dishe Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 I currently shoot with a pair of hacked GH2s, but I might be starting a new job that wants to buy their own equipment. I love my GH2s and I'm not looking to upgrade them myself, but if I were to start over and someone else is footing the bill, what would make the most sense to do? I've been intrigued by the G6 because it has the GH2's oversized sensor and throws in focus peaking (which is really nice for a compact!), as well as the addition of 60p at full HD, but I'm also getting the feeling that it is less pro-level than the GH series, and since it clearly doesn't have the same amount of community support backing it (hacks, performance tweaks and workflow tricks), and if it has the same green cast that I've been dealing with I'm wondering if I wouldn't be better off sticking with a GH2. Meanwhile, the GH3 looks pretty nice, I've heard excellent things about the build, I love that I can run audio straight into the camera and monitor it live- but the sensor size is smaller than the GH2 that I've been using (standard mft, not the oversized kind) and I've heard it is slightly more prone to moire as well. Then there's the D5200. I've heard this new kid on the block has excellent DR and really solid video modes. No full HD at 60p, but its not like I have that now either. I like Nikon's color rendition, but then I'm stuck in Nikon land with Nikon glass. One of the perks of sticking with MFT is that I can probably get the 35-100 f/2.8, which Nikon has no equivalent to. The IS and AF of those Lumix lenses make it really compelling for run-and-gun work, which this may require a lot of. I'm going back and forth with this and can't decide. There are other options also- Canon 70D? BMCC? Heck, maybe even a full sized model like the AF100? I'm just sticking to what I'm more comfortable with, but open to other reasonable options! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgharding Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 Do you know what their total budget is? Also what kind of thing are they filming? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dishe Posted October 11, 2013 Author Share Posted October 11, 2013 News and promotional content for the organization, mostly. I'm not sure about the budget yet. I was told they'd be willing to buy new equipment so that I wouldn't have to bring my own, but I'm not sure how much they are willing to spend... this is all theoretical at this point, so I need to keep it reasonable (no MOVI gyro-stabilizers, sadly). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy lee Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 G6 .....No contest .....there is already a thread here on the G6 have a good read of it http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/3505-best-camera-for-movies-on-a-budget/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy lee Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 I've been intrigued by the G6 because it has the GH2's oversized sensor and throws in focus peaking (which is really nice for a compact!), as well as the addition of 60p at full HD, but I'm also getting the feeling that it is less pro-level than the GH series, and since it clearly doesn't have the same amount of community support backing it (hacks, performance tweaks and workflow tricks), and if it has the same green cast that I've been dealing with I'm wondering if I wouldn't be better off sticking with a GH2. G6 cannot be hacked yet as Panasonic have not yet released any firmware update for it as it is so new I bought my G6 from Vitaily at personalview.com and he has said to me there will be no hack until the firmware is released and also he may not hack it as it is so good 'out the box' .....it beats my hacked gh2s hands down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dishe Posted October 11, 2013 Author Share Posted October 11, 2013 G6 cannot be hacked yet as Panasonic have not yet released any firmware update for it as it is so new I bought my G6 from Vitaily at personalview.com and he has said to me there will be no hack until the firmware is released and also he may not hack it as it is so good 'out the box' .....it beats my hacked gh2s hands down That's strange, because the GH3 has a better codec out of the box, and Vitaily is still expecting to hack it. So, looks like the G6 might be a nice step up from the GH2, but what if I had the budget for a GH3 (or something else entirely)? Is it still "no contest"? What's the audio system on the G6 like? I kind of like that the GH3 can run and gun without an external recorder because it has monitoring right on the body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy lee Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 if you read all the past posts on the GH3 you will find it has a 3rd party sensor (not made by Panasonic )that is not as good as the g6 sensor and has more moire read up on it , its all on this site over the past 5 months we have debated it to death G6 has monitoring on the body too - If you like your hacked GH2 you will love the G6 read this thread too http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/3490-nikon-d5200-or-lumix-g6-for-all-around-camera/#entry42572 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dishe Posted October 11, 2013 Author Share Posted October 11, 2013 if you read all the past posts on the GH3 you will find it has a 3rd party sensor (not made by Panasonic )that is not as good as