Personal View site logo
Value of gh2 in relation to gh3
  • hayhay

    i could use some input re: the soon to be discontinued gh2.

    my projects are displayed on 60 inch+ lcd panels and digital projectors. i've used, extensive in the past, a borrowed gh2 and have been impressed with the hacks over the stock firmware. considerations: - i don't plan to use in-camera audio recording, - DR isn't as important as image sharpness and pixel structure, - i have enjoyed using the high bit rate hacks in the past, particularly the v9b and i do a fair amount of grading in post

    also, any idea how the 100mbps+ hacks impact the life of the camera? i recall reading something by a panasonic engineer who thought the hack "overload" would diminish the lifecycle. any real world examples of this?

    thanks for the help.

  • 10 Replies sorted by
  • rmkrmk

    Save yourself some money and buy a used GH2 at ebay and get an adapter for Canon FD lenses and buy some cheap (but really good) prime lenses (50mm/1.4 and 28mm/2.8 are great value for the money and give you a wide range of creative options) on ebay as well. It is more than good enough for what you describe you want to do and even more. Just last night my girlfriend had a premiere of a commercial produced for cinema almost entirely with the hacked GH2 (Flowmotion 2.02) and it was shown to customer and guests at a local cinema on a huge screen on a high-end digital cinema projector and everyone there was impressed with the quality. Depending on how tight your budget is, you might even get away with a hacked GH1, which is still one hell of a camera and IMHO also good enough for producing stuff for festivals. So if you see a cheap used one on ebay and money is a problem, it might also be an option.

    If you are a beginner, I think it is safe to say that for quite some time your capabilities will much rather be the limiting factor than the image quality of a GH2.

    Hope this helps.

  • bumsklumpenbumsklumpen

    in my opinion rmk is right. i didn't go for the awaiting gh3, as a beginner myself i decided to get the gh2 last month, then i bought some cheap lenses and i can say that in only one month i already have learned a lot about video, i am really happy with this camera.

  • bheathbheath

    Yes, buy the gh2 as the above two posters said. I've been a cinematographer for over twenty years. Just messing around with my gh2 has been the most compressed block of learning I have experienced. I'm also going to buy the gh3 because of my big sausage fingers and the tiny buttons and handle of the gh2. Good luck with it. You'll love it!

  • andyharrisandyharris

    I found that the cost of the camera is far outweighed by all the other kit that is required. My tripod and one LED light came to more than my Ebay GH2. There is also all the other expenses in getting good footage:

    Being in the right place with the right light (This costs time and fuel!) Really solid tripod Good head Lights! Moving the camera (can be very costly!) Sound (as much as a GH2 again) Bags and Cases Monitor and Cables Good Lenses (The FD-L series and Nikons seem to ge great) Rig and Matte box Follow Focus Huge Hard Disks to keep all the footage Software/Plugins More than one camera (for multiple angles)

    So, those things swamp the cost of a GH2. I regularly look at some of the examples showcased on here and can see that there is plenty more that I can get out of my GH2 before considering another camera. BTW I've had a good 100hrs from my GH2 which is currently running Sedna-A and there are no signs of failure.

    You CAN get good stuff without all the above, the trouble is the opportunities to do so are limited.

  • AriaAria

    I bought a GH1 and lens for under $350 and I must say that it's a REALLY great value. It's very close to the image of the GH2 for even less. I'm still deciding whether to get GH2 or GH3, but for most beginners i'd highly recommend the GH1 as well as a GH2.

    I further saved by buying old Minolta MD lenses. Some are as little as $30! Saved on a rig by getting the $30 shoulder rig.

    http://www.amazon.com/CowboyStudio-Shoulder-Support-Camcorder-Camera/dp/B0036NMQ7S/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1351969752&sr=1-1&keywords=cowboy+studio+shoulder+rig

    There are other cheap rigs too, like the Polaroid Rig.

    http://www.amazon.com/Polaroid-Stabilizer-Support-Cameras-Camcorders/dp/B005MRXPE4/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1351969937&sr=1-1&keywords=Polaroid+shoulder+rig

  • hayhay

    deleted

  • hayhay

    deleted

  • rmkrmk

    OK, so that's a new definition of "poor" then ;-). Enjoy the camera and most of all making films.

  • hayhay

    @rmk

    poor is a relative term, but i respectfully disagree that an additional $500, spent for practical purposes, contributes to a redefinition.

    for me poor means earning under $20k/year. spending an extra $500 is an important decision but not out of the question as i rarely buy commodities in excess of $500 that lie outside of my artistic pursuits.

    this statistic sheds some light on one facet of the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States "The Bureau of Labor Statistics data suggests that consumer spending varies much less than income. In 2008, the “poorest” one fifth of Americans households spent on average $12,955 per person for goods and services (other than taxes), the second quintile spent $14,168, the third $16,255, the fourth $19,695, while the “richest” fifth spent $26,644."

  • goannagoanna

    i rarely buy commodities in excess of $500 that lie outside of my artistic pursuits.

    Words of a like-minded soul. Please feel free to say that again anytime :-)

Add a Comment