What does everyone think? Philip's recent post on his site hints at the fact that these little camera's could be game changers in the sense that the traditional DLSRs could be at an end. From my perspective, I have a lot of thinking to do. Unlike many people on this forum, I'm not a professional, and don't earn any income whatsoever from filming video. It's purely a hobby. So is this EOS M the perfect solution for a guy like me? Small, compact, capable, fully manual, the list goes on. OR do I go with a traditional DLSR? I'm currently in the market for a 60D... but this little camera has sparked my interest, and left me confused. What does a guy like me get? 60D or EOS M? What bothers me about the EOS M is the fact that it doesn't have a flip out screen (this is the main reason I sold my T2i and planned to purchase a 60D)... so from that perspective it's a downside of the EOS M compared to the 650D, 60D, etc. Anyways, just looking to hear what everyone's opinion is of this little camera.
I thought that a lot of folk went down the GH2 route for the reasons you just gave and I would have thought that others will up the quality of their compact sized interchangeable lens cams.
I say the same, GH2 or the GH3 in September, sell your canon glass and buy Nikon, best overall camera for filming and most compatible glass across multiple formats. The M sounds interesting but when you look at what Olympus and Panasonic have out there lens wise for there mirror less systems and the comparability that they have across the board and the GH2s 16:9 sensor if be asking 60D who?
I have to be honest. The GH2 has sparked my interest recently... but the LCD screen, the feel, etc isn't to my liking. Now if they GH3 has a better screen, it might be something to look at. But again, the hight cost of a "new model" anything is going to play a part in my decision. The 60Ds prices keep dropping. It's one of those "the grass is always greener" situations. Is there and will there be better cameras than the 60D? Of course, but at the moment it gives me all the features, feel and video I want - AND it takes outstanding photos as well...
As a GH2 owner I couldn't agree more, the build quality is in my opinion a little cheap, I preferred the GH1s rubber styled body, felt better in the hand but it does such a great job in video mode that it's hard to complain, very cheap too, stills can be great in RAW shooting mode but this doesn't concern me so much as it used too. I've read that the GH3 is going to be weather sealed just how Olympus have done with the OMD-E5, the sensor in the OMD also hints at where m4/3 could go, takes lovely photographs, high dynamic range, the DP who is testing the BMD cinema camera raves about it, only the video codec and frame rates let it down in video mode. Do what's best for you but ultimately it comes down to what lenses you invest in. With mirror-less cameras you have a pretty wide choice so I stick with Nikon for the GH2 and AF101 as its the more flexible choice if I decide to change manufacturer
I don't like the GH2, it looks too digital, and DR is horrible http://www.vimeo.com/similaar/shootout2012 But at least that one has something going for it: great resolution. To me, any camera with the same aliasing/moire issues of the old Canons is absolutely irrelevant in 2012. If the new mirrorless Canon has them, as the T4i did, it's a non-option.
Samuel can I ask why you think it looks too digital and why if something looks "digital" is it an issue?? Its like every DSLR owner thinks he's a film maker, corporate, music and promotional films are a big part of the industry to and almost any DSLR is capable here though I would argue the resolution and deeper depth of field of the GH2 makes it a better corporate camera?. Plus anything can be done with a fairly clean image shot at 24p with wide aperture lenses in post to make it feel more filmic.... Sorry I hate saying that phrase, I don't feel I can as I've never experienced working with film and judge all of "does it look like film" fron DVD anc Blu-Ray transfers of the movie... Anyway, you only need to see the new Zacuto Revenge episode where even Martin Scorsese liked the GH2 image over all the others. If people like this enjoy the image from this camera in a real film style setup and considering corporate video is all about clean, well exposed images, in focus images I'd like to know what it is that your seeing in a Vimeo video that puts you off the GH2? No trolling or malice intended, I just read this kind of opinion all over the web and usually from people that are typical fan boys and I believe your not one of those so I'd be interested in your opinion.
It looks "too digital" because it looks like something recorded with a video camera, like an EX1 or something like that. Not a lot wrong with that, but I don't like it, I very much prefer the look from other cameras, like the 5D3 or my new NEX-5N. Even for what I shoot, that are basically just tiny personal projects. From my shootout, my guess is that what I don't like is the lack of DR, which puts it close to those videocameras of yore, even if this one has a bigger sensor and more controlled DoF. And I was shocked by Martin Scorsese liking the image from the GH2, since it looked quite bad to me. But that won't make me like it, just like Peter Jackson or James Cameron pushing for high-frame-rate footage won't convince me that it looks good.
Most of the audience put it in the top 3 from the actual screenings. Seriously Sam, it looked quite bad to you? The perceptual difference between the cameras was fairly small. Only us camera folk that use these tools professionally are really noticing the difference between the clips. Your average audience member would barely notice. For me the 7D stuck out as one of the worst, blacks were crushed to me. I've been using the GH2 and AF101 for our paid shoots for a while and love working with them. I was impressed with the Skin tones of the 5D and 550D on a project I edited for a company but working with 5D footage that has not been shot by an experienced operator is a horrible wobbly mess of an image. The 48 frames per second thing is because these guys are shooting a 3D film, motion blur and shallow depth of field do not translate well in stereoscopic 3D, actually it's pretty damn ugly when not crafted well, Michael Bay probably did the best 3D job do far with transformers, deep depth of field so that they could pull depth over focus and smooth camera movements combined with set extensions in post helped tame the motion blur.
