Would you like a little camera with your mount?
Saturday, May 9, 2009 at 12:57AM The Panasonic GH1 is finally available for order on Amazon and B&H Photo (although with a wait time of 1–2 months, I’d call that pre-order). This little camera is getting the attention it deserves as the first biggish-sensor, interchangeable lens stills camera that takes video seriously.
A big part of that seriousness is the lens. Designed from the ground up as a true hybrid still/motion lens, the kit zoom on the GH1 has an impressive range, optical stabilization, smooth autofocus, stepless aperture, and near-silent operation.
Sadly, the trade-off is that the GH1’s kit lens is slow as molasses, with a maximum aperture of f/4.0 at the wide and and a pinhole f/5.8 at the long end. If the GH1’s 4/3 sensor is the key to shallow depth-of-field, the kit zoom is a big wad of stale gum shoved in the keyhole.
Sure, there are some faster lenses for the GH1. Like this 24mm f/1.4 from Panasonic. For a mere $1100 you can have a fast prime that eliminates many of the above advantages of the GH1’s video mode.
Yes, more and cheaper Micro Four Thirds lenses are on the way, and one hopes that many will offer the video features now exclusive to the MolassoFlex 14–140mm. But in the meantime, folks are going crazy creating adaptors for the GH1.
And with good reason. The flange depth (what?) of the MFT format is very adaptor-friendly. Perhaps this is no better illustrated than by this beast:
This is a prototype PL-mount adaptor created by Illya Friedman of Hot Rod Cameras. I played with this at NAB (on a G1), and what struck me about it is that the mount is so much more heavy and substantial than the G1 body that you actually must wield the camera by the mount! And in fact the actual production model will have mounting points for a plate and rods. Add a PL-mount lens to the mix, even a small one, and you’ve got a rig where the camera body is a negligible part of the form factor.
Personally, I think there’s some real usefulness in a camera that can switch between full pain-in-the-ass cinema mode with big-money glass and follow-focus rigs, to stealth run-and-gun mode with truly useful autofocus and yet full manual control over iris and shutter.
The GH1 may not be perfect, but it is by far the most interesting camera on the market right now from the perspective of this DV Rebel.
If you want to learn more about the Hot Rod PL adapter, contact Illya at illyafriedman@gmail.com.
If you order the GH1 from Amazon or from B&H using these links, then beer is on me.
Reader Comments (80)
wow. just wow. that's seriously impressive.
the thing i'm loving about my 500D at the moment is how much SMALLER a set up i can have using m42 adapters and old manual lenses since they have no motor/electronics. i picked up a 50mm f/1.9, 28mm f/2.8 and 2x m42 EOS adapters for less than $80. that's what i call budget film making!
Any idea how much the PL-mount adaptor is going to be?
It's in my Amazon cart....
I'll definitely be getting one sooner or later but the only thing I'm really worried about with this camera is the sound. It looks like the ALC can't be turned off.
As far as shallow depth of field, I'm sure I'll be able to get good enough results with the stock lens. I'm cheating it with my DVX right now anyways so I'm sure I'll be able to cheat it a lot more with this cam, and the results will be indistinguishable from having a faster lens. I'm sure it won't be a problem. The DoF will be, for me, shallow enough.
I actually look at it as being an advantage. I won't need a focus puller if I'm careful, and I can still achieve shallow DoF.
hmmm... should i get it now, or wait for B&H? can't you get an extended warranty option on it when you get it from Amazon?
Preliminary tests show that the AVCHD implemented by Panasonic for this camera is artifact heaven. Sorry to spoil the fun but whats the point on using such expensive glass on a camera that can't handle the most basic of shots before the image falls apart.
We are not there yet with this camera. Lets hope canon has the firmware to end this search because the Gh1 aint it.
ELissa,
Can you point us to some samples or examples of this artifact heaven? Wondering what that means in comparison to HDV from Sony and Canon?
THX in advance.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=170685
There you go directly from the camera . The complete private file and a text document of settings. You have to remove pulldown of the 108024p footage with fcp compressor or JES de interfacer because the 24p is recorded in a 60i stream.