the g6 sensor and has more moire read up on it , its all on this site over the past 5 months we have debated it to death If you like your hacked GH2 you will love the G6 read this thread too http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/3490-nikon-d5200-or-lumix-g6-for-all-around-camera/#entry42572 Actually, I know the GH3 sensor isn't made by Panasonic- its a Sony, and I think the same one used in the OM-D. But contrary to what you are describing, I've heard it's fabulous! The color rendition and DR of that sensor made the OM-D the first mirrorless camera to grab of the attention of high-end DSLR snobs. This is a pro, not a con. Yes, I know it introduced some moire- that's part of what made me decide to keep my GH2s in the beginning when the reviews started pouring in. But as I understand it, the moire is still much more under control than the Canon equivalents, and I think I read somewhere (maybe dvxuser? can't find the thread now) that the G6 has a bit more moire than the GH2 (which isn't 100% immune to it either, btw), but still less than the GH3. So yes, if moire was the most important thing to worry about, the G6 wins over the GH3 and D5200 from what I've seen. But does that make it the clear winner? I dunno- I'd like to hear some other opinions as well. You seem to really like your G6, and that's awesome, but that doesn't necessarily mean what works best for you is what works best for this job. For running and gunning, I think I might appreciate the built in audio and more DR rather than the slightly-more moire-free sensor. But if the G6 has the wider FOV, that's something to consider as well. Then again, if FOV is the most important thing, the D5200 is APS-C and has drool-worthy DR and skin tones compared to Panasonic's sensors. At least, from what I've seen in tests so far. G6 has monitoring on the body too - Wait, audio monitoring (I didn't know about that)? Or are you talking about that focus peaking feature? Because if it has audio monitoring, that's a huge pro to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pietz Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 sometimes i feel like andy lee's 2nd forum account, but i guess i just agree with him on this. btw im excluding the d5200, dont know much about it. just GH3 vs G6. lets assume they would go for the same price. wow, that would be tough. high bitrate on one side, focus peaking on the other...well you seem to know the specs so lets cut to my point. even if these cameras had the same price tag im 70% sure that i would go for the G6, but that greatly depends whats important to you. set your priorities. but in the end the G6 is half the price of the GH3, and thats why its a no brainer. the only thing im sad about is that it doesnt come with a weather sealed body :( but except that...i dont need that high bitrate. i mean why do we all just talk about bitrates. the video quality of the G6 is absolutely great out of the box. why produce video files 3 times of that size. certainly not for editing. my hackintosh with premiere pro eats any native h264 files like nothing. i dont need all-i for that. but you came to the point where you said, what if you have the money to get a GH3? well then you should buy lenses for that money. beautiful voigtlander and slr magic lenses, my friend. The G6 is the real successor of the GH2. simple as that. i hated my GH2 for the high level of noise - all gone with the G6, better view finder, better display, better touchscreen, some nice gimmicks, focus peaking. im not saying that the GH3 is not a great camera, but it didnt quite fit in the GH-family-tree because they changed soo many things about it. some of which arent improvements... oh and the G6's footage looks more cinematic when you turn off sharpening to -5. the sharpening does a nice job, but it also sharpens the areas that are slighty out of focus, which gives it more of a small-sensor-kinda-look. andy lee 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjfan Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 actually there has been a firmware release for the g6 http://panasonic.jp/support/global/cs/dsc/download/fts/dl/g6.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy lee Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 I cant see the need to hack the G6 its great out the box Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dishe Posted October 13, 2013 Author Share Posted October 13, 2013 I appreciate the advice, thanks guys. Here's the thing - I've never really liked the color out of my gh2s. I've stuck with them because of the detail, unlimited recording time (great for lectures, etc), and the high bit rate gave me enough room in post to push colors. But I miss the picture I could effortlessly get out of my Canons (moire and aliasing aside, which was admittedly my biggest inspiration to switch originally). The G6 intrigues me, and if I were buying my own gear it would be top of my list since it seems to be an evolution of what I'm currently used to. But I keep thinking the gh3 with the Sony chip might be easier to work with; more pleasing color out of the box, built in audio, and a codec robust enough that I wouldn't worry about hacking. The g6, for some reason, doesn't infuse me with the same confidence that it is significantly better than the gh2 for this job. I can't put my finger on it, maybe the tests I've seen so far didn't impress me, maybe Andy sounds too much like a fan boy, but something here hasn't sold me yet. Just