I'm really interested in a rectilinear Ultra Wide Angle lens for my GH2 but can't decide between these two. I intend to do video and long exposures with it in all conditions (including bright daylight), that's why I'm interested in the ability to fit filters. On the other hand, the idea of going for a wide angle lens is to get that massive perspective, I'm really fond of it for architectural shots.

These two lens seem to be those that offer the widest rectilinear perspectives for the M4/3. I'm not interested in a fish-eye because I would like to shoot 1080p/i without loosing quality after de-fishing. If you aren't already familiar with these two lenses, I would sum up the plus and cons that really matter to me like so:

Panasonic 7-14mm (+ widest reach) (- can't fit filters)

Olympus 9-18mm (+ can fit filters) (- doesn't go as wide)

Price, constant aperture, small quality differences don't really matter to me.

In summary, as far as it goes in terms of what matters to me, what one has the other doesn't. That's why it's so hard to choose for me. Yes, I already researched this comparison thoroughly but never saw it applied particularly to video. Perhaps someone here faced the same dillema and managed to make a decision or could provide a recommendation based on something I'm unable to see here.

Care to comment?

Searching for some editors with FX suite that reported to run OK on these specs, decided to contact Magix about their Vegas Pro and Video Pro software.

The reply came:

• Video Pro is a semi-professional software to advanced videographers
• Vegas Pro is a professional software to production companies

So, ok it does give the idea of how the company place the two, but would the people here on the forum know about the effective difference of the software? What are the main things that set them apart in terms of function and integration?

check out these straight-out-of-camera JPGs from the Sony A6500.

viltrox:

Zhongyi:

**Some AC90 specs **

• 1080/60p, 60i, 30p, 24p, 480/60i. [50 Hz model]: 1080/50p, 50i, 25p, 576/50i.
• High sensitive BSI 3MOS sensor
• F1.5
• 29.8 mm wide angle / high powered zoom lens (12x)
• built in 5 axis hybrid OIS
• 3.5 inch lcd (touch) 1.150.000 dot resolution
• Dual SD Card Slots (support SDXC/SDHC/SD Memory Cards).
• 2 channel XLR audio inputs (MIC/LINE/+48V selectable).

• Audio CH1/CH2 with individual level controls and input selection.
• HDMI output, AV Multi output (D-connector, composite video and audio 2 channel), USB connector.
• Remote terminals enable remote operation of iris, focus, zoom, Rec Start/ Stop functions.

Available at:

• http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-AG-AC90-Full-HD-Handheld-Camcorder/dp/B00AA2P9UE

In all the excitement with the GH3 (some 1200 replies in 5 days here only ) I wanted to start a new discussion, because I feel we (or at least some of us) have to face the reality. Should we buy the GH3 or start filming again with a camera that is made for it ?!

I have the GH2 for 2 years, have 3 different lenses and tried several hacks, I bought the Tascam DR-40 for sound (and other stuff). I needed a rig to hold everything, and now it looks stupid. If you are not doing fiction, (always) filming on a tripod, or in a studio and you also want to be fast and flexible (which is often necessary) it just doesn't work! (for me ;-)

Therefore I am considering a 'normal' video camera again. But which one? Next month the AG-AC90 will be available for only € 1800,= . I got it yesterday to try it out for 1 day. As there is no information (or footage) about the camera, I wanted to do some video comparison.

I compare footage of the AC90 with the GH2 (As we do not have the GH3 yet, but I don't expect it to be a miracle anyway ;-). It was not my intention to make good shots, but to put both cameras in 'hard' circumstances, such as high contrast, back light, movement, moire, rolling shutter effects etc. I did different tests and tried to keep equal settings, same shooting moments and movements, tripod / handheld, slow motion, rack focus / auto focus, daylight / low-light / dark, menu / settings. I only had the camera for a day (without a manual), so I don't know it well. Most images in standard settings were a bit too bright (but this can be adjusted in the camera).

The AC90 has a smaller sensor so less DOF (but in daylight can be achieved with a ND filter.) I didn't have one during testing (but I did use a ND in some shots with the GH2, so that is not a fair comparison). I expected the AC90 to do worse in lowlight but I am actually quite surprised!

The video is definitely not a 'scientific' pixel tweaking test. I know little about how to test GOP, I / P/ B structure, 4:4:2, peaking, dynamic range, AVCHD profiles, etc. But you guys do! @Vitaly_Kiselev @Driftwood @Ralph_B @cbrandin and others ?! I can put some original files online for some deeper analyses. What can you tell about the footage? GOP, I/P/B, etc? Is it hackable (or worth hacking ;-) to give it a bit more Mbs? etc?