The footage from this camera is quite good. It effectively reproduces the film look, with whip pans being blurry like in film.
People like elisa would call that artistic in a film, but complain that there are "artifacts" in a digital camera.
Of course this is because Elisa is waiting for a Scarlet and can't stand the idea that some other camera is effectively as good and actually shipping.
Not true? You're not waiting on the Scarlet? Well that assertion is then only as bogus as your claims about the GH1 image quality.
It really is kinda funny to see the people bashing this camera, and how desperate they are to do so.
Its a psychological issue with them, more than it is an accurate judgement of the camera.
Im quite impressed with that footage. Enough so that I think im going to make an order for 1.
There are no whip pans in that footage. They are fast pans but not whip pans and if you look closely at it the image turns to blocky hell. Also there are compression artifacts against the building walls and foliage that turns to mush when the camera isn't even moving. I'm not going to debate the camera fanboys about this. The proof is in the footage and there's nothing you can do about it but wait.
The psychological aspect is on you who can't accept reality form gadget desire. I did want to like this camera but its not dependable. And we haven't even discussed CC yet. If the codec is breaking up just shooting footage theres absolutely no room for cc in that codec.
When this camera comes out in the Us I guarantee you it will be forgotten in a couple of weeks. Sorry to get your boxers in a bunch just learn to accept that people see things differently than you when they are in a reality based world.
No b frames admitted by Panasonic themselves. Its a crippled codec. They aslo admit to camcorders having better resolution.
Again no b frames in that codec which explains why it breaks up. I'm not bashing just stating facts. No b frames makes it less than a consumer camcorder.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09031901panasonicinterview.asp
Paul: Dont forget that shallow DOF is only ONE of the "benefits" (attributes) of faster lenses. The more important "benefit" is low light shooting. That f4 hurts when you are gasping for every molecule of light. The one stop difference between f2.8 and f4 is not always available if you are already at ISO800 or ISO1600, yet stuck with an f4 lens.
People get lost in the "DOF" and forget about the PHOTOGRAPHY.
Photon of light, Brian. Don't forget the science. :)
Hi, Stu,
Hunter Richards kindly shared pics of his PL-mounted GH1 and gave permission to pass them on. Still waiting for video clips.
http://bit.ly/Yz3t3
Article in Millimeter talks all about those flares. Two flashlight handlers on either side of the cam lens - forcing flares for no natural reason.. other than a style the director wanted - which I can appreciate - need to see that film in IMAX
Sweet Jesus. I love this stuff. very interesting to see how this all develops. Thanks for posting.
You can actually get a C-mount adapter for the GH-1, which would let you use a whole range of old, fast 16mm lenses...
Sorry Stu, already pre-ordered and I don't want to lose my place in line!
I think people are beating up on the camera a LOT more than they should be. I could see this level of scrutiny for a $3000+ prosumer cam, but a $1500 consumer hybrid? C'mon. I hear the codec "falls apart" over and over again, yet most of the footage I see looks remarkably good. Has any other camera in this price range been so picked apart? I think not. Ultimately it's good though. It just means I'll know exactly what to expect, so there won't be any nasty surprises when I start shooting. For all the whiners out there, there are PLENTY of cameras that cost $1000 or more than the GH1 that have nicer codecs and lenses, so go buy one!
Matt: I typed it knowing I was wrong, but couldn't think of right word. Oh well. I actually debated getting really silly with it. ....walks back to high school science room with head slung low.
Boz: I think what a lot of people are doing is addressing it as A CAMERA, not as something at a particular price point. It can be pointed out over and over that something is good FOR IT'S PRICE, but that alone doesnt mean it will be USABLE to everyone. Even those of us that aren't in the $40k Red range, but instead are at the $3500 range. Also, I'll point out that I dont have ANY extra money at the moment, but that doesnt mean that I will settle for something that is $1500 simply because it is "good for the price". Again, even an HV20 on sale at $300 - AMAZING "for the price" - is a non-starter. If it isnt enough, it isnt enough.
But GREAT for those of you that is IS good enough for. I dont at all try to diminish that, I'm merely pointing out that PRICE has little to do with it. For most it is MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.
