[kadajawi]

Not sure about all your questions, but the main reasons why the GH2 and 3 are so great is that they allow high bitrates and that they use the whole sensor (well, the area that is needed for 16:9 at least), every single pixel, to create the video. It takes a 12 MP or so picture, and scales it down to 2 MP. All other cameras, like the Pentaxes, take only every say 20th pixel, which means the pixels are a) small, not very light sensitive compared to the GH series and b) prone to aliasing/moire.


There's another reason why GH2 and 3 deliver great quality: Pros use them. People with the necessary gear, skill, experience and budget to do something great. They know how to get around limitations. The shots are probably planned, etc. To see an example of this... Canon DSLRs have many of the same limitations a Pentax DSLR has. But watch shorts and movies that were made with Canon gear.


And as for the crop... basically a 50mm lens on a FF camera is a 50mm lens, it has the field of view of a 50mm. On a 1.5x crop sensor, because the sensor is smaller, only a part of the area covered by that lens is being used... resulting in what would be a 75mm lens on the full frame camera. With a 2x crop it's 100mm. (Of course the lens is still a 50mm lens).

---

Last edited by kadajawi; 12-25-2013 at 10:17 PM.

[nivek535]

Hmm that was actually a really detailed response, learned lots thanks .
Just a tiny bit of confusion left, does that mean if i use a 50mm 1.7 pentax lens on the gh2, itll act like a 100mm 1.7? :O can I simply compensate that by distancing myself from the object?

[grispie]

Just a tiny bit of confusion left, does that mean if i use a 50mm 1.7 pentax lens on the gh2, itll act like a 100mm 1.7?

yes. that is what kept me away from a gh2 or gh3.

There's another reason why GH2 and 3 deliver great quality: Pros use them. People with the necessary gear, skill, experience and budget to do something great

and this is why you shouldn't expect a gh2 or gh3 to deliver out of the box for you..
Look for short movies on vimeo made with canon and see if that appeals. the pentax K3 can do the same.
Most of the "filmic look" needs to be achieved by other means than just the camerabrand.

[kadajawi]

and this is why you shouldn't expect a gh2 or gh3 to deliver out of the box for you..
Look for short movies on vimeo made with canon and see if that appeals. the pentax K3 can do the same.
Most of the "filmic look" needs to be achieved by other means than just the camerabrand.

Yes, but the GH2/GH3 does deliver better quality. I'd say working around the typical DSLR limitations is harder. If you only want to use the camera for video, and can live with the crop and the non-Pentax mount, I'd say GH3, without a doubt. The K-3 can't compete, there is AFAIK nothing it does better than the GH3 in terms of video functionality. If we were talking about the K-5, there is the SR system that delivers a significant advantage over the GH3, and which might make it worthwhile for some. But the K-3...

You Tube

You Tube

There is barely any aliasing/moire in there, I don't see any way you could get that sharp video with that little moire/aliasing with a K-5, or for that matter a K-3.

[grispie]

Yes, but the GH2/GH3 does deliver better quality. I'd say working around the typical DSLR limitations is harder. If you only want to use the camera for video, and can live with the crop and the non-Pentax mount, I'd say GH3, without a doubt.

yep, I have to agree with you.
Nivek535: you won't get a better answer than this...

[kadajawi]

yep, I have to agree with you.
Nivek535: you won't get a better answer than this...

Thanks


Also there are all these gorgeous C mount lenses (though not all may have a large enough image circle). At the moment there is a 25mm f0.95 lens for 50 Euro on eBay (though there are still 2 days left), which will give you lots of light and 50mm on the Panasonic. Plus those lenses are small. Unless you want to go ultra wide angle I think you should get everything you need for reasonable prices... and maybe even UWA lenses are not too expensive, I don't know.


Basically there are plenty of good reasons why filmmakers have embraced the GH series. Just beware that as a still camera there are IMHO better options, including all recent Pentax DSLRs.

[TomGarn]

Pros do use the big Canons - because only they have such extreme needed DOF
But you need a very controlled and calm set - or it will be a headache. Even APS-C
in low light gets problematic - but MFT cameras are well-controlable in sharpness.
But those GH2 and 3 are almost unknown to those in high business - they don't take
them serious - they are still underrated ... just like Pentax cameras ... If you ever saw
a Pentax with the press ... great ... so you can still count them on one hand.

