic, volume level of EVF but a much better LCD, APS-C, compact (although not sure how comfortable it will be with my big hands)

Moshe

[Chrad]

The Nex has better dynamic range than the GH2, but it captures less detail and is much more prone to moire and aliasing.

[Julian]

For Sony NEX (E-mount) there are many adapters indeed. For Sony Alpha there are not (A-mount)!
It's because of the distance from the mount to the sensor. You can't add negative space and many lenses need to be closer to the sensor than the A-mount possibly would let them. Mirror less systems such as the GH2 and NEX don't have this 'problem', because the distance between the sensor and the mount is very small. Adapters just make this distance a bit longer.

[mbartov]

So, given the 40% off price difference - would you recommend the NEX 5N or stick with the GH2?

[xenogears]

If photos are you primary work the Nex 5n have a better image, but is you plan to use the camera for video work, then go for the GH2, simple as that.

The 5n overheat, have aliasing and moire problem, some have a click sound that can be capture by the internal microphone, and the image has much less details than the GH2.

[Julian]

[quote name='mbartov' timestamp='1349681296' post='19472']
So, given the 40% off price difference - would you recommend the NEX 5N or stick with the GH2?
[/quote]
I would choose the GH2 because I really like the sharpness of the image. I've been using a borrowed GH2 for a while and once you have seen the 1080p images straight out of the camera, all other hdslr's look like crap. A friend of me has a 5D Mark II and was really surprised by the level of detail and the sharpness.

On the other hand, people make fantastic things with Canon EOS 550D's, NEX-camera's etc. While watching those video's I never felt like was watching crap. In the end it's just what you do with it.

Ergonomically speaking the GH2 is a bit better for both video and photography I think. The electronic viewfinder and tilt screen (more flexible than the one on the NEX) are very use full in both fields.

In the end it depends on your budget and what you want to spend of it. I think the GH2 is a great deal for what it does. If you're on a very tight budget, $300 could be a lot of money. The choice is up to you :)