Actually the HV20 holds up much better than the GH1. Except for DOF the GH1 has nothing on the hV20.
And bringing up the price of the camera is mind boggling silly. I'l ask again what good are pl lenses and price if the footage is blocky junk.
I'll give you this its a great camera if its locked off with very little detail to compress
When the camera comes out and you've done your tests please remember to come back here to reread your posts, maybe you'll learn something about yourselves.
This post I copied from another site says it all:
And, as I mentionned in another thread, at least the HV20 has manual audio gain, a headphone jack for monitoring and on-screen metering. It also has a live HDMI output to bypass the HDV compression should you have an AJA KiPro or anything that records HDMI. It has a live composite output that doesn't go black when you hit "record", so you can monitor the darn thing when it's on a jib or anywhere inaccesible.
Finally, I find the color/gamma of the HV20 more "natural" and less "crushed". BUT, I will admit that these are probably easy to work around using the GH1s contrast/saturation/WB controls and some post color correction (admitting that the codec will survive CC).
For the people that said "You don't like it, don't buy it"... well, that's a very good plan, thanks.
Regarding the GH1 being "amazing for the price", let me remind you that the HV30 is 750$ on Amazon, including the f1.8-f3.0 43mm-436mm (35mm equiv) lens... (ok... ok... it's not removable, and no meaningful DOF control and a really shi*ty bokeh... true.)
The whole point of the GH1 being so cool was to finally have CONTROL. CONTROL over DOF, control over shutter speed, control over ISO... but now, it seems you can do whatever you want, EXCEPT:
- shoot full HD
- shoot real 24p
- shoot below 1/60th shutter
- pan too quickly
- shoot in a park, or anything that has lots of leaves and grass
- shoot buildings wide angle cuz aliasing will show it's head
- record on-board audio cuz you can't monitor it
- apply lots of CC in post cuz the codec won't survive
- shoot on a crane or jib cuz there's no video output while recording.
I *really* wanted to ditch my HV20 to get interchangeable lenses and DOF control... looks like I'll have to wait for the GH2 or whoever actually finally puts together a real camcorder with interchangeable photo lenses and a large sensor.
-- Xavier
I was considering converting the AVCHD files to Cineform AVI for editing and color correcting. Would this help in any way to alleviate some of the concerns about the image breaking down in post?
I really want to get this camera, but if the image doesn't hold up in editing then I'm afraid I'll have to reconsider.
Elissa is right. I really wanted to love this camera, and Panasonic did so much right with it, even stuff they didn't really intend as a selling point (like being able to use c-mount lenses, and Canon FD, and pretty much every other legacy lens system ever created).
But the codec implementation is just bad. I posted a comparison of the GH1's different modes, and a sample of the same scene taken with an HF10 (a year-old $800 consumer camera that also shoots AVCHD at 17mbps) here:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/1140184-post59.html
The GH1 *is* an important step forward for hybrid DSLRs, and I think we're going to see a lot of awesome stuff come out for the next couple of years.
And let's remember, a lot of these complaints could probably be fixed in a firmware update from Panasonic. So let them know what you think.
The image breaks down at the shooting stage how in the world will it hold up in post. You can forget about post with this cam.
Also, for anyone that wants to draw their own conclusions, there's been lots of raw footage posted here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?f=179
You know what I am starting to realize... the images are going to be fine... it's the talent... getting someone that actually has talent to follow me down a public trail in a tiny forested area and act in front of this hoopty doopy rig from the <A HREF="http://media.commercialappeal.com/mca/content/img/photos/2008/12/16/rascals1.jpg">Little Rascals</A>. That is my REAL problem... Who can act... looks good on cam.. and is willing to spend time shooting with me? I know I can get a pretty effing good picture and make them look good...with HV20, GH1, lens adapters, post effects.. and visual effects. The camera part is getting silly.
You don't have to worry about if they look good. When you pan to or from them their face will turn into a leggo piece.
What I want to know is - why does Elissa feel the need to slam this camera in 8 different posts? You made your point Elissa. Move along.
The same reason there are over a dozen defending the camera. Move along
Super 16 (2/3") is probably the ideal motion picture sensor size.
