Personal View site logo
GH2 driftwood hack in shootout with Canon C300
  • 471 Replies sorted by
  • @itimjim i see no difference between bias or not very well executed, as it was a subjective test, just by setting the cameras one way or another by eye immpression, you are getting a bias,

    if there was or not an economic bias, well, that statement can be as it cant be, i dont care really, as there is no way i can know for sure, so his shootout will remain for me as his shootout, nothing more, a valuable opinion, but not an absolute truth or whatever...
  • I am surprised pp are so riled up over these tests! When you shoot on a real project, dun you do pre-pro tests to find the best cam, best lighting kit, and in the days of film, the best stock for yr purposes? We dun even know the lighting conditions in Bloom's test, let alone his camera settings. The different lenses he used for each camera would already predispose the test to such bias and inaccuracy I would laugh at his face for calling himself a DP. Any self respecting guy with a camera will tell you the tests lack consistency and are pointless. Even two lenses of the same brand, same make, same batch will yield different results, the same way no two cameras of the same make will ever yield the same results no matter how you calibrate them till your eye balls pop!
  • hahahah @kazuo thats becuase you are thinking only from your reality, at least i have no real possibility to test bigger cams
  • In fact some valid test is something very important in the mesuberators world we live in. Why, because some true methodical test ends the endless discussion about which is which, is this brand better, is the other one, and on, and on.... it makes people just (the vast majority) be able to move on, you are left we just the most hardcore pixel peepers with nothing to do or nothing that they can do than talking about numbers. It just shut the mouth of fanboys etc. because when you have true fact the numbers will talk by them-self. This is why some good test is important, more so that many cannot afford to buy or rent or lend all this gear to see what is good for their project.

    Many of us don't live near Hollywood or any major film city where they can have easily access to see what works for them. I don't think this test will give all the answers (because the method is not, lets say methodological or scientific), but it is a good start. I wrote some thread before about the need of the gh2 for recognition, because I really feel that it is a true gem and that it would really benefit a winder audience of micro budget film makers to know about this camera.

    The problem of the internet is that you have access to so much information and disinformation that it is difficult for people to get the right info. With the fanboys etc it is nearly impossible to get some unbiased info. One example to make it clear, until the release of the Canon 1dx (which is unknown value), the hacked gh2 is the best investment in dslr video camera. Say that as clear as that on an open forum and you will be tagged as a fanboy. But it is a fact.

  • @Elenion, any chance you would be so kind as to explain your Cineform curve process a little further? Much appreciated, thank you.
  • yeapis, from all the dslr tested, the hacked gh2 is the one that has more resolution, but does doesn´t really mean that is the best of all, the best of all will be the one must suitable for your proyect, for your aesthetic view (you cannot make the same with the gh2 that with the 5d, but you can make other things, like having more deep dof or autofocus or ....), or for your budget...
  • The best part of this test is that you and me don't have to pay a single cents to watch it. PB decides to do it with his own time, money, contacts and effort to keep everybody happy, informed and entertained. WTF are we complaining about?
  • Its fun seeing test like this one.
    there is one with lenses to ad the moment.

    you only see the "big" differences if the cams will be posted next to each other.
    the people for who you make them, will never no the differences (off course i mean not the pros..

    all what philp finally will shows us, is that you make the differences, in the way you handle your gear.
  • @kholi, it is ok, I did not take it bad at all. As you can see I posted something about the same time as yours. I was just talking that people have the right to be disappointed, if one parameter or the other is not as what they thought. For me DR was the only thing that I could not quantify with the gh2/hacked. Because I knew it was sharper, nearly no moire/aliasing to degrade the image etc but the DR no comparison or test. I always find people bashing it on forum saying that it has lower DR etc without any test/comparison/footage to back it up. On the net suffice to say something 100 times and it becomes reality. At least now we have at least some... ok, if not far from perfect comparison.

    Unfortunately I don't have any pro camera like the EPIC to use and compare to the gh2 personally and found a personal opinion. Which make these kind of test valuable to me. If you read my post above, you will see that if you look and test (even on so lowly compressed format) the gh2/hacked compares much more favorably in terms of DR to most of those cameras.

    Now for your question about DR and ISO, normally it is true that as higher you go the DR will decrease. But the gh2 is benefiting from true downscaling/binning which as with noise tend to make things better. If you look at testing site like DXOmark you will see two DR value, the native DR and the one they have standardize of a 8 megapixel camera. Noise is the same, that is why when you use the ETC mode the image is noisier, because it is just cropping a 1080p at 1.1 pixel level of the sensor and you are not getting the benefit of downscaling/binning. Everything is relative, the DR will decrease but not as the same rate than in photo mode.
  • spacemoose
    December 17, 2011 at 23:29

    Here’s my Pink Panther:

    1 5D
    2 NEX5
    3 AF100
    4 C300
    5 D7000
    6 F3 AB
    7 F3 S-Log
    8 FS100
    9 GH2
    10 7D
    Log in to Reply
    Philip Bloom
    December 18, 2011 at 06:13

  • @whiterabbit
    No correction, i just changed the way the image is rendered (in fact this is realtime). No loss in quality, you just squeeze all the latitude of the coded picture in a flatter container.
    This is SiLog, not a much extreme curve, with Rspace space you get an even flatter picture.
    PS: I don't know if we are offtopic, i think that this is just a useful part of the conversation.
    Sequence 03.Still001.jpg
    1920 x 1080 - 1M
    1920 x 1080 - 4M
  • Why the long faces GH2 lovers? Turns out we're hung like African Rhinos! We've got a $500 tool that compares favorably to some much more expensive relatives! Maybe the F3 has an inch or two on us, but hey, we can please a lot of chicks, (even Olivia) with what we're packing. DR? Humbug, that's our job, to control the light, even 14 stops can easily not get it done. If we can't get it done with the GH2's 10 stops give or take, we suck.
  • it is only a test:
    which also says nothing - absolutely nothing - absolutely unnecessary for me
    Philip Bloom is a Canonman (sklave!?)
  • @Butt No need to start making accusations. This is nothing more than an interesting comparison. If you're not interested then there is really no need to comment!
  • @CraftyClown
    It's just that some people sound so deflated that the GH2 doesn't have 20 stops of latitude and might or might not fall a tad short of a $9,000 camera.
  • @brianluce well put.