to put things into perspective, I feel like if I tell them I need a 5dm3, they'd buy one... But I honestly don't think the raw workflow is worth it for a news / media gig. Also the ability to record hour long events occasionally is important as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxotics Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 dishe, here the "math" behind what you're feeling. In the lowest HD resolution of 1280x720 you'd like to have 16 million colors per pixel. That works out to 3 bytes x 921,600, times 24fps (let's say) giving you 66 megabytes per second. Most SD cards can not be written to that fast (or cameras dump that fast); none could when the GH2 came out. Your sensor pixels are not full color, but either r,g,b, at 14 bit on the Canons (don't know panny). Anway, 1.7 bytes times 921,600 times 24 fps equals 38 megabytes per second (about what my EOS-M ML RAW hacked camera writes at). The truth is, all the consumer Panasonic cameras throw out a lot of color to achieve bit rates that can be written to SD cards. Once you start looking at higher dynamic range color it's hard to go back. To me, there is very little difference between all the Panny consumer cameras. So on that score, I don't think it matters a whole lot whether you use a GH2 with stock firmware or a G3 or GH3. The latter are better, but marginally in my opinion (please don't flame me). That said, you should get the camera that makes your overall workflow the easiest. If you need a small size, go with the G6, can use a large camera, go GH3. Already have a GH2, stick with that. If what you really want is photo quality in your video, you're going to have to go with a camera that can write raw sensor data to your card. At a consumer budget, that's Black Magic or ML hacked Canons. The Panasonics will not do high dynamic range and the RAW cameras will not do long-take videos with reasonable file sizes. There is no one-size fits all. Unfortunately, nothing close. For various technical reasons, the technological approaches are very far apart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dishe Posted October 13, 2013 Author Share Posted October 13, 2013 That said, you should get the camera that makes your overall workflow the easiest. If you need a small size, go with the G6, can use a large camera, go GH3. Already have a GH2, stick with that. If what you really want is photo quality in your video, you're going to have to go with a camera that can write raw sensor data to your card. At a consumer budget, that's Black Magic or ML hacked Canons. Maxotics, thanks for your input! I'm very much aware that a "perfect end-all" camera does not exist. Thankfully, I'm not looking for one, but rather the best balance (or worst of all evils, depending on your perspective). The GH2s work fine enough for me that I intend to continue using it for personal projects, at least until something significantly better comes out. But as I mentioned above, if a company were to hire me and wanted to buy all new equipment for me to use as well (ie. I'm starting over), where would I start? By telling them to buy a used GH2 which has since been discontinued? Surely not! Also, again, if I'm not footing the bill for this, why not start with something newer? dishe, here the "math" behind what you're feeling. In the lowest HD resolution of 1280x720 you'd like to have 16 million colors per pixel. That works out to 3 bytes x 921,600, times 24fps (let's say) giving you 66 megabytes per second. Most SD cards can not be written to that fast (or cameras dump that fast); none could when the GH2 came out. Your sensor pixels are not full color, but either r,g,b, at 14 bit on the Canons (don't know panny). Anway, 1.7 bytes times 921,600 times 24 fps equals 38 megabytes per second (about what my EOS-M ML RAW hacked camera writes at). The truth is, all the consumer Panasonic cameras throw out a lot of color to achieve bit rates that can be written to SD cards. Once you start looking at higher dynamic range color it's hard to go back. To me, there is very little difference between all the Panny consumer cameras. So on that score, I don't think it matters a whole lot whether you use a GH2 with stock firmware or a G3 or GH3. The latter are better, but marginally in my opinion (please don't flame me). You make some interesting points. But let me just throw this out there: I'm very much aware of what RAW is, and very much aware that it is a perfectly ROTTEN choice for news/media gigs like this. Being able to push colors in post and grab highlights and tones that were lost in camera is very cool, but not at all necessary when the job would rather require manageable data storage and fast turn-around times. I don't mind compressed data, actually, since at the end of the day the data is going to be compressed for distribution over the company's networks and websites. By the way, I've studied codecs a bit, and I'm not sure that your explanation is completely accurate. In fact, certain parts of it I'm fairly certain are wrong; for example, most of these cameras (including Canons), don't record RGB at all, but rather yCbCr, and the amount of color per pixel is not directly related to the compression bitrate, but rather the color depth (8-bit, 10-bit, 12-bit, etc) of the picture. And all of these cameras, even hacked and even the less consumer ones like the AF100, are recording 8-bit. Unless you are talking about RAW, which again is so far from being necessary that I'd prefer not