You really don't want a bigger sensor than that, because pulling focus becomes increasingly difficult. If 16mm film resolved detail as well as 35mm film, Hollywood would have standardized on that instead. I'm just saying, there's a reason Vistavision (5D Mk II) didn't take off -- 35mm had enough detail, and the reduced DOF of 8 perf was a PITA.
My feeling is, if you were able to get the detail you need (1080p, 2k, 4k, whatever) out of a Super 16 sensor, it would be incredibly freeing. It's a large enough sensor that you can get "real" wide angle lenses and DOF, but small enough that nearly any lens can be adapted for it.
Just a thought... even though I have a 5D Mk II for stills, I could imagine getting a Micro 4/3 camera just for video...
Ben:
I'm just saying, there's a reason Vistavision (5D Mk II) didn't take off -- 35mm had enough detail, and the reduced DOF of 8 perf was a PITA.
So you are asserting that it was the extra shallow DOF that killed VistaVision and not double the cost in film stock? A bit revisionist, yes?
I'm just saying, even if film were free, I doubt Hollywood would have gone for Vistavision. Try pulling focus on a 100mm T2.8 lens in Vistavision/FF and you'll see why. Then try it on Steadicam.
Ben Syverson,
If you think 35mm DOF is too shallow, just close the aperture by a few stops or use a wider lens. I assure you that a 24mm lens at f11 is plenty sharp. :-)
Elissa, thanks for saving me the trouble of typing that stuff again.
I strongly encourage anybody who is interested in this camera to go to dvxuser.com and check out the massive amount of discussion that camera generated.
Looking at the raw footage straight from the memory card that a few users posted, I assure you that (except for DOF), an HV20 will give you cleaner pictures than the GH1 at 1080p.
Not only is the codec generating nasty artefacts at 1920x1080@24p, but there seems to be pixel skipping going on, creating pretty heavy aliasing on straight lines.
A lot of users are reverting to shooting 1280x720@60p, then retiming to 24p in post to avoid these problems... creating a whole new set of problems (uneven cadence, shutter speed can't be lower than 1/60th, lower resolution).
I really thought the GH1 was it... now back to waiting for whoever will get the prize.
-- Xavier
From a GH-1 Owner Here:
If you can't shoot something awesome with this camera, no camera will save you.
There's a lot of music that sort'a sounds professional out there, you know? That's because it's cheap as hell to get results that are good enought o the untrained ear.
I suspect one day we "filmmakers" will all be like Rappers: A lot of bling, flashyness, because we have these bad-ass cameras that we barely paid anything for. And there'll be a bunch of "Decent" looking stuff. For a while people won't be able to tell how bad most of the shit is, they'll be snake-charmed by the DOF and FOV, the 24P, but after a while they'll get tired of "bitches, guns, and girls with good looks" and start wondering where the real shit is.
ANd just like in that dreaded industry, rap that is, they'll start looking beyond the thin-ass veneer and start asking for the REAL talent.
A 4K image won't save your ass then. Me either, because right now I feel like a rapper. I guess it's officially time to start working on talent instead of the hardware.
"Oh, I'm real. Real enough to defeat you! And I did it without your precious gifts, your oh-so-special powers. I'll give them heroics. I'll give them the most spectacular heroics the world has ever seen! And when I'm old and I've had my fun, I'll sell my inventions so that *everyone* can have powers. *Everyone* can be super! And when everyone's super--
--no one will be. " -- Syndrome : The Incredibles
Damn, you guys got me monologuing... later.
I think this cam will do fine for anyone willing to learn a little about post production and image correction techniques. The most jarring issue was rolling shutter, that took people out of the story in easy cases and made them throw up in tougher cases.
So with a bit of Furnace love the artifacting should be solvable. After all we've dealt with artifact removal in the de-interlacing process for ages.
For people bitching about that you can't get a perfect image out of digital cams right away, get a used Aaton and hand your reels to a telecine lab and get your pristine frames back from them.
For everyone else, get used to image restoration on your footage. That won't change in the next 5 years. As long as cam makers will degrade the image, there'll be need for this kind of work.
