lumix DMC-GH1 Olympus E-p1 or Casio EX-F1 which?

[Jerry_R]

The E-p1 and Gh1 are similar as still cameras and somewhat better than the Casio F1. E-p1 has the way better selection of lenses, over all a bit better still camera performance than the GH1. OTOH the GH1 has somewhat better real video performance (and DV) than the E-P1 (although it has HDMI out) or the F1. The F1 has the high speed mode and overall is pretty good both as still camera and a video.

I have had some chance to play with the GH1 and it is really pretty good. I can't get the "tearing" that some complain of on the web in the 1080 mode to occur with adequate lighting and good SDHC cards.

From the reviews all three are light hogs in video mode (big surprise).
As for price the E-P1 runs a bit under $800, the F1 under $900 and the GH1 $1500 (if you ignore the price gougers who are battening off of the shortage).

AFAIK none of these has usable audio.

Frankly I can wait for the price to fall as the GH1 starts to ship in quantity So likely the price will be with in a couple hundred for the 3 cameras.

My inclination is towards the Casio as the neater techie toy and because I may be able to find some uses for the 300fps and higher. (I have some ides and there are training opportunaties.)

Would any one like to comment?

BTW really weird the photo guys like Olympus because it ha cred as a camera?

[ConsumerDV]

I saw the mud in GH1's video that people talk about. To me, it looks horrible, even a cell phone shoots a more robust video. Until Panasonic fixes the codec I would not even think about the GH1. Sure, with little motion it shoots nice video, but the camera is clearly buggy. "Normal" Panasonic AVCHD camcorders do not exhibit such an artifact. Panasonic engineers clearly do not talk to each other.

On the other hand, I hope this can be fixed with better firmware, so buying one now should not lock you into "mud" forever.

If Panasonic fixes the codec, the GH1 is a clear winner to me.

[Bill Pryor]

I don't think that with hybrid cameras in this low price range you're going to get great stills or great video. The chip is too small for a professional still camera, but it is a step above the cheap consumer cameras. I've seen some video shot in bright light that doesn't look bad, but you can get a 1/3" chip real video camera for under $1K that will do a better job for overall video shooting. To make a hybrid still camera really functional you're going to have to get a set of rails (like from Zacuto), an LCD screen so you can tilt it up for low angle shots (or lie on the ground), and a Beachtek or equivalent converter box for audio. I think these cameras are great for amateur still photographers who might want to grab an occasional video shot. That doesn't mean somebody won't develop this and other hybrids into serious video cameras...but then they would probably end up being real video cameras that also shoot stills, not hybrid still cameras that also shoot video.

As far as the AVCHD artifacts, I didn't see any on the footage I looked at, however it was only a web compression, and it's difficult to tell much of anything that way. The only way to do a real test of any camera is to tweak it to get the best image possible under the condition you're testing, shoot a variety of subjects: low light, bright light, backlit, wide shots, closeups, moving shots, saturated colors, etc. Most stuff I've seen on the web are hand held grabshots from the day the guy got a new camera, and those are meaningless, other than proving the camera is working and the backfocus is set.

[Jerry_R]

I see the Olympus and Panasonic as special situation cameras with the potentially large number off relatively cheap lenses. I am not going to use them to make a film. I hope to get some more time with both the Panasonic and Olympus. I may even be able to get my hands on the Casio. I don’t necessarily see the need for rails, follow focus etc. but I haven’t shot enough to tell at this point. Running the Panasonic through C4 and onto a large HD monitor it looked excellent, but that was a quick well lit check not a real test. I am leaning towards the Casio a I see more use for the 300FPS than or a “film like” (whatever the heck that is) look.

[Marc]

Isn't this really a matter of almost endless market segmentation? If I'm going to shoot even an ultra-low-budget film, I'm likely to just use the Canon and be done with it. The price difference won't mean much and the lenses are extraordinary. Same for most professionals who are primarily still photographers but need some video and don't want to carry a complete second kit.
Run and Gun video: news, documentary, weddings and events, etc. Won't be happy with any of these choices and will stay with a video camera, how-be-it one that takes stills as well.
That's much of the using equipment for money people. What will be left are folks who want quality but won't or can't go more then $3k. I think there's a lot of them, the prosumers who are not trying to make a living. They will be willing to put up with the shortcomings of using the above cameras for video to get good images. That might include me outside of my day job.
Personally, I think the gorilla in the living room is the extraordinariily cheap cameras. Two hundred dollars gets you a very decent image these days. One has to pay fifteen times as much and then know something to really make an obvious and consistent difference.