I hope to open up the discussion (from the large sensor cameras such as the GH3) and look forward to hear everybody's opinion!

Ps1 Some shots in the end are only with the AC90 because it was too dark for the GH2 (with the 14-140 mm lens)

Ps2 I know YouTube is not good, but I also think it is only showing HD 25P as I rendered it 50P (and the orginal looks better and more smooth)

Ps3 Sorry for the stupid music (without sound was even more boring)

Test footage details:
The choice of lenses was done very carefully. Considering different crops of the APS-C and micro-four-thirds sensors (1,5x vs 1,86x recpectivelly) I've used the lenses that have similar view angle, same speed and extremely similar optical performance. All lenses had proper lens hood at all times. The aperture was most of the time stopped down for one step (day at f/4.0, night at f/2.8) except in very dark scenes, where both Nikkors had fully open diaphragm. In the NEX-7 there is no possibility of shooting in 24fps mode so I set it to 25fps and adjusted the GH2 to HBR and 25fps.

NEX-7 with stock firmware (PAL) // GH2 with the patch Cake 2.3 by @balazer
AVCHD 25fps 1080 // AVCHD HBR 25fps 1080
The GH2 camera files were quite exactly double-sized compared to the NEX-7

Daylight footage settings:
Lens: Canon FD 35/2.8 // FD 24/2.8
Lens aperture: (always) 4.0, no filters
Crop: 1.5x35=52,5mm equivalent // 1.86x24=44,6mm equivalent
ISO: 200 // 200 (always)
AWB // AWB
EV 0.0 // 0.0
Metering: multi // frame+center
Colors progr.: standard // standard
In-camera setting: default // default (0,0,0,0)
Mode: aperture priority (both)

Night footage settings:
Lens: Nikkor 35/2.0 Ai // Nikkor 28/2.0 Ai
Crop: 1.5x35=52,5mm equivalent // 1.86x28=52,1mm equivalent
Lens aperture: 2.0-2.8
ISO: 1600-1600
AWB // AWB (one take manually set to 2500K both)
EV: at first 0.0 both, later -0.3 / +0.7
Metering: multi // field+center
Colors progr.: standard // standard
In-camera setting: default-default (0,0,0,0)
Mode: manual (both)

Comments and bit of my subjective impressions:

Exposure: by default settings (EV 0.0), NEX-7 tends to overexpose EV+2/3, GH2 to underexpose EV-2/3
Colors: NEX-7 tends to reddish, GH2 to greenish colors. The NEX-7 has possibility of adjusting the color tones for every color mode, also for AWB.
White balance: NEX-7 is capable of getting much cooler AWB, extremely weird situation occurs at 2m45" when the WB in both cameras was set manually to 2500K
Moiré: two tipical situations by 1m40" but generally, the NEX-7 has obviously less moiré
ISO: NEX-7 has feature of changing the ISO sensitivity during the recording, the GH3 offers this but GH2 and GH1 not. In the daylight ISO was set manually to 200, in the night to 1600 in both cameras.
Sharpness: I was expecting clear winner GH2 and much worse NEX-7. Yet, the result is very similar. Please mind that in one scene I forgot to focus the lens (by 2m35") mounted to the NEX-7
Contrasts: in all test situations the NEX-7 shows more details in the shadows, but it would need bit more testing because of the camera's propensity to overexpose what I didn't notice at first.

The NEX-7 is even smaller than GH1 or GH2 and it has bigger sensor.... I like its concept, very minimalistic- pure idea of the "mirrorlessity". Its big advantage is the still photography, such a comparison wouldn't make much sence because it simply blows off not only the GH2 but even most of the DSLRs with APS-C sensor.... it's newer generation. The big drawback of the NEX-7 considering its video functionality is its sensor overheating. On the room temperature, some 20min are maximum one can expect, regardless if the display is lifted or left in its position. I am kind of very pleased to see that the NEX-7 renders the shadows very smooth and in cinematic spirit, with lots of details. It is a feature that we are struggling to get with our GHx cameras. This cinematic image gets more obvious by using a bit less sharp lenses than Canon FD or Nikkor that I used in this test.

I accidentally started a conversation on the Driftwood patches thread on audio straight into the GH2 with the 448kbps audio patch.

I am a documentary photographer and recently joined the PV forum after deciding that a GH2 is the tool to have for my work.

I had two queries regarding spanning and in-camera playback and they both have been answered in the Driftwood patch thread: 64GB SD Sandisk Extreme Pro 95mb/s is the only card that spans with Moon T7 reliably and the 448kbps audio patch will make any clip non playable in camera.

Now, to the reason of this thread.