Image restoration from HV20, HVX200 and the like was a large part of my income for the last 4 years and honestly it's something I won't miss. But right now the tape noise added onto the compression noise added on to the native sensor noise is something we have to live with. For most shooters schlepping around a MacPro with a capture card is not really an option. So either tape or a firestore and even then we still have the sensor noise and the 1440 to 1920 stretching with lousy 4:2:2 conversion.
Yes the GH1 has compression artifacts in fast motion, yes it has a slight rolling shutter issue, but these are all things that you can fix later and still be under the budget you would have needed with a digital cinema cam.
Compared with what I've seen from the 5DMK2 I prefer the basic stuff I've seen so far from the GH1. And compared to the image diarrhea my D90 produces there are worlds between.
And before anyone now starts moaning about "now I have to learn VFX tools and I don't wanna", you're not. You just need to learn how to treat your images. That is no different than learning how to treat the clapper loader, working a film scanning process and fixing the film damages that inevitably occur in the lab process and / or film loading.
You won't get pristine final images out of any cam ever built. Period.
It comes down to a very simple: Either you're rich or you have to evolve. If neither apply, say hi to that Brontosaurus for me on your way out.
Same with they guys saying: I need a full frame sensor to make great pictures! Really? How about talent?
I don't know where you guys are coming from, to each his own I suppose, but I'm not looking at the camera as the last camera to ever grace an indie filmmaker's attention. I like the camera's limitations. it's cheap, what do you expect? I don't care about the artifacts that much, I like the fact that I can use it to practice with good lenses, that it's light enough to carry around etc. By all means, it's the consumer camera for the semi-pro indie filmmaker. At the price point that it has, it's a fun camera to use. Personally, i even like some of the artifacts in the image i've seen, because it looks like 70's/80's telecined 16mm shows that used to come on tv when i was a kid, and not the new fangled artificial looking digital artifacts that most people cannot stand anymore. :P
I just saw Kholi's message and I couldn't agree with him more. right now, it's worth the money i'd say, and whatever comes out the other end is mostly up to you at the end of the day. I'm going to get one, and continue to shoot with my HVX until canon steps up with their rumored APS-C chip camera with an EOS mount, or I get enough money for a better camera.
... come to think of it, all those man hours being spent to make a custom firmware for the 5DMK2 by a few people (who i know go through this blog on a regular basis ;) ) would be better spent trying to fix the problems in this camera. I suspect it's far easier to do, especially since the camera comes with two CPU's for video and stills respectively. you might need to cripple the camera as an actual DSLR, or somehow just be able to switch back over, but it's worth it I think. lol. some one should start a site like Canon Hack.
Frank -
i agree with you.....
Why is it when someone questions a cameras ability people come out of the woodwork trotting out the same old lecture like " if you can't get good pictures out of this" or " its the person not the tool". If thats true then why not use the cheapest video camera out there and to hell with image quality.
Kholi I read your posts over at the other site and to be honest you're like some ADD kid. I still don't know where you stand. And I sense you're incapable to really tell it like it is to defend your over enthusiastic obsession with this cam.
Of course you can shoot with this camera. Thats what it does, shoot pictures and video. Its the quality of the shooting that we're all here for. If it wasn't there would be no need for this or any other blog.
Listen everyone, just take a look for yourself.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=170685
Download the PRIVATE.rar file and load up the clips in your editor of choice. Take a good look at the 0008.mts file.
It's a regular daytime shot on a street corner. No crazy whip pans. ISO 100, plain vanilla handheld. Its 1920x1080@24p in a 60i wrapper at 1/50th shutter (closest to 1/48th you can get on this cam).
I know Stu and a lot of people following this blog has played with HV20s (and it's sucessors). Compare that shot to what you would expect to get out of the Canon.
Do you feel it's an upgrade?
For all the people implying that if you don't like this cam, you must be a hardware snob: We're comparing the GH1 to a toy cam from a couple years ago that's made of silver painted plastic. The HV* is a lot of things, but hardware "bling" it is not.
Same for people saying "But it's great for the price!". You can get an HV20 for 550$ on eBay. I expect you to start raving about it... cuz... you know... it's really great for the price!
