I haven't had time to see the shootout yet, but it's logical that larger sensors have some advantages, at least as long as the photosites are larger. However, from a practical point of view, the GH1/2 offer a lot more than lower price and the possibility to mount more or less any lens.
Yeah, that's what >I< said.
To start with, they have a viewfinder. Although the Zacuto viewfinder and similar solutions work ok, they don't beat a proper viewfinder, and with the Panasonic, this comes in combination with an articulated LCD.
True but anyone actually
doing it will be wanting live-view on an external monitor - that's a bit of the prerequisite. The GH1 doesn't have it. The GH2 may but I seen visual confirmation of this yet. So here the GH1 looses out once again. EVFs are OK for PJ acquisition footage but it doesn't really cut it for indy film-making or most other professionally minded applications. The GH1/2's built-in tilt/swivel monitor does go a long way toward this however - so it can be used. It's just a tad small.
The camera body is much smaller and lighter, and you can easily fit 2 x GH2 within the weight and size of a 5DII. That comparison even holds for the price, and if really small is needed, it's easy to add a GF2. There is no GF2 in the full frame world.
Here, no one serious cares - at all. All DSLRs are orders of magnitude lighter than professional video or film cameras. In fact any serious videographer will tell you that heavier is better. The "I wanna ultralight" crowd is composed of almost only still photographers wanting a travel cam, a second BU cam, or who are coming at it from a RF background and are in love with that form factor.
Lenses are much smaller, particularly when it comes to telephoto lenses, but the same goes for WA lenses. I have on several occasions been shooting together with photographers using a D3s with Nikkor 14-24mm. The size difference is so enormous that it looks silly.
Yeah, I think lens|body balance is more important than just lens size/weight tho. If it balances well it handles well and video results will often show it. I partially agree on this point but again, this is mostly only important to still photographers of soccer moms etc. That said there are tons and tons of alt lenses that are about the same size as the Lumix line and almost all of them blow away the Lumix lenses in IQ. Remember that even for the M4/3 mount if you want a very fast lens at 50mm and over you will be paying for it in size and weight. ;-)
For people working in a studio or with a large crew, this isn't very important, but for small crews on the go, or one-man-shows like myself, it's of paramount importance. I can carry two GH bodies and 6 lenses in a small Kata Kata DR-467i backpack that also has space for 3-4 days of clothing, a fluid head and a small tripod on the outside.
I don't know how dramatic the quality difference is, but I do know that there are many places where I would never carry full frame gear, simply because it's to bulky and too heavy. In addition the difference in reaction you get between pointing a D3s with a 200mm lens at people compared to a GH1 with the OM 100mm is enormous. People simply act differently when a big camera and lens is pointed towards them, and that affects the real qualities of the video.
Most people shooting video with the APS-H/C or FF say it's not much of an issue. I do hear still photographers agreeing with you tho. If you're shooting serious indy the audio gear alone demands a car. So there's no big difference between the 10 extra pounds and the ever so slightly bigger back that carrying the same in FF gear will require. And again that's only for the logistics. When actually shooting; heavier is better! There's even weights that pros buy in order to
increase the weight of their gear. ;^)
As far as the response one gets doing candid shots I can't believe there is any difference between the GH1 and something like the K5. From a distance they (and the Nikons and Canons) look identical. No one will be saying to themselves: 'Oh look, that camera is 9mm narrower and 6mm shorter so I don't need to be nervous'. Unless they are a camera buff they probably will not think about video al all if you're holding a DSLR in your hands. Then again everyone even a little bit serious will be using an external monitor, an external mic. and have it all mounted on a shoulder, riffle, or chest rig so the size of the camera kinda disappears altogether.
Robert Batta
Eric Thompson
"One Dog" Dan Filbin
etc.
etc.
So, the best isn't always the best, and although we are discussing technical quality on this thread, it's important to remember that the technology has to work within a context. Horse for courses and so on.
I can't agree with that. This sounds like you're trying to convince yourself or sell yourself on this idea. Of course the pro and semi-pro world of videography is all about the (IQ) quality of the footage and only that. Of course actor ability, set, props, sound quality, and lighting is critical too but we're in the camera forum so we're only talking about the video. Besides connectivity and a few other things almost no one besides casual hobbyists or light weight PJ people cares much at all about form-factor. There are plenty of PJer and hobbyists out there tho so if you're talking about them then I agree but for them they don't typically care all that much about the (IQ) quality of the footage either. I was describing and talking about pro and semi-pro videographers and indy film-makers. They care only about IQ and logistics are formulated around the equipment they need to achieve the best they can afford rather than trying to select equipment based on the size of their current backpack or what they think might be more inconspicuous at their friend's birthday party.
I think we're just talking about two completely different types of users. :toocool: