5D or Panasonic

I

icehippie

for video should i get a canon 5D or a Panasonic AG-HMC150 and why? and would i be able to connect a microphone into a canon 5d?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Personally I'd go with the Panasonic GH2 and invest the rest in other equipment such as lenses, audio, and lighting. I honestly don't feel there's another camera under $3,500 that can match the GH2 in image quality. The 5D is nice, but it suffers from bad moire and aliasing issues, and is due for an update any time now. If you can stretch your budget, you could look at the Panasonic AG-AF100 or Sony NEX-FS100.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Upvote 0 Downvote
SinEater said:
Personally I'd go with the Panasonic GH2 and invest the rest other equipment suchas lenses, audio, and lighting. I honestly don't feel there's another camera under $3,500 that can match the GH2 in image quality. The 5D is nice, but it suffers from bad moire and aliasing issues, and is due for an update any time now. If you can stretch your budget, you could look at the Panasonic AG-AF100 or Sony NEX-FS100.
Click to expand...

This is what I would say too. GH2 all the way. I don't think it has a rival south of the FS100. It's even outperformed it's big brother, the AF100.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
SinEater said:
Nope. For video we're limited to 1080P; all of the DSLR CMOS sensors are capable of sensing a much much higher resolution.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying this.

So then what makes for an optimal DSLR video recording camera?
I know audio capabilities are off the table at this point.
Lens acceptance capabilities (largely circumvented with various third party adapters?), frame rates, and software?

What's the advantage of a wildly more expensive Sony NEX-FS100U or Canon 5D over a GH2 (plus separate audio) if 1080p is the ceiling?
Are there some people with a genuine need for a tiny DOF to make that big sensor worthwhile?
Otherwise, what's the point of even going hog wild with all the Red hoopla?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
rayw said:
Thank you for clarifying this.

So then what makes for an optimal DSLR video recording camera?
I know audio capabilities are off the table at this point.
Lens acceptance capabilities (largely circumvented with various third party adapters?), frame rates, and software?

What's the advantage of a wildly more expensive Sony NEX-FS100U or Canon 5D over a GH2 (plus separate audio) if 1080p is the ceiling?
Are there some people with a genuine need for a tiny DOF to make that big sensor worthwhile?
Otherwise, what's the point of even going hog wild with all the Red hoopla?
Click to expand...

The NEX-FS100 is an actual video camera with all the video-centric features that DSLRs are missing, including audio capabilities. Its sensor is also exactly the size of Super35 film, so many people like the idea of it being closer to film standards. It also has better color depth than the DSLR cameras.

The 5D has a full frame sensor, which is much larger than Super35 film and other DSLR sensors. This allows for an even shallower depth of field than film, but in actual function there's not much use for that. The larger sensor makes it better in low light, but this is more dependant on lens than sensor. It's also one of the very first video DSLRs, so it's been around long enough to gain a following and be used on many big projects. Since it came first it got a lot of publicity. It suffers from moire and aliasing issues, but if you plan well you can shoot around that. My main concern is that it's been around since 2008; it needs to be updated to remain competitive with newer cameras such as the GH2.

The GH2 has a m4/3 sensor which is slightly smaller than Super35, but its sensor for video is actually larger than other m4/3 cameras. It deals with moire and aliasing far better than the Canon cameras, but that can still be an issue in certain circumstances. Due to the m4/3 mount and lack of internal mirror it can mount pretty much any lens in existence that will cover the sensor. This includes PL mount cinema lenses and Canon FD lenses. The Canon is more limited in the lenses it can mount. The GH2 also resolves more detail than the Canon camera due to the method it reads data from the sensor.

The RED cameras have a sensor approximately the size of Super35 film (I think), its capable of higher cinema resolutions, better color depth, better dynamic range, and overall puts DSLRs to shame. Of course, all of that comes with a big price tag.

I'm at work right now so I did all this by memory and am typing this out on my phone. If anything's wrong I'll correct it when I get home.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
GH2 - all the way.

The moire problems from the T2is I own are quite significant. You could shoot a scene you love, and all of a sudden you find that the metal grid on the pavement is creating a moire that renders your scene useless.
So GH2.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'd also recommend the GH2. For $1k you'd have a camera that gets fantastic images, doesn't have severe moire and aliasing issues like the Canons, doesn't overheat like the Canons, and can take virtually any lens with an adapter (because there's no mirror to deal with) and not lose an aperture stop because the adapters have no optical parts (they're basically just a metal tube with different fittings on each end).

The GH2/GH1 also have a sensor that's very close to Super35 size, though it's a little bit smaller. So you're getting an image that's very similar to film.

The one advantage to the 5D's larger sensor size is that you can get a shallower DOF with a slower lens. DOF is a combination of sensor size and lens speed, so bigger sensor = same DOF with slower lens. But it's really not worth spending an extra $2500 to get this one feature that you might find useful on one in a hundred or thousand shoots. Just get fast lenses and it's not an issue.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thank you, SE and CC

Seems I was mistaking resolution as a crude blanket covering color depth, a separate item I need to investigate further. :)




SinEater said:
You should look into Dynamic Range as well. It's another aspect that most people don't know about or don't pay attention to.
Click to expand...
Didn't know about that, either.
Love doin' homework!
Thank you, again.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
You asked about hooking a microphone into the camera, so I'll ask you:

Are you prepared to record sound separately and sync in post?

If not, get the Panasonic. You can attach balanced microphone cables to it and record passable audio. You can't do that with DSLRs.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
I looked hard at the GH2, but the 2X crop was a deal breaker for me. It has a LOT of good features, I just really wanted FF.
Click to expand...

This a true, the 5d goes really wiiiiiiide. But most DLSR shooters

spring for either the m43 size sensor or the APS-C size such as the 7d and 60d. The crop factors are 1.9x for the m43 and 1.6x on APS-C/Nikon. For most that not a huge difference.

The other thing with the Canons is they supposedly handle color a little better, it's fairly subjective but the speculation is that the Canons might have slightly better color depth.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
I looked hard at the GH2, but the 2X crop was a deal breaker for me. It has a LOT of good features, I just really wanted FF.
Click to expand...

Between the GH-2 and the 5D it's a really hard choice. My reasoning is that the GH-2 is not as clean in low light situations (as far as I have experienced before the hack) and the sensor crop is frustrating when you can't afford an 11-16 (or 7-14) lens.

The 5D may have a lot of aliasing and moire issues, but the ability to use slower glass and not really needing anything wider than a 24mm is nice. Meaning, you don't have to shop for 24/1.4's, you'll be plenty fine with 24/2.8's which are hundreds cheaper. Other 5D advantages include much better and recognizable DR, smoother highlight roll off, more extensive picture profiles (and one specifically tailored for the video shooter), and it's a personal choice but the image also bodes well for a 2.35:1 crop. It just looks right when you're composing for that.

I've seen both projected (at least digitally) and they look great. In the end it probably depends on what you're shooting, but if you can't afford an F3 or RED, I think these two cameras are the ones to choose from.

We just got another 5D after three years and it's still pretty bad to shoot with, but fun at the same time. We're using it for jobs that I can't lug the MX around for.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top