I'd say: What Pentax still is for photo-cameras - Lumix GH2/3 were for video-DSLR/M
for long but they are really rising up and growing strong ...

About glasses: For Pentax you get good Tamron lenses for reasonable prices and
of course the affordable manual lenses ... Good Pansonic-glass is quite expensive
and I don't know if Olympus glasses are much cheaper. I will have to start looking
into that later again maybe ....

But c-mount-glasses for MFT will be very complicated, I guess, but that also depends
for which sensor. I did use the best ones with 2/3 inch. I always had 10, 12 or 18 x
zoom-lenses with f:1.7 or 1.4 and the good power-zoom of course. To put them on
MFT-bodies will be a strange job - but honestly I don't know enough about that, and
which adapters to use, etc.... but I now see c-mount is also for film ... so that will be
better to fit them to DSLR ... Tell me more if you like ...

---

Last edited by TomGarn; 12-28-2013 at 03:23 PM.

[nivek535]

Yes, but the GH2/GH3 does deliver better quality. I'd say working around the typical DSLR limitations is harder. If you only want to use the camera for video, and can live with the crop and the non-Pentax mount, I'd say GH3, without a doubt. The K-3 can't compete, there is AFAIK nothing it does better than the GH3 in terms of video functionality. If we were talking about the K-5, there is the SR system that delivers a significant advantage over the GH3, and which might make it worthwhile for some. But the K-3...


Panasonic GH3 test footage - YouTube


There is barely any aliasing/moire in there, I don't see any way you could get that sharp video with that little moire/aliasing with a K-5, or for that matter a K-3.

yep, I have to agree with you.
Nivek535: you won't get a better answer than this...

Thanks


Also there are all these gorgeous C mount lenses (though not all may have a large enough image circle). At the moment there is a 25mm f0.95 lens for 50 Euro on eBay (though there are still 2 days left), which will give you lots of light and 50mm on the Panasonic. Plus those lenses are small. Unless you want to go ultra wide angle I think you should get everything you need for reasonable prices... and maybe even UWA lenses are not too expensive, I don't know.


Basically there are plenty of good reasons why filmmakers have embraced the GH series. Just beware that as a still camera there are IMHO better options, including all recent Pentax DSLRs.

^^^

Even though I don't have much to say in response, but I've certainly read everything and appreciate all the help!!

Pros do use the big Canons - because only they have such extreme needed DOF
But you need a very controlled and calm set - or it will be a headache. Even APS-C
in low light gets problematic - but MFT cameras are well-controlable in sharpness.
But those GH2 and 3 are almost unknown to those in high business - they don't take
them serious - they are still underrated ... just like Pentax cameras ... If you ever saw
a Pentax with the press ... great ... so you can still count them on one hand.

I'd say: What Pentax still is for photo-cameras - Lumix GH2/3 were for video-DSLR/M
for long but they are really rising up and growing strong ...

About glasses: For Pentax you get good Tamron lenses for reasonable prices and
of course the affordable manual lenses ... Good Pansonic-glass is quite expensive
and I don't know if Olympus glasses are much cheaper. I will have to start looking
into that later again maybe ....

But c-mount-glasses for MFT will be very complicated, I guess, but that also depends
for which sensor. I did use the best ones with 2/3 inch. I always had 10, 12 or 18 x
zoom-lenses with f:1.7 or 1.4 and the good power-zoom of course. To put them on
MFT-bodies will be a strange job - but honestly I don't know enough about that, and
which adapters to use, etc.... but I now see c-mount is also for film ... so that will be
better to fit them to DSLR ... Tell me more if you like ...

Thank you as well! !!

I love the pentax forum! Everyone's so helpful and friendly .

[grispie]

Nivek: here's your K3 "movie look" :-)

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/75-video-pentax-hdslrs/244233-test-video-...#ixzz2owaumoF5

[adwb]

What I can't understand in this thread. and all the other dslr pentax video threads is why bother?

If you want to make videoed short or long why not go and buy a video camera? I don't mean a little camcorder or though the quality from them seem ok in the right hands, but a proper video recorder like the industry uses?

That way you get the image quality, the format, the wb, auto exposure, the focus, the zoom and and all the things all these posts ask about

What is this fascination for using a still camera to try and take video with? It,s all mfg hype, and if it was such a good idea every news report you would see the tv crews using the canon 5d instead of a video camera.

It the same with all the bells and whistles that get added that only work on jpeg converted images, if one maker adds a new filter or mode they all do,

Buy the right tool for the job Pentax make stunning quality dslr cameras and lenses

Panasonic et al make stunning video cameras

Am I missing something? Am I wrong? After all I'm only 64 still never to late to learn!

[grispie]

What I can't understand in this thread. and all the other dslr pentax video threads is why bother?

If you want to make videoed short or long why not go and buy a video camera? I don't mean a little camcorder or though the quality from them seem ok in the right hands, but a proper video recorder like the industry uses?

Good question. I guess it is just the availability of a large sensor where you can play with depth of field to give videos more of a filmlook, at a very low price, compared to the cost of a real cine camera. But this at the expense of losing the comfortability of a videocam.


The videocams you are referring to have small ccd sensors where all of the image is sharp. real pro cine cams with big sensors are not affordable.


For documentary shooting and general, maybe family stuff, one is indeed better of with a camcorder or a proper videorecorder because of the reasons you mention.
If you want to shoot more filmlike, you want a bigger sensor. And it happens to be available in a dslr..

[kadajawi]

Good question. I guess it is just the availability of a large sensor where you can play with depth of field to give videos more of a filmlook, at a very low price, compared to the cost of a real cine camera. But this at the expense of losing the comfortability of a videocam.


The videocams you are referring to have small ccd sensors where all of the image is sharp. real pro cine cams with big sensors are not affordable.


For documentary shooting and general, maybe family stuff, one is indeed better of with a camcorder or a proper videorecorder because of the reasons you mention.
If you want to shoot more filmlike, you want a bigger sensor. And it happens to be available in a dslr..

Exactly. We can play with depth of field, we can use all sorts of different lenses. Video cameras usually don't let you control focus, at least the more recent ones, unless you pay a lot. Maybe you can focus, but then it is through an electronic system or through buttons... Basically a DSLR will give you control over pretty much everything, and is usually more light sensitive too. Especially in the case of cameras that do pixel binning (Panasonic GHx). You can give a video camera that shallow DoF and the different lenses, but that means mounting some adapter in front of the camera that has a matte screen that you then film. Video cameras also usually lack anything that even gets close to wide angle. Some cameras do get to 28mm, but that's as good as it gets. Usually it's more like 40-45mm at the WIDE end.


For me it's simply more fun to shoot video with a DSLR, and it lets me be creative in more ways. I also prefer the look.


Ok, I've overlooked that you mentioned professional grade video cameras. They are rather expensive. And still keep a small sensor. Or they are really expensive.


Btw., I've seen plenty of German TV footage that is being shot on DSLRs, for reports, interviews, perhaps even news gathering... though for that you'd probably prefer to have something that takes off more work and has more depth of field. There are also TV shows, movies etc. being shot on DSLRs, though the availability of cameras from RED etc. may have reduced that a bit, as they aren't that expensive. The RED ONE dropped to around $4000? You'd have to add accessories though.

[TomGarn]

Professionals without money ... no budget filmmakers ... independant or unemployed cameramen ...
students .... crazy video-artists ... or even sick people with a bad back or arthritis who can't hold a
heavy professional camera ... and some photographers ... and broadcast producers with the wish
to add a special look to their tv- or web-formats .... all those people are interested in DSLR-video ...

Did I forget something ?

Yes, there are also people ... who just like to test the technical aspects of cameras. They want to learn
what can be done - and what not - with different brands and compare them ... and just write about it.
This is happening on web-boards/blogs ... as in printed magazines ... as in the own mind ...

[grispie]

Now with the question of Alistair in mind (the right tool for the right job..), i'm just going to throw this out there for the original poster:

If you are only interested in film making & thinking of going m43 and buy new lenses, why not consider something like the Pocket Black Magic?

[kadajawi]

Now with the question of Alistair in mind (the right tool for the right job..), i'm just going to throw this out there for the original poster:

If you are only interested in film making & thinking of going m43 and buy new lenses, why not consider something like the Pocket Black Magic?

Good point. Haven't thought of that, but... yeah. Seems like the best option. The sensor of the Pocket is the same as the Cinema, isn't it? So it is quite a bit smaller than mFT, but since most of it is being cropped away anyway when shooting 16:9 the difference is really not very big.


BMPCC: What about the pocket cam? [Updated] | Here For The Weather