I shared your conundrum a couple of years back - I am equally into stills photography and videography - both amateur for my own enjoyment. I have a cracking DSLR and some amazing lenses but the camera does not do video. The idea of a single top quality camera for both appealed especially the ability to use my top end lenses with large appertures to get the "real film look" crazy shallow DOF.

My investigations led me to end up buying a dedicated video camera (Panasonic SD900). The reasons for this was my subject matter. I pretty much only film family videos, holidays, kids etc. I concluded the lack of decent autofocus and the shallow DOF would cause me issues and a whole load of OOF footage. Sure the shallow DOF is beautiful in some instances, but I believe for me it would end up being a curse. For my use, picking up my video camera, opening and shooting is perfect. If I want to get creative I just stop and go manual, but most of the time I can let the camera do the work.

What do you want to use it for is the question. If you have plenty of time to set up and plan your shot then DSLR may be the way. If you need to shoot fast and furious it may be a pain.

Also let's not forget handling footage in the 50MBs range requires quite some horsepower too. While you might get a GH2 or 3 for a good price, will the OP be able to handle the footage?

The higher bit rates are optional in all the GH range, there are plenty of lower rate options as well so they will have a choice'.

Also re. dedicated video in another post comment not disagreeing at all, makes total sense for the scenarios described but just to point out for balance there are plenty of video friendly zoom lens options for the GH range as well and the auto focus is pretty nice + on creative video modes etc. it just works if you want to use it like a point and shoot video camera you can, I have one setting always just for that where i can quickly flip to that and it's my get the dam shot default, where I would rather get something than nothing.

Here's a more traditional video type example I shot with the 45-175 power zoom on the gh4 4k downscaled to 2k that lens will work on the GH2 and 3 as well and you can pick them up second hand ok.

Anyway not saying any of the other options are not valid they all are just sharing what I've experienced with the camera and general thoughts, it's quite hard to find a bad camera nowadays and the limitations I have run into have been with my skill using them not the tech :-)

My current video camera seems to have bitten the dust and I have been looking at replacement consumer grade models. I was amazed how few have a viewfinder, something I consider essential for broad daylight on-the-go shooting while sightseeing on travels.

I sometimes use my DSLR for videos. It requires you to use the LCD screen to view and it has no auto focus while videoing. It weighs 1.4 kgm with its zoom lens and is clumsy to hold for video work. It tends to have shallow depth of field, which some people lust after, but I don't want for what I shoot.

I appreciate that if you can mount your camera on a tripod, you are not pressed for time during set up, and have some control on your environment, then a still camera such as a DSLR could be attractive.

Laurence is a fan of videoing with "still" cameras and has migrated as he gained experience. I am surprised that he hasn't chimed in yet.

I never felt the urge to buy a DSLR for video; it just doesn't feel right. It's like turning a motorbike into a car. Anyways, I love my new FDR-AX100 for its video quality and the fact that it shoots stunning 20MP stills. I find the Carl Zeiss lens is superior to the G lens on my Z5U I had earlier. The AX100 has a couple of short falls and I wrote a short review about it on B&H but the images, video and stills are stunning. I wonder if the HDMI output does 422; nothing mentioned about it in any manual or report.
But, like in my earlier post, wrestling 4K requires a powerful machine, better then what I currently have in my system specs, and I had to use a proxy workflow to get things done. Switching to a lower resolution is an option but what ever you have shot is no longer "future proof" and defeats the purpose of having a 4K camera. I just wish it could to 4K at 60p but the files would require even more power to handle. The XAVC-S 1080 60p that the camera records are incredible too and as good as 4K downsized to 1080 in post.

I have a Pany HMC150 video cam and a Nikon D600 DSLR. I shoot video with both. I like the ergonomics of the HMC, the low light, shallow DOF, and IQ capabilities of the D600. What I yearn for is an affordable large chip video cam with interchangeable Nikon lenses.

/jerry

I actually do quite a bit of very low light shooting, dark bars, streets, etc. That's where the DSLR can really shine, but you have to be willing to change lenses. Unless you're willing to spend thousands of dollars on the lens alone, high ratio zoom lenses for DLSR's are pretty slow.

