Using Panasonic GH2 as secondary camera with AG-AC130

[treehorn]

I have an AC130 that I use to shoot interviews/red carpet/rehearsals/performances of theater shows and concerts.

I have a potential two camera shoot on the horizon which would be a 2+ hour theatrical event (full sized Broadway house) and am going to need a second camera for the shoot. The rental agency I contacted said they could rent me an AG-AF100, which made me wonder...as I already have a Panasonic GH2 in my arsenal, and it is very similar to the AG-AF100 in terms of sensor and lenses, would it make sense to simply use the GH2 to shoot the longshot instead of paying to rent the AG-AF100? I have used the GH2 only for interviews as I haven't wanted to risk a one-night-only event on it to test its capability with handling stage lights and depth of focus.

Has anybody used a GH2 in such a situation? the event would be shot back of house in a large theater with full stage lights (and a good deal of movement, choreography, etc).

The company I used to work for and shoot this with folded last month so I am picking up the slack (and using my own equipment to do so)

 

[will waters]

2 things

Hi
no1, you have got the best camera for video
No2, it is simply amazing

I have a Panasonic G2, I have used this for many different video applications (admittedly not the same as yours) bu it has been very good at everything I have thrown at it, everything from rugby matches to scenery to interviews.

So simply don't bother hiring out another, the Panasonic is good enough!

Hope this helps

Will

 

[berndkiltz]

GH2 ist just great!
Make sure to get a good lense, I have the fixed one from Panasonic with 1.7
And the Power supply, as the battery lasts only 80-90 minutes.
Stunning Videos.
I have a AX2000 from Sony as my main Video Cam which is also great.

 

[Babybandit]

Frankly, I'd stick with the GH2. The Sensors and all are Identical, and unless you need Pro-Audio for the GH2, there is little differentiation. Instead, I'd perhaps rent a Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 lens for the cost (Due to the Low-Light and relative wideness). Recently, I shot our School's Drama-Production Trailer in one Rehersal under actual lighting situations with the GH2. I can vouch that it will be a great camera for such a purpose.

It's a rough trailer that I filmed and edited in about 5 hours (Poor Quality. I know.). But it does the job of showing what it can do in a dark auditorium. Cabaret. Although mine was not a Wide-Master-Shot, you can really see the images aren't bad at all. If you want some RAW shots, I can PM some to you.

One Camera-Based suggestion that I would make (I should have) is to hack the GH2, which can assist in bringing out the details. I really do regret not doing so.

Good Luck! Try not to get absorbed into the show instead of filming!

 

[treehorn]

Glad to hear I'm not crazy considering it. Luckily I have a chance to do a safety shoot on another project for them that is a one camera shoot but can and will bring the gh2 along to set up, have someone be my second cameraman (and audition him too) and see how it integrates with no pressure. I just updated the firmware on the gh2...which seems to make a difference in low light and improve bitrate (so close to a hack...which frankly always terrifies me

 

[LethalWolfe]

I'm not saying the GH2 won't work in this situation, but the AF100 is going to have significantly less problems with moire, artifacting, rolling shutter and jello. The GH2 is still a stills camera that happens to shoot video where as the AF100 is a video camera that borrowed, and tweaked, technology from the stills world.


Lethal

 

[Chaos123x]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Don't bother renting the Af100. The Gh2 is probably the best camera you can get for the money. The Gh2 can go head to head with a Red camera in 1080P (obviously not in 4K).

As for the Af100 being better? That is dead wrong as far as image quality is concerned. The Af100 just has all the buttons switches and features in places you expect them instead of buried in menus on the Gh2. The Af100 quality is closer to the old Gh1.

If I were you I would sell your other camera pick up another Gh2, a Voightlander Nokton 25mm 0.95 lens, and some super fast 64gb 95mbs SD cards so you can run the 176mb AVCHD intra hack.

I sold my HD XDCAM EX. The Gh2 is a beast!



As for moire and jello... This isn't a 4 year old canon camera. What Moire? On the Gh2? Pfff

 

[Babybandit]

I'm not saying the GH2 won't work in this situation, but the AF100 is going to have significantly less problems with moire, artifacting, rolling shutter and jello. The GH2 is still a stills camera that happens to shoot video where as the AF100 is a video camera that borrowed, and tweaked, technology from the stills world.


Lethal

As a still master shot, Rolling Shutter really is a small problem. It depends on what happens on stage. The biggest concern perhaps, is fast, flashy strobe lighting. I think they had it on about 80rpm, which wasn't too bad. But any faster might cause a small problem if shot interlaced.

The GH2 is more capable than MANY camcorders designed for videoing. I've essentially gave up on School's XF100s and A1P for that reason. Whilst I would have agreed that the GH1 was a camera that they upgraded to shoot Video (From the G1), the same could hardly be said for the GH2… Which Frankly, is very Video-Oriented. With the trends of Lenses coming out, I'd say Micro-Four-Thirds is heading more Video than Stills (at times).

 

[Chaos123x]

As a still master shot, Rolling Shutter really is a small problem. It depends on what happens on stage. The biggest concern perhaps, is fast, flashy strobe lighting. I think they had it on about 80rpm, which wasn't too bad. But any faster might cause a small problem if shot interlaced.

The GH2 is more capable than MANY camcorders designed for videoing. I've essentially gave up on School's XF100s and A1P for that reason. Whilst I would have agreed that the GH1 was a camera that they upgraded to shoot Video (From the G1), the same could hardly be said for the GH2… Which Frankly, is very Video-Oriented. With the trends of Lenses coming out, I'd say Micro-Four-Thirds is heading more Video than Stills (at times).