My needs are to simplify the gear I carry with me. I used to work with Rode Videomics plugged to my 5DII and that was that. The audio from them wasn't great.

Now, with the 448kpbs hack, the GH2 can be a great audio recorder without the need for an external recorder like an Edirol or a Zoom.

The conversation as left in the Driftwood patch forum relates to these two tests I found for shotgun mics (most of which can be plugged straight to the GH2) which are outdoors and at two distances.

The distance from where I work and from where the mics would be to my subjects is in between those two tests, both indoors and outdoors.

So far, through my DT770 32ohm which is fed by a Dragonfly, the MKE600 is a bit bassy but very good and the AT897 and the MKH 416 perform similarly at a distance. Close up, the differences are far more obvious.

Also, there has been a suggestion of using an ISK CM 60 which is battery powered:

http://www.swamp.net.au/isk-cm-60-battery-powered-condensor-microphone.html

However, I am unable to find a sample from it. @oto02 said he is getting one and getting ready to test it.

Also, @Jim_Simon mentions that the GH2 can record really good audio so I have hopes that I can work out this rather simple rig for documentary work (TV, festivals)

Many thanks for all contributions in advance.

EDIT: I just heard the tests again with my Sony V6 and still, the AT and the 416 sound roughly similar on both. I am not sure if the MKE 600 equalized would be similar to the 416 raw or if one can up the bass a bit on the AT and make it sound less flat. Both, At and 416, sound crisp.

I've been using a hacked GH2 for a couple of years and have been really happy with the results. Just recently though, I had a shoot and the GH2 gave me some issues. My camera froze several times while using Moon T7, even with a 95mb/s Sandisk, causing me to miss several key shots. Also, when lighting conditions changed unexpectedly, the GH2 once again let me down with its poor low light performance. There were 2 other cameras on the shoot that picked up my slack, both were Nikon D600's. They smashed my low light performance and of course had no difficulties with their firmware. I've been wanting a full frame cam for a while anyway, so today I decided to buy a Nikon D600. Obviously I haven't really had a chance to do much yet, but after some brief initial tests, I think I'm coming down with a case of buyer's remorse. I was wondering if any of you guys had the opportunity to use both cameras on actual shoots and why type of results you got.

Via: http://www.avisoft.com/recordertests.htm

Via: http://www.avisoft.com/tutorial_field_recording.htm

Source images and more info - http://matthayslett.com/salt-iii-high-speed-lens-shootout-wfo/

I just got my GH3 today, and of course the first thing I had to do was this test. I threw the GH1 in there out of curiosity since I had one lying around. It looks like the GH series hasn't had much progress in the highlights, but the shadow detail has gotten much better. The GH1 and GH2 were hacked while the GH3 was using the stock 50mbps IPB setting. I chose this over the Intra because of reports that it held up better due to a more efficient compression algorithm (I don't know though since I've only had the camera for a day).

I used the cameras' spot meters on the big square gray patch (which is supposedly 18% gray), but I think the GH1 was a little hotter than the other two cameras when correctly exposed. Base ISO was used on all three cameras to achieve maximum DR. In post, I raised or lowered each image by one stop increments with Colorista II to compensate for the increased or lowered exposure levels. Hope someone finds this as useful as I have!

I did three comparisons each with the lenses at f/2.8 and f/5.6. The uncropped shots are resized, but I only wanted to demonstrate the barrel distortion and vignetting with those. There are also 100% crops of each. All shots were done with the wide converter on the 14mm (sorry, forgot label it properly), and with the Tokina at it's widest setting. I used RAW on the GH2 for all shots.

As expected, the Panny combo had worse vignetting and barrel distortion than the Tokina. The GH2 corrects the distortion for the 14mm, but it can't do anything about the wide converter. At F/2.8, the Panny combo was clearly sharper than the Tokina which had some noticeable coma. At F/5.6, the sharpness is about even in the center, but the Tokina slightly beats out the Panny combo at the edges. You can also notice the purple fringing is pretty bad on the Tokina at the edge of that white book.

So far, five people besides myself have either confirmed or said tentatively that they will be participating. This includes my favorite rental house/production company hybrid in the Pasadena area.

Even so - we can still use more people and more gear.

We need tripods, cameras, camera operators, lenses and (possibly most importantly) memory cards.

If we have enough duplicates, we will be able to test not only image quality but spanning and reliability when shooting the same subject with the same lens. Having more duplicates also means that we will be able to accurately shoot material that could not easily be compared by one camera alone. We may even be able to shoot both NTSC and PAL variations in one shoot if we have enough cards.

SO if you want to be a part of this AND help out your fellow forum buddies, please message me with a list of what you can contribute in terms of either time/skills or equipment. Thanks in advance!