to even bring it up again. Where the bitrate compression DOES make a difference, however, is in how the pixels are bundled together. For example, a series of pixels of a similar color might be "blocked" together as one defined color to save space. The end result is that if you try to push some colors in post to grade, you will end up with a lot of noise and unexpected artifacts as it changes other pixels that were blended together which may or may not have belonged to the intended shape. On the GH2, a high bitrate was important to me because I didn't always like the colors in the camera, and I liked that I could have a little room to fix it in post if I didn't like it. Back when I shot with Canons (not RAW, it wasn't around yet back then), the picture was good enough with accurate enough colors in camera that I didn't need to push it too much in post to look good. So something with better natural colors in camera wouldn't require as high of a bit rate for tasks like this. This is why the G6 worries me- its the Panasonic color without the hacked bitrate that made me comfortable with the GH2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy lee Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 I appreciate the advice, thanks guys. Here's the thing - I've never really liked the color out of my gh2s. I've stuck with them because of the detail, unlimited recording time (great for lectures, etc), and the high bit rate gave me enough room in post to push colors. But I miss the picture I could effortlessly get out of my Canons (moire and aliasing aside, which was admittedly my biggest inspiration to switch originally). The G6 intrigues me, and if I were buying my own gear it would be top of my list since it seems to be an evolution of what I'm currently used to. But I keep thinking the gh3 with the Sony chip might be easier to work with; more pleasing color out of the box, built in audio, and a codec robust enough that I wouldn't worry about hacking. The g6, for some reason, doesn't infuse me with the same confidence that it is significantly better than the gh2 for this job. I can't put my finger on it, maybe the tests I've seen so far didn't impress me, maybe Andy sounds too much like a fan boy, but something here hasn't sold me yet. Just to put things into perspective, I feel like if I tell them I need a 5dm3, they'd buy one... But I honestly don't think the raw workflow is worth it for a news / media gig. Also the ability to record hour long events occasionally is important as well. The G6 has colors like a Canon camera - Panasonic have massively upped the game with the G6 it is a BIG improvement over the GH2 - same sensor but better image and massive boost in color rendition - I was shocked when I first got the camera how much Panasonic have listened to all us GH2 ' Hackers ' yes I used my GH2 hacked for 2 years on jobs great camera shot lots of work with it ,with the G6 Panasonic have made a BIG effort to make a camera that does not need hacking and has all the improvemets we wanted from them The G6 colors are NOTHING LIKE the GH2 - it does not even have the same color profiles -Nostalgic and Smooth are GONE - replaced by new batter color profile more like CANON camera...... Im not a 'fan boy' of the G6 just someone who bought it very early on and shoots pop videos for MTV etc so I use it everyday for work so I have battle tested this camera for 3 months now , and it has not let me down once , There are lot of very very cautious people on this forum who ponder over cameras to the 'nth' degree , G6 for me is better than GH2 and GH3 that I have tested it directly against - So Im passing on my knowledge of this camera as there are lot of 'myths' about it I keep reading on this forum from people who have never used the camera who are just repeating other 'myths' they have read...... it works!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxotics Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 By the way, I've studied codecs a bit, and I'm not sure that your explanation is completely accurate. In fact, certain parts of it I'm fairly certain are wrong; for example, most of these cameras (including Canons), don't record RGB at all, but rather yCbCr, and the amount of color per pixel is not directly related to the compression bitrate, but rather the color depth (8-bit, 10-bit, 12-bit, etc) of the picture. And all of these cameras, even hacked and even the less consumer ones like the AF100, are recording 8-bit. Unless you are talking about RAW, which again is so far from being necessary that I'd prefer not to even bring it up again. Sorry, my tone was a tad bit professorial ;) I've been wrong about this stuff before and assume I'll be wrong again, maybe right now! I wouldn't be surprised if you're absolutely right and the sensor electronics save in yCbCr. I look at the bayer pixels in RGB, so that's the way I think. But it's true that, whichever color process, the question is how many bits of color information do you have for each pixel? How many bits R or Cb? Let me know if I'm wrong here. In photography, and filmmaking, the quality of the image is determined through color (contrast in bw) and resolution. This has been true since I was dunking photo paper in chemicals way back when. Video compression has NOTHING to do with achieving photo quality IQ, right? The goal is pleasing motion images within a specific bandwidth (camera/card writing speeds, iMovie, etc.) They're not thinking fidelity, they're thinking not making compression obvious, artifacts, etc. They do a great job at it, don't get me wrong, but there is no real solution to photo IQ except accurate pixel by pixel 24 bit color data. Let me answer your question about what equipment to buy as a 52 year-old. 1. The client doesn't understand a thing about what you're doing, technically, and doesn't want to know (unless he can brag about it at a cocktail party). 