What's that you say? The tiny sensor doesn't give you the DOF you want? You're a hardware snob! Just add blurs in post...
-Xavier
I don't see how it's that hard to undersand, Elissa.
If you're a measurebator the camera isn't good enough.
If you're a doer then it's incredible. I've NEVER changed my outlook on this, not once.
It's NO different than the HPX170. I hate it, technically. It's a garbage image. But guess what? I know it'll produce an image that'll sell.
It doesn't really matter to me WHAT you think, though. I have a RED, I have an HPX170, I have a GH-1.
I'm not WAITING for the next best thing to come around. I learned a long time ago that if you want it then fuckin' pay for it. You obviously haven't gotten to that point.
Kholi one minute you're saying its only a 720p camera the next you're "all is good" shoot anything. Which is it? You're schizo on this cam because I don't you want to kill the fantasy. I mean the way you describe it then any cam falls into the standards you set.
I know you know that the image breaks up and that 1080p is useless for anything worthwhile to film. You just can't bring yourself to say it. I guess you haven't gotten to that point
This is really easy to understand. I'm going to lay it out in an A and B format so that you get it:
A) If you are a measurebator, the kind of person that sits around and analyzes a video frame by frame, the kind of person that's gotten us to these sort of image advancements in technology-- a necessary evil-- then this camera will not be good enough for you tastes. The 1080 will break up if you try to do anything extreme with the image, like moving vehicle shots or trying to cover massive amounts of detail in wides.
B) If you are a doer, a mover, someone who knows how to shoot and actually HAS something to shoot instead of wishful thinking and dreaming RIGHT NOW, then this camera will certainly be ample for your task, barring that you don't have the budget to shoot with a RED, FIlm, or any other camera that can slide by measurebator standards. The 1080/24 WILL be adequate, it WILL get used and no matter what any measurebator says it WILL pass the audience test with flying colors.
So yeah, I'm slightly schizo. I can look at an image and find every little flaw that it has while I sit three feet in front of a 30" apple Cinema Display searching for it. When I drop it on a timeline and scrub it on the 42" Samsung LCD seven feet away from me I see it. I'm the person who brought it to light, it's not like I tried to hide it.
And then, I can go out knowing EVERYTHING that I know about the camera and just hang out with it, steal some shots in a Thrift Store, do things I know I shouldn't with it, come home, jam the SDHC card into my PS3 and watch it back as an audience member and realize that it's certainly good enough to produce content with.
There are two schools of thought that I've presented with indisputable totality: The measurebator and the audience member.
Again, I'm the person that brought out the aliasing issue, the codec and compression issue and a few other things.
one last time so you get it: If you plan on shooting something to scrutinize frame by frame, and you think that your audience is going to do the same then this camera will not do.
If you are anyone else, it really is ALL GOOD.
The shallow DOF is great, and so is the ability to switch lenses.
But I am a little underwhelmed. Particularly by the rolling shutter. I don't think you could track a hand-held shot with this any better than footage from an HV20.
Somewhere in the future, someone will make a camera which lands squarely in the Rebel-Cam sweet-spot. Not sure who will have the guts to make it - and I am certain there is a market.
This is the closest thing yet, but no cigar.
C.
On an unrelated note - both Vimeo and YouTube rely on Adobe-Flash-Tear-o-vision. It's a pity there isn't something better to view online footage.
Uh... Kholi.... what about the DOER that needs to shoot 1080 with moving vehicle shots and scenes with alot of detail?
I guess you left out option "C".
If you can't shoot something awesome with this camera, no camera will save you.
Complete and utter bullshit. At it's very basics, shooting comes down to the talent of the operator, the eye of the DP and the vision of the director. There no is arguing the need for TALENT. But once you start to PERFORM, you need a TOOL that is up to the job. You may be able to light well, expose well and compose well, but if the DATA cant hold up to what you are shooting, all that talent is gone to waste.
I love how the GH1-wacks like to pretend that if you cant do it with this cam then nothing will do. Is that REALLY the case, Kholi? I guess you can sell off the Red and the HPX, yes? Or is there something you might need those for?