I've got some very fast fixed focal length (non-zoom) lenses that I use for dark scenes. Combined with the large sensor and higher ISO settings DSLR's have compared to camcorders I wind up stopping down in most bars which allows me to get some depth of field effects. It does require a combination of switching lenses and post production zoom to get the right framing though.

>>>very fast fixed focus lenses<<<

I assume you meant to type " fixed focal length"; a prime lens.

So it looks like from everything I am getting here that I am wanting to kind of zero in on the GH2. It seems like exactly what I am looking for. And while I don't understand excatly what it means to get it hacked, I think that would be the route.


So I will ask for the generosity of all you wonderful folk yet again to help me understand what kind of lens/lenses I will need. I will be shooting primarily 1.landscape scenery and 2.low light settings (IMHO 75% of what you shoot in real life is low/poor lighting). I am hoping to find them on ebay or amazon to save a bit. I really no nothing about lenses so the more details (links :) the better.

Thank you all so very much. I really do appreciate all the help.

J

Here's what I like to use in the rough order of how much time they spend on my camera :-) trouble is they start to add up cost wise, the 12-35 sounds like it would work for you but it's not cheap. (there's the 35-100 f2.8 in that range as well which gets good reviews but again it's relatively expensive)

12 - 35 f2.8 Panasonic constant aperture, + image stabilization in the lens is really nice all round lens for landscapes, people point and shot etc.
25mm f1.4 panasonic leica is my fave lens and even tho it's a prime it stays on loads, sharp at f1.4 and something about it makes my pics and video look better than I deserve :-)
Olympus 45mm f1.8 is really good value, tiny and sharp at f1.8
Olympus 75mm f1.8 only had this a while but it's lovely built well sharp through the aperture range and have taken some arty dof video with it that I'm really pleased with + photos
45-175 power zoom f4 - f5.6 + stabilization go to lens for hand held sports / just general type video for me as I'm usually close for the stuff I do.

Alternatively you could get a cheap nikon or cannon mount and look at some of the legacy lenses I've got a few fd cannon prime lenses cheap and they are ok, not as sharp as the ones above but have a nice look I think and fast, obviously manual focus and no stabilization tho.

Or look at the 14-140 Panasonic or some of the kit lenses I've seen some lovely footage shot with them as well, but you said low light and they a bit slower however it'a all relative they would be usable for sure and a better price.

<<I want to do more photography>>

I do not recommend the GH2 for photography. In my experience the results have been quite poor compared to Canon, Nikon, and Sony. The GH3 is another story - it has replaced our Nikon D7000 for product photography.

In my opinion, Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Panasonic are all worthy of your consideration, and each brand and model has strengths and weaknesses. The great news is that anything you choose will be MUCH better than what you've been using!

Panasonic's video quality is excellent. Video scaling uses interpolation to minimize moiré and keep diagonal lines sharp. AF is excellent when shooting video, and the lenses are silent – you will not hear the focus motor at all. Video recording time is not limited by file size or time and still images are good (GH3) when fast focusing isn’t required. The video CODEC uses a high data rate (GH3 natively, GH1/2 via firmware hack) and maintains its quality during the editing process. Repair service not as timely as Canon or Nikon, and, when shooting stills, Panasonic’s contrast-detect AF is significantly slower than the phase-detect AF used by DSLRs. I have experienced an unacceptably high number of out-of-focus shots witht he GH3 when shooting quickly.

Nikon still image quality is excellent and the AF system is very fast. System is extensive and older lenses (1950’s through current) can be used on most mid-range and above Nikons, opening up a galaxy of high-quality used options. Newer Nikons may have improved this, but the D7000's contrast-detect AF system simply cannot maintain focus when shooting video. Video scaling reduces sharpness and produces artifacts (moiré and jagged diagonal lines), lenses make a ton of noise during AF, the CODEC has a low data rate and doesn’t hold up as well during editing, and recording time per file is limited.

Canon still image quality is excellent and the AF system is very fast. System is extensive, but older lenses cannot be used without adapters. Firmware hacks exist for some models to improve video quality and shooting features. Video scaling reduces sharpness and produces artifacts (moiré and jagged diagonal lines). Some models will not AF while shooting video, and those that will do so poorly (except 70D). Recording time per file is limited (restriction may have been removed on newer cameras?). Pro users have produced very high quality videos with Canon DSLR cameras!