[Jerry_R]

Very good point Marc. The really cheap cameras today do produce some very good video. I don't see how much longer the over priced $3 to $5k midrange will be able to survive.

As for the cheap film guys. I see the same problems with the 5DMk II and the GH1—lenses. It is easy to put $15 to $20k into Cannon lenses and need them all. GH1 reslly needs the PL mount adapter to solve the lens problem but now you are renting or buying $20k lenses. There are some problems with training video that either of these cameras could solve well given the right lens. I don't know that it would benefit my business much if at all. I see all 3 of these cameras as a cheap way to evaluate a complex trend; that may or may not go anywhere.

BTW Adaroma has a bunch of reconditioned Canons at good price including the 5D—no Mk II though.

[Jerry_R]

I have had some more time with the EP1 and found a review that I very much agree with. I really like one comment

Iwould suggest that if you took the guts of the Olympus E-P1 and put them in a plastic, common DSLR body, the reviews for this über-cool camera would not be so glowing. Consider the functionality of the camera. Pretty cameras don’t necessarily make pretty pictures.

So far asw I am concerned the EP1 is a washout. Now to get my hands on a Casio and the Panasonic for some real shooting.

[Todd Norris]

As an owner of a GH1, I feel the need to chime in. I can see valid points in all the criticisms and reservations everyone on this thread has made. However, from my perspective, the GH1 is an almost unqualified amazing thing. I'm the Promotions Videographer at an NBC affiliate TV station. I've already used my GH1 on two major spots. It has smoked the JVC HD250 I normally use.

As far as the comment that said,

"I saw the mud in GH1's video that people talk about. To me, it looks horrible, even a cell phone shoots a more robust video. Until Panasonic fixes the codec I would not even think about the GH1."

All I can say is, go ahead and shoot your cell phone video. I'll continue to shoot with my GH1, thank you. With just a moderate amount of skill, mud and tearing issues can be avoided.

As far as the camera being a "light hog" in video mode, I must ask, "compared to what?" I lit and shot a close-up of a reporter for a promo at 800 ISO in 5 footcandles of light, and it looked clean! Never in my career as a videographer have I been able to shoot in that small amount of light and get a noise-free image.

As a still camera, I love it, although I admit I don't make my living as a still photographer.

The ability to use manual Canon, Nikon, Olympus, and c-mount lenses is a dream come true. The film-like shallow depth-of-field is an amazing creative option that adds class to anything I shoot. The camera is light weight, inconspicuous, and has an articulating LCD display.

I'm in pre-production on a short film that I will shoot with the GH1, using traditional film-style lighting. Hopefully, when I finish it, I can offer proof that this camera rocks and is a viable professional option for filmmakers.

I'm sure there are scenarios where the GH1 would not be an ideal camera. Swish-pan, guerilla style shooting being one. And yes, the 19mbps codec is a compromise. But it's a small price to pay for all the other advantages it offers.

Todd Norris

[ConsumerDV]

Originally Posted by Todd Norris

All I can say is, go ahead and shoot your cell phone video. I'll continue to shoot with my GH1, thank you. With just a moderate amount of skill, mud and tearing issues can be avoided.

This thread is not about videographer's skills, it is about the GH1, which is pretty much a beta version of the camera it was meant to be. Panasonic's own lower-bitrate AVCHD cameras made three years ago do not exhibit such a horrible mud. I know because I own two of them, including one that shoots native 1080p24 video.

If you shoot at 60p then mud issue should not concern you. If you shoot at 24p you got to be creative -- read: to shoot almost static shots. I saw Philip Blooms video he shot in Arizona desert with the GH1. Impressed by video, not impressed by the camera. It works pretty much only when neither it nor the subject moves.

As I said, it is a beta version that was pushed to production and sale too early. This is a reverse side of upgreadability - no need to refine a product before it is offered for sale, instead use first customers as beta testers and offer firmware updates with "improved" features. I say thanks, but no. The last time I used a beta was Windows 95 that I installed in 1994. It worked, most of the time. At least Microsoft did not charge me for testing their product.