If you can't shoot something awesome with this camera, no camera will save you.
No need for that extra $25k+ in cameras then. Or is it just POSSIBLE that this camera isnt for everyone, and if it's NOT for everyone, then there MUST be a reason.
High Motion: shoot it at 720/60P
GH-1 Wacks: Kay. I guess you're waiting for the right camera to shoot something worth watching? There's one out. It's called RED.
Why not sell the cameras: Because I make too much money off of them. It's a simple concept.
Not for everyone: that's cool. I didn't try to sell you a camera. I dont' care what you do with your life, either. I guess just keep on worrying about what's not good enough?
Never said it was for everyone, just said that it's good enough. But alas, as bad as it is for people continuing to try and convince others that it's a bad camera, it's just as bad defending anything with real validity in this industry.
If you have something to do, then do it. If you want to wait for the Holy Grail, then do it.
No sweat off my back.
Never said it was for everyone, just said that it's good enough.
"Good enough" for what?
Obviously not good enough to replace the Red or HPX. According to others not good enough to replace the HV20.
So "good enough" for what? "Good enough" for a light, interchangeable lens, shallow DOF camera that shoots best at 720/60? Okay. Great. But just be up front about that instead of defending your new toy.
There are people out there that need to buy a camera and need to know whether this one will work for them. Maybe they NEED a camera that will hold up under motion and detail at 1080. But then you condemn them as "measurebators". haha, lol, rotfl, rotmfflmfao. They need REAL INFO, not your JUDGEMENT of them because they question your new toy.
I know it's no sweat off your back. You dont give a shit. You doin your thing and others can piss off. Then there are those of us reading and watching everything that comes out about this camera so we can see what is really going on and how it will REALLY work for us. But if we point it out we are "measurebators" and bashers. No. We're shooters just like you. And just like you need the HPX and Red, we have also decided that the GH1 just wont cut it exactly the same as you have. We just have the balls to say it.
What's your bottom line, Kholi? The GH1 is good for 720/60 but with no motion and no detail? Cut the hype and get to the bottom line. If you dont have a bottom line yet, then dont knock those that bring up issues. Addressing the ISSUES that people have is one thing. To call them "measurebators" is just lame.
And then, there are those who craft li'l memorable nuggets like this one:
http://vimeo.com/3430102
With a $150 toy camera, to boot.
In the end, bad specs won't ruin good art, but good specs won't save bad art.
Sigh...
A) The GH-1 will hold up in 720/60P under just about every single situation out there.
B) The 1080/24 Breaks up under extreme motion, detail. Mostly Wide Angle material.
C) The camera, to me, should be good enough for most work out there. Feature, Commercial, Documentary, Talking Heads.
D) You do realize I'm the one that started the 1080/24P isn't good enough from this camera debate? I was the first person around here to get it, I was the first person to see it and report on it.
I've been completely objective in my findings and posted them for all to see on DVXuser.
I was knocked for bringing up issues. LOL. I was called a measurebator for finding the flaws in 1080/24P.
And I'm still not changing my opinion as an owner and operator of the GH-1 and other cameras. Get angry all you'd like.
You really don't even need to see footage to know that the GH1 is going to have visible compression artifacts, any more than you needed to for the HV20. Any codec that is squeezing an 1080 frame into a 17 (or 25) Mbps data stream is going to have to make some tough choices about image quality.
At that point, it's largely just a matter of taste, and the particular kind of shooting you plan to do. Some people look at the GH1 footage and think, "No way in hell." Others (including myself) look at it and think, "OK, I can work with that." I personally find HDV eyeball-frying, but I'm not going to claim that's a law of physics.
For example, if I were shooting an intimate character drama with close ups and focus pulls, the GH1 might work well. (I'm concerned about the audio on it, but, hey, two-system.) For that one shot of huge masses of leaves blowing in the wind? For that, perhaps I'd borrow a friend's HVX200A at the same time I borrowed the crane.
Lastly, I'll politely suggest that it might be better to buy some camera, *any* camera, and go out and make movies that be locked in analysis-paralysis waiting for the perfect camera at the perfect price-point to emerge from the manufacturer.