Their is a huge sale at the store, and lenses that are normally $500, are $300. I want the GH3 later cause it's able to do a lot better in lower light though. Unless of course, Canon is coming out with a camera that will equal the GH3 or beat it. They are coming out with newer models, but do any of those have the functions to equal the GH3?
Should I buy canon lenses on sale if I want to buy a GH3 later?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
No the GH3 isn't better in low light than the canons. 5D markii, mark iii and 6D are all better than GH3 in low light. Even the rebel line is as good as the GH3 in low light....
Image detail yes the GH3 is better.
Codec yes the GH3 is better...
Low light Canon is better...
Well I was told before on here, that the GH3 has better low light capabilities than the Panasonic HC-X920. But My Canon T2i, is not near as good as the HC-X920, low light wise. So if it's not near as good as that, how does it beat the GH3, if the GH3 is supposedly better than the HC-X920?
Hi Harmonica - I had the T2i, and you're right. Like the GH3, it only goes up to ISO 6400, while later Rebels go up to 12800. That said, I shot some ISO 6400 at 50mbps IPB and 1080/60 with the GH3 and the slow 14-140 kit lens outdoors the other night and it looked terrific.
I didn't shoot this, but here is the GH3 and the slow 14-42 kit lens from ISO 1600 to 2500 at 72mbps ALL-I:
http://vimeo.com/55708059
I don't know whether it is the bit rate or something else, but this camera produces great images in low light - even though its max ISO is "only" 6400.
Interesting that the shooter from the video above says in the notes:
"I have been shooting Canon T2i's and a 5D Mark II but they both are being listed on Craigslist"
To answer your original question, I would not buy new EF lenses if you plan to buy the GH3. They are a challenge to adapt because the aperture defaults to wide open when they're powered down.
You either have to buy an adapter with a manual aperture built in, or an expensive powered adapter.
I would wait and buy either micro 4/3 mount or Nikon mount lenses with manual aperture control.
It is easy to find inexpensive Canon or Panasonic adapters for manual Nikon lenses.
Given that the T5i and SL1 just came out a couple of months ago - I don't think we'll see an upgraded Rebel any time soon. Canon doesn't seem to be interested in either 1080/60p or higher bit rates for their Rebel cameras.
Cheers,
Bill
I didn't shoot this, but here is the GH3 and the slow 14-42 kit lens from ISO 1600 to 2500 at 72mbps ALL-I:
http://vimeo.com/55708059
I don't know whether it is the bit rate or something else, but this camera produces great images in low light - even though its max ISO is "only" 6400.
Interesting that the shooter from the video above says in the notes:
"I have been shooting Canon T2i's and a 5D Mark II but they both are being listed on Craigslist"
To answer your original question, I would not buy new EF lenses if you plan to buy the GH3. They are a challenge to adapt because the aperture defaults to wide open when they're powered down.
You either have to buy an adapter with a manual aperture built in, or an expensive powered adapter.
I would wait and buy either micro 4/3 mount or Nikon mount lenses with manual aperture control.
It is easy to find inexpensive Canon or Panasonic adapters for manual Nikon lenses.
Given that the T5i and SL1 just came out a couple of months ago - I don't think we'll see an upgraded Rebel any time soon. Canon doesn't seem to be interested in either 1080/60p or higher bit rates for their Rebel cameras.
Cheers,
Bill
Last edited:
Are you shooting documentaries?
Why would upgrade your camera in the first place just for the low light capabilities ?
I mean if you're on a super low budget just doing shorts .. light your scenes and spend money on something else.
It doesn't matter if its 5D or the GH3 or the T2i if you don't light your scenes they will look terrible no matter what.
Yes ,some of them could look better than others but at the end of the day good lighting is a must .
Why would upgrade your camera in the first place just for the low light capabilities ?
I mean if you're on a super low budget just doing shorts .. light your scenes and spend money on something else.
It doesn't matter if its 5D or the GH3 or the T2i if you don't light your scenes they will look terrible no matter what.
Yes ,some of them could look better than others but at the end of the day good lighting is a must .
"We have a scene where our hero is busted by the cops. I had planned for us to light this exterior sequence, but when we got there and put on the F/0.90 25mm lens, we found that we could shoot in the natural city street lighting and with the flashing police car light. Amazing stuff. This of course is very liberating for the filmmaker and greatly reduces the amount of time it takes to shoot a scene."
- Bruce Logan, A.S.C. - on shooting Genesis with the new Panasonic GH3
http://www.videojournalisttoday.com/cameras/hollywood-team-evaluates-new-panasonic-dmc-gh3-dslr
- Bruce Logan, A.S.C. - on shooting Genesis with the new Panasonic GH3
http://www.videojournalisttoday.com/cameras/hollywood-team-evaluates-new-panasonic-dmc-gh3-dslr
Well today was the last day of the sale, so I bought some Canon lenses. I guess I could always resell them on ebay or something. The store will not take them back unless they are damaged.
As for lighting outdoors at night, I would love to, but the city where I live pretty much has a policy that you cannot light outdoors with generators. They won't let me. They will let the actors do what they want and shoot them, but they will not let me use lights.
As for lighting outdoors at night, I would love to, but the city where I live pretty much has a policy that you cannot light outdoors with generators. They won't let me. They will let the actors do what they want and shoot them, but they will not let me use lights.