2. Doing what you think are idiotic and simple things for your client earn your more points than being able to shoot a 30-minute interview entirely in RAW. Most people don't see the difference. In fact, because H.264 and the like are so prevalent, many people think of that look as the best look. I HATE THAT. But it's the truth, right? 3. Audio, lighting, assistant, post-production, etc., are all more important than a 5D3 alone. So you may need to keep your cameras but have them buy that stuff for you. An improperly lit person will get you in trouble, doesn't matter what camera you have. All that said, equipment costs are actually small for businesses. Many business people, myself included, are happy to buy a worker something exotic tech just to make them happy. If someone is paying you $50,000 a year and the cost would be 3 times that from a vendor, then a $3,300 5D3 is not a big price to pay. This worked for me when I was young! As long as I got the equipment I wanted, I didn't care that much what they paid me. If that's true, get a 5D3. It has a good re-sale value (good for company). No one ever was fired for buying Canon (IBM in my day). You can do RAW, or not. That's the camera you want. Moire-less video, both H.264 and RAW. It's a monster camera. Get a G6 too. I think Andy is right, that's the right combination for most work. Better to have two of those than 1 GH3 for interviews. If your client can't afford that, then time to profit from your GH2 :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjfan Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Hi Andy, can you please post test samples comparing the g6 to the hacked gh2? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy lee Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Julian on this forum has already done that 3 months ago, read his extensive informative thread - it was his posts that convinced me to buy the G6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dishe Posted October 14, 2013 Author Share Posted October 14, 2013 Just watched and read some more reviews on the G6- It definitely looks like colors are improved somewhat, and the detail is still there. But some things I didn't know about that were just brought to my attention: - No HDMI live. FOR REAL!?! The port is dead during recording?! So, not only are you unable to record clean HDMI to an atmos or other recorder (the D5200 sends clean 4:2:2 video out the hdmi port), you are limited to the tiny display on camera forever? After the GH2 offered a scrambled 4:2:0 output, I figured they'd fix that on future models (GH3, etc). But I did not expect them to remove the ability to even monitor! That's bull!! I hate trusting color accuracy on the built in LCD! -SD slot under battery door Another "what were they thinking" moment! I often keep my camera on a rig (or inside a cage)- lately, my solution for long shoots has been to run the DC-coupler out the GH2 to an external battery so that I can power the rig for 8+ hours and never need to take it off. I just swap SD cards out the side as necessary. But to take the camera off the rig every time I fill up a card?! Good grief that sounds like a workflow nightmare, especially now that I've learned that the HDMI output is useless for recording as well! -Real 2x mFT crop Although it is supposedly using the GH2's sensor, the new image processor isn't making use of the oversized area that the GH2 did. That means we're getting same 2X crop FOV that the GH3 and other mFT cameras have. They may as well have switched to a new sensor then, since it no longer offers the biggest advantage that sensor had IMO. That's pretty much it. Aside from those things, I think I'm starting to like the G6. But the first 2 are a pretty big deal to me, and I'm surprised nobody mentioned that. Meanwhile, if I go with the GH3, I lose the peaking (which is nice for those times I'm traveling super light), compatibility with GH2 accessories (power supplies, cages, etc), and a bit more moire is possible (although that honestly might not be an issue). *sigh* When I mentioned above that I wanted the lesser of all evils, I wasn't expecting to really look at it like that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy lee Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 The EVF and rear screen are 100x better than the GH2 - so I dont use a minitor at all -OLED screens - superb Im using a 32GB sd card and thats 2 and a half hours recording AVCHD - so I have never charged a card while shooting yet! If you use a 64gb card thas 5 HOURS of AVCHD recording x2 crop factor for me is a bonus as all my C mount lenses work WITHOUT any vingetting like they did on my GH2 the Pentax 25mm f1.4 count cctv lens is Canon L series type sharp and costs £40 on ebay and does not vingette at all on the G6 - this is now one of my main lenses it is so good giving a Full frame field of view of 50mm The reason why you want the GH2 sensor in the G6 is the way it renders detail so sharply with NO MOIRE at all - it is superb like the GH2 is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.