Hopefully, Panasonic will release firmware update to fix the codec.

[Jerry_R]

I finally got a couple of days with an EP1 last week. I was hyped because of the great reviews it got. So i found the actual camera very disappointing. I had a couple hours with the GH1 and overall my impression is that the ergonomics and overall usability of the GH1 as a still camera is superior to the EP1. As for the EP1 video it was disappointing. AF is a didn't start—unusable. Audio, even with an external mic, is unusable; seems that all these cameras have non-defeatable AGC and so the audio is unusable, even with an external mic, for anything but interviews under nearly ideal conditions.

I am looking forward to getting my hands on the Casio and GH1. I realize that they are different cameras with different purposes. But I am interested in seeing whether either one could be useful in my business.

BTW I found the EP1 manual focus difficult due to the shallow DoF (no surprise there) and a pretty useless focus assist.

[Jerry_R]

ConsumerDV check out this article for some real world experience and comments. Seems like an indie movie was shot using the GH1 at 24 or 25p. One big advantage is you can use pretty much anyone's lens with the right adapter (didn't get that from my brief use). Apparently there are even plans to market a PL mount adapter with rods (now that's putting a $100 saddle on a $10 horse!).

[ConsumerDV]

"I'd love to see them improve the compression." ... "They tried to minimize the quality tradeoff by not pushing on the compression scheme." ... "If you shoot carefully you can get a great image. But it is also easier than with other compression codecs to make the image bad." -- I don't see how this differs to what I wrote above. It is a good product at beta stage. It is not refined. It was not ready for production. The good thing is that hardware seems to be in place, so all that Panasonic has to do is to fix firmware.

[Jerry_R]

I doubt very much that the firmware is an issue. CODECs are usually optimized ASIC not FPLA or processors where the CODEC could be changed easily. It would take a hardware upgrade.

BTW

I saw the mud in GH1's video that people talk about. To me, it looks horrible, even a cell phone shoots a more robust video. Until Panasonic fixes the codec I would not even think about the GH1.

is rather different from the guy who shot a feature film with it and says

If you shoot carefully you can get a great image. But it is also easier than with other compression codecs to make the image bad

However I may get to put my very own 2 bits in as it looks like I can get a GH1 for the weekend.

BTW rumor has it that the CODEC was hurriedly rewritten for a limited 17Mb because that's the highest rate that the Panasonic SD card at the time would do. Turns out to have been a real bad business decision. Cannon got out of the 5D focus debacle with an update; but I doubt that Panasonic can do the same a I mentioned above.

[ConsumerDV]

Originally Posted by Jerry_R

BTW rumor has it that the CODEC was hurriedly rewritten for a limited 17Mb because that's the highest rate that the Panasonic SD card at the time would do. Turns out to have been a real bad business decision.

Do you mean it was rewritten to work at 17Mbit/s from 24Mbit/s? Nah. The HDC-SD1 made in 2006 shows no mud in 60i at 13 Mbit/s. The HDC-SD100 made in 2008 shows no mud in 24p at 17 Mbit/s.

Class 2 SD cards can do 16 Mbit/s, they cannot do 17Mbit/s, at least not by the spec. Class 4 SD cards can do 24 Mbit/s.

Also, why Canon AVCHD cams do not exhibit such a nasty artifacts, whether it is 15 Mbit/s, 17 Mbit/s or 24 Mbit/s? Panasonic wrote a bad codec for the GH1, plain and simple. Which is very surprising, considering decent codecs for earlier consumer camcorders and for the HMC150. Do these people even talk to each other?

[Jerry_R]

Don't know. What I got was that the CODEC was originally intended to run at 24Mb on a particular chip and that the CODEC was rewritten as a crash project for a different (cheaper?) chip. Reason given that the Panasonic SD card would do 17Mb reliably but not 24 at all. As I said an unsubstituted rumor. Like the rest of the MPEG2/4 CODEC the encode portion is not a part of the standard except that a reference decoder must be able to decode the video correctly. So the decoder part would not be rewritten just the encoder; that could definitely produce substandard results in a hurry up project. Particularly if the target chip was actually changed.