Sony A-series DSLRs are the cameras I recommend most often to co-workers who want a very good all-purpose camera. Still photos are very good (we used the A58 for product photography and found it comparable to the D7000 and GH3) and the video quality is OK. Sony uses phase-detect AF (very fast, very accurate) when shooting stills AND video. Video scaling reduces sharpness and produces artifacts (moiré and jagged diagonal lines) and many lenses are noisy during AF (have not tried a Sony SAM lens). Many system accessories available, including Carl Zeiss lenses on the high end and older Minolta AF lenses that can be purchased used at bargain prices (image stabilization is in the camera body so ANY lens you put on the camera is image stabilized). CODEC data rate is lower than Panasonic and Canon and doesn’t hold up as well in editing (I’m not aware of any hacks for this but it’s worth checking into). Sony cameras also happen to be very well priced - the A65 (body only) and A58 (body+lens) are selling for a bit less than $500 at B&H Photo right now. Either would be a huge step up from the camera you're shooting video with right now.

If you don’t need unlimited file size and have the budget ($1k, same as GH3) I would take a hard look at the Canon 70D. This camera has phase-detect AF on the image sensor - nobody else does this - and it works really well. Our documentation department got this camera and I had a chance to use if briefly and was very impressed. Still photos were typical Canon excellence and the AF was spectacular when shooting video. I didn't shoot any comparison footage vs. the GH3 so I don’t know how it handles moiré and diagonal lines, but in terms of color and saturation it reflected Canon’s typically high quality.

If you search a bit you will find excellent photo and video samples from each of the cameras and brands that I’ve mentioned. At work I need to produce acceptable results in very little time – my last product video was completed start to finish in just 8 days – so I define “best” in terms of what allows me to produce the required result in the allotted time. For me that’s been Panasonic, for you it may be something else. Whatever you buy you will be very happy that you made the jump to a DSLR!

Guy

Guy S.

Wow. Thanks so much for taking the time to share all that. Really helps me a lot. First, makes me excited and confirms I am making the right decision going to DSLR. Something I have wanted to do for a while.

Second, that's a really helpful comparison model by model. I am going to read up on those Sony's

Even though you say the Photo side of the GH2 is not so good, that'okay with me (I've been shooting on my iPhone the last few months https://www.flickr.com/photos/soldadoperegrino/ LOL. My question would be, if the GH2 is not so great for photography is that going to mean that trying to create some spectacular time elapsed (probably my main purpose for the camera) scenery of landscapes, clouds and even stars in RAW assembly is not really going to be all that great? Do you think, per se a Sony A58 would be better in that regard? I am building a motorized track and getting a intervalometer to start working towards that.

Everything else I have heard about the GH2 makes me think it is the one for me... it seems to have everything I am looking for and I have been finding some good options in my price range. This footage is exactly the video quality I am looking for on the video side of things

Again, thanks so much, you must be a very considerate person to write all that. All of you on this forum, in fact. Guy S. If you have any insights into that one question I would greatly appreciate it.


Joshua

The most spectacular timelapse videos I've seen were shot with a Nikon, and I suspect there are many equally brilliant timelapse videos shot with Canon that I haven't yet seen.

As an FYI, one reason there is so much excellent work shot with these brands is that they are the most popular brands. But if you are passionate about this (if you're building a rig you obviously are!) then you will create beautiful timelapse imagery with whatever you buy.

While the GH2 would certainly be better than your iPhone, if it were my money I would favor a Sony, Canon, or Nikon over the GH2 **for this use**. Whenever I've used the GH2 for product shots I've had to re-shoot them with the Nikon D7000.

I recently sold my GH2 (body only) for $475 and the 14 - 42 lens for another $80. That $$ would get you a brand new Sony A58 with a comparable lens, with money left over for a Hoya HD circular polarizer that would make your images really pop.

The video montage you linked to is video, not a timelapse sequence of still images. The GH2 excels at video, especially when hacked. But for high quality stills I would look at a different camera. Hope this helps!

Joshua, soy argentino como vos.