    The shootout is fun to follow. I'm looking forward to the next round.

    Gh2 resolution held it own against the big dogs.
    nex5n...way to hang in there looks very similar to the d7000
    5d...banding king.
    D7000...googling that byach right now. I want to know more. I liked it.
    F3 and c300...solid performance, but not significantly better than all the rest.

    The surprises for me...nex5n did well, D7000 was my fav and that the Monsters F3 and C300 don't kill.

  • >Disappointing that the GH-2, in this test is 9.

    My comment is regarding how the GH-2 fared in the test. I'm not disappointed in the camera for my uses. I just hoped in a side by side comparison, the hacked GH-2 would have been closer to the top of the cameras tested for contrast and DR.

    Dynamic range test question: If you shot the same exposure on different cashmere. Then brought a frame into post. If you raised or lowered the exposure by one EV or stop, and counted how many stops before you see clipping in the histogram or Photoshop "show clipping"

    there seems to be a lot of dynamic Range tests, but are almost always a subjective result.
  • Its just a test. All the cameras are bloody good, the GH2's can obviously hold its own with the big boys - but we knew this already. And Vitaliy just keeps making it better and better. The real hero of the test is the work of a man much more technically gifted than PB, and that is the achievements of VK.
    One day I hope to see some of his shooting on this site involving all his knowledge... unless its already here, somewhere... ;-)
  • Are all these opinions being based on the 9 jpegs on the site? With all the artifacts, poor resolution and wild differences in exposure, contrast and color, how can anyone tell anything about these cameras?
  • +1 @driftwood comment
    aye! to Vitaliy
    i´m also really curious to see a film from him :D
  • jspatz is correct.

    Take a look at the FS100 shot #8. It does not look that good. colors are muted and skin tones are blotchy from compression artifacts. Does this one shot tell the whole FS100 story, no way. So the same goes for all of these different camera one frames comparisons.

    Just look at kholi's shots above. It's a lot cleaner and looks great. Now if this frame was included in the mystery game of - guess which image belongs to a camera - , this would be a very different story. Everyone would be praising the GH2. Don't go by one shot.

    BTW, the whites are clipped on the GH2. Now, the come back would be this was intentional in order to not underexpose the shadows, but look at the 7D sample below, whites we not blown out, and the shadows are even more crushed.

    I would of been interesting if Philip had used smooth with all -2 settings. Nostalgic is a "pushed" look with the GH2. I'm surprised this was the chosen setting.

    Nonetheless, it's only one sample.
  • I really like how the GH2 rendered the background with all the raw grains (right hand side in fullsize) :) Looks at the others most looked compressed and, shall I say, "muddy'ish." It seems overly saturated compared to some of the others and the DR is not as good as the others. But damn that D7000 looks excellent I thought it came from the C300, but the C300 is not there...
  • Kong,
    I thought the same thing regarding the smeared compression look of many of the other samples. It's not pretty.
    The D7000 suffers from compression artifacts and makes the skin tones looks blotchy.

    I certainly believe Philip has a lot more to show.

  • Is the model his sister?
  • Here are three reasons I preferred No. 9. I would add, and I'm sure many have already done this, that I carefully calibrated my monitor. First is, without thinking about any technical details, the image just looked better than the others at "prima vista." OK, I could be fooled by extra contrast, etc. But the GH2 leaves a vivid first impression, no matter how it does it. And first impressions are important.
    Second is the level of detail. Everyone, or most people, have a a superfine layer of fine hair on their skin. If you look at the model's shoulders, the GH2 resolves some of that detail. And that is super resolution--impressive. Many of the others just give you a cottony blur at the skin edges. Mushy.
    Third, I thought the color of many--not all, but many--of the others was off (and this is why I double checked my monitor). There could be a million reasons for that, but there it is.
    As far as the blacks and dark parts of the models hair being crushed, this happens all the time, and it is also present in the C300 video. IMHO, the GH2 is dialed up one notch too far in contrast, or the shot is very slightly underexposed. Instantly and easily fixable. There must be about a full stop of exposure variation in the test, depending on how each camera "sees" the subjects, and part of this is probably due to the lights in the background.
    What I'm saying is, dynamic range is important, but contrast is no biggie. Dial it down, then bring it up in post if needed. At ")", the GH2 Contrast is too much, but we knew that anyway. At -2, it is OK, and we knew that too. Exposure is touchy, we knew that as well.

    Preference is subjective. I just happened to prefer that single frame, although I liked the "nonsubject" part of the C300 image: smooth and not grainy. Others would prefer other frames, and it is only one test in a series. The boat in the harbor, the C300 seemed to resolve more detail. We will wait and see. But as far as the first test goes, I for one am not planning on buying a different cam.
    Until the next test.