Yes, I genuinely didn't like the image from the GH2. This is what I posted when it was still a blind test: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?284906-Revenge-of-the-Great-Camera-Shootout-blind-test substituting names for letters, it reads: (yes, that's me finding flaws on cameras I could never afford; ignorance is a blessing...) And I also posted this later in that thread: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...of-the-Great-Camera-Shootout-blind-test/page5 So: congratulations on finding such a cheap tool so incredibly great. I don't share that sentiment, but there's no right or wrong here, just opinions (and those are like noses: everybody has one, and they all have holes in them).
No worries Sam, not attacking you. These forums are a pretty hostile place, i think I'm better off staying out of them to be honest, open discussion is for the pub/coffee shop, not my iPhone.
I had about 6 grand saved up for a camera last April and it was a really tough decision what to buy. I had used the Canon camera line up extensively and been very dissatisfied with their image, moire and murky colors in low light. The HVX200 and HMC150 seemed like good cameras but outdated already. I was waiting for a AF-100, but once I saw all the test footage I practically went to a mental institution because I thought it looked so bad. Pallid, blow highlights, weak blacks...video. So I canceled my order and kept looking. Once I found GH2 footage online I was blown away- I loved the way the colors looked, the skin tones, the gradation and contrast in exposure (blown outs okay, I just don't want it to come so harsh- the knee) so I pre-ordered it and have loved it ever since. Never have I felt disappointed. I rated the GH2 3rd from last in the Zacuto shootout. It looked awful- like video but really too sharp for video. C'mon, anyone who show EX-1, HVX, or actual video tape knows video is no where near sharp- 5D sharp maybe. Anywhoo, I think a lot of the look has to do with the lens. I never use the sharply rated kit lens, but always my 1969 Nikon 50mm and SLR Magic 12mm. These two lenses are not lacking sharpness in their respective fields, but they have a softer look that nullifies the GH2 video like sensor (In my opinion). The 4K resolution of the Fujinon lens used in the shootout really doesn't work well with this camera. In fact, my favorite lenses on the GH2 are all old and even the popular Samyang 35mm 1.4 (which gets a high rating on sharpness) did not please me as much as some older lenses. This is my whole 2 cents on the subject.
Let me throw a wrench in this conversation and ask "What about the all new Sony RX 100?" This little thing is incredible. Reviews state that it's footage can be mixed in with 5DmkIII footage and you can't even tell which is which. It films 1080p in 50fps and 60fps, and has a built in Zeiss lens. The reviews are pretty incredible - it includes full manual controls in video, and the largest sensor in it's class (1"). I hate to "bounce around" but I just came across this camera and it's incredibly impressive. http://www.eoshd.com/content/8499/sony-rx100-review <iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/45682834" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe> <p><a href="">Berlin Vignette - EOSHD Sony RX100 test</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/eoshd">Andrew Reid</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>
I need to see more footage on that one, footage looks murky to me. Plus, I don't need a camera to fit in my pocket- not me.
Woah, guys I've been noticing an increase in the number of 'debates' and arguments on this forum... Can we keep this a friendly site and not turn it into that forum with the words "RED" and "USER" in it? Let's keep this forum the way it began, nice and friendly?
I think that the mirrorless system is growing very quickly and the new cameras have an amazing quality, but its most valuable aspect (the fact that it can mount almost any kind of lenses) can be also its limit. Let me explain better. From a photographer's point of view, the idea to bring a small but yet very hig quality camera with me is tempting, but the problem is the lack of a variety of lenses I would normally find with a dslr system. And this variety includes also the second hand market: 80% of my nikkor lenses are second hand, and that allowed me to have professional lenses that would have cost me a fortune at the normal price. There is no point in buying a gh2 or this new eos m system just to add an adapter and mount lenses that will weigh a lot more than the camera istself. You lose the concept of "small, light and confortable". I prefer to keep my Nikon d700 and choose some good primes and leave the heavy zoom at home if I don't want to carry a heavy bag. Now it's true that some systems are producing interesting lenses, like the x pro system by fuji or the Olympus system (even if some of those are very expensive), but you still have less choice if you want something more than the usual f3.5/5.6 zoom. I think that this aspect will improve over the next few years, it has already started so I'm positive. As a photographer, I will wait for a mirrorless system that is good enough to replace my dsrl system in every way. From a filmmaker's point of view, It can be interesting in some situations to have a small camera, but if in the end we start to rig them with all kind of accessories, I don't really see the point, especially if it is to mount an adapter that you can avoid with a normal canon dsrl for example.
You have a point there. Yes, it's small... but is it? Once a film maker has it mounted to a rig, etc... does the small size really matter? For me, I'm looking for a do-it-all solution, and I think at this point a traditional DSLR is still the best option for me. I guess I just need to decide which one? 60D? 70D? 7DII? GH3??? hmmmm
The GH2 plus Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 is a great nearly-pocketable solution. That's a very nice lens, sharp and with great bokeh. Pity about the awful focus ring (it's electronic, and has a mind of its own), but apart from that it's just great. Same for the NEX-5N plus Sigma 30mm f/2.8: much better sensor for stills, can trade blows for video, and again the lens is cheap and great (very sharp, no idea about bokeh yet because I actually haven't received mine yet: all I know about it is from my online research). With some luck, EOS-M plus 22mm pancake will be in that IQ range too. Except for the crappy video, 2009-style (still unconfirmed, but don't hold up your hopes).
If you guys don't mind, could someone explain why the mirrorless cameras are so versatile when it comes to lenses as opposed to dslrs? EDIT: EOSHD.com's review gave the M a thrashing by the way.