Read this book: http://www.figge.com.ar/index.htm/ApuntesSyT/DSLR_Cinematography_Guide_Spanish.pdf

Or download it @ nofilmschool.com

Erni

Thanks to Guy for pointing me in the direction of the Canon 70D, I just bought a body-only to replace my wife's Canon 500. I did not realise what a good camera it was until I looked well into it.

I don't mean to be negative about DSLR's but.

How do you guys cope with moire and aliasing that DSLR's cause during video capture?

I really find it very disturbing and unacceptable.
I have the Canon 700D/T5i it makes great stills but the video is terrible due to moire and aliasing.

Now there is a filter which would reduce the moire and aliasing:
http://store.mosaicengineering.com/ it costs around $400.
That's almost the price of a decent DSLR. And it makes the image look softer.
I have been considering this filter so that I can use my 700D for shooting video.
But still due to the the lack of many camcoder features like XLR input/ peaking/ zebra etc my DSLR is a no-go for shooting video.

That's the main reason for me to go for the Cinema C100 which has the best of both worlds. But it's obviously much more expensive, so it will be a while before I can afford it.

But I was curious how you guys cope with the down side of DSLR's like the moire and aliasing.

VMP

Moire is a fact of life that has been around since the earliest Image Orthicon cameras, the only real way to deal with it is to have an Optical Low Pass Filter fitted to the camera, preferably right at the sensor plane. But that will inevitably soften the image, you can't have it both ways.

Or take steps to eliminate moiré inducing objects in the shot.

VMP - The extreme moire and aliasing, among other problems such as limited record time, are not necessarily problems of all DSLRs. The Panasonic GH series has little to no aliasing and moire (the GH4 in 4K mode none whatsoever) and they can record non-stop til the batteries run dry. These reasons are what prompted me to sell my Canon 7D and go all mirrorless with the GH series. I'm currently shooting all my event videography with two GH3s and two GH2s.

I would agree that most other DSLRs, particularly the Canons and Nikons, have huge moire and aliasing problems.

Of course, the GH cameras, being mirrorless, are not technically DSLRs at all...:-)

MarkHolmes,

One thing I like about the Canon is the 'X factor' that cinematic look that it produces / can produce. (Of course lighting e.t.c come into play)
I like the look of this short made with the C300:

And this made with C500:

Are you able to match the look that Canon's create by grading for example?

I haven't yet seen a well-graded cinematic footage from GH.
The ones I have seen often look video-ish.

Maybe I just saw the wrong ones.

Can you point me to some well-graded footage?

Thanks,

VMP

For video, there are two stages of sampling: first the analog optical signal (light) is digitized at high resolution, and then it is down sampled to video resolution. Aliasing and moire could be introduced at each stage, depending on the subject matter.

The low pass filter should be located BEFORE the conversion takes place. Once aliasing has occurred you can't very well un-mix the cake. Processing in post will be sub-optimal.

There should therefore be an optical LP filter before digitization by the sensor for good stills, and another LP filter before conversion to video resolution. If the first filter was optimized for the video then the stills would not be as sharp as they could be.

Perhaps some cameras only introduce the optical LP filter when taking videos.

Afterthought:
If the ultimate sharpness of stills is limited by the lens rather than the sensor, the lens provides an optical low pass filter.

VMP,
I couldn't agree more. That is the one major stumbling block of the GH cameras, and the biggest strength of the Canons. Canon really gets the color science that produces a more cinematic image, especially in regards to skin tone. Panasonic just can't seem to match that. It's the one reason I still closely monitor the Canon releases. I really wish Canon would release a full-frame mirrorless that matches the GH4 in specs and usability.
For event videography, the GH series is great. However, the next time I shoot anything narrative, I want to use an Alexa or maybe one of the Cinema grade Canons.
It's exciting to see what the future brings us with each passing year...

Oh, but your other point, VMP - you can make the GH cams look cinematic, it just is a different look. I think it's maybe a little more clinical. Some good examples of GH cams used cinematically:
GH3 Middle East launch film - https://vimeo.com/groups/gh3users/videos/62274504
"Bali" -
https://vimeo.com/groups/gh3users/videos/70663191
And of course, the hacked GH2 was used to make the award-winning Shane Carruth directed Upstream Color -
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/upstreamcolor/