Very true, the gh2 is way better for video than still. I would get a Canon or a Nikon if was all about stills. Though it holds it's own in the still department it's not it's strong point. I woud say it's the best video camera out right now for under $10,000 and you can find new gh2 bodies for $600! Just keep your eyes peeled. Keep mind though you should record your audio seperatly since it doesnt have XLR inputs or a headphone jack for monitoring. I use a H4N.

 

[cgbier]

I use a H4N.

...and if you go that route, I'd ask them if you'd be allowed to plug it into their mixer. Use the camera mics only for synching later in post.

Did you think about the audio already in any way?

 

[LethalWolfe]

As for moire and jello... This isn't a 4 year old canon camera. What Moire? On the Gh2? Pfff

Yup, there's moire. Not nearly as bad as a 4yr old canon but more than the AF100.

As a still master shot, Rolling Shutter really is a small problem. It depends on what happens on stage. The biggest concern perhaps, is fast, flashy strobe lighting. I think they had it on about 80rpm, which wasn't too bad. But any faster might cause a small problem if shot interlaced.

I'm not saying the GH2 won't get the job done in the OP's situation but it's inaccurate to say that the same GH2 and AF100 are the same guts in different housings. They use different sensors, different optical low pass filters (which is key in preventing/reducing aliasing in the image), different implementations of the AVCHD codec, different image processing off the sensor, etc.,.

I woud say it's the best video camera out right now for under $10,000 and you can find new gh2 bodies for $600! Just keep your eyes peeled. Keep mind though you should record your audio seperatly since it doesnt have XLR inputs or a headphone jack for monitoring. I use a H4N.

Best for what shooting situations and how much do you have to spend on accessories (from rigs to external recorders) to get it close to matching the features of dedicated video cameras?

There is a difference between saying the GH2 is bad, which I'm not, and saying that there are better cameras out there than the GH2. And there are better cameras out there but if the GH2 is good enough for your needs then go with it.

It's like trying to find the right pair of shoes. Sure, all shoes do basically the same thing but there are certainly situations where some types of shoes are better than others. A pair of high-tops is great for the basketball court but probably not what you'd want to wear if you were running a marathon (especially if you were running competitively) and a nice pair of running shoes wouldn't be a good thing to wear for backwoods hiking.


I think this quote from Barry Green at DVXuser says it best.

Don't get me wrong -- I love my GH2. But it is not in any way or by any stretch of the imagination, the same thing as the AF100. Not even close. The difference in price is well worth it, for some people. But hey, if all you need is what the GH2 does, get the GH2 and be happy.And yes, there are things the GH2 can do, that the AF100 can't, including:1) magnified focus assist (although no focus assist during recording)2) ETC mode3) Stills photography at other-than-1920x1080 size4) It has a built-in flashI like having them both, there's definitely reasons to have each. The AF100 can capture single frames, but that doesn't make it a GH2. And the GH2 can shoot video footage, but that doesn't make it an AF100.

Lethal

 

[Babybandit]

I think this quote from Barry Green at DVXuser says it best.

Lethal

I don't usually like bashing Internet personalities, but Barry Green is one that I've lost total respect on. Obviously I'm assuming his opinion is biased because he sells books and training on the AF100. And that is reflected with him closing a thread that was bashing the AF100 on DVXuser, claiming he'd rather lose users on the forum than keep this bashing going on. Wait. What?

The GH2′s was able to resolve more detail, with less moire and aliasing than the AF100.
In my opinion, I think the GH2 has the luxury of time on it’s side, with improvements to the image processing (and possibly also the sensor) leaving the AF100 to rely on a video optimised optical low pass filter to reduce moire, which causes greater image softness.

I have a feeling this debate will go forever.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I don't usually like bashing Internet personalities, but Barry Green is one that I've lost total respect on. Obviously I'm assuming his opinion is biased because he sells books and training on the AF100. And that is reflected with him closing a thread that was bashing the AF100 on DVXuser, claiming he'd rather lose users on the forum than keep this bashing going on. Wait. What?

I don't know the incident you are referring to so I can't speak to it, but Barry (like everyone) has preferences and (unlike everyone) he lets those preferences be known. He doesn't claim to be totally impartial or not to have a relationship with Panasonic, but I've never seen his personal preferences influence his analysis of gear though. He might say things like "Camera X resolves more resolution than camera Y but I prefer the look of camera Y" but he won't fudge a test so that camera Y 'wins' because he prefers camera Y (or because he sells books about camera Y).

Back when the DVX100 was the hot camera some people who preferred other cameras accused Barry of being a shill for Panasonic and now people are accusing him of being a shill for one division of Panasonic over another? And it's not even like Barry is saying the GH2 is crap or anything like that just that the AF100 can do a lot of things the GH2 can't and the AF100 worth the extra dough, in his opinion. Unless, of course, your needs are met by the GH2 then get that camera because there's no point in paying more for an AF100 if you aren't going to use all the features it has to offer.


Another quote from Barry at DVXuser.

I've got both of them. I love them both. And I'd never ever use the GH2 instead of the AF100 on a paid shoot, because the AF100 is simply so much better to use. Except a few months from now I'm doing some doc work on a pioneer trek, where we're walking like 24 miles through some dusty desert terrain documenting this trip these kids are making, and they want stills too. For that, no doubt, I'm taking the GH2. I'll have stills, and video, and it'll be infinitely smaller and lighter and all the support equipment will be smaller and lighter, so it's the right choice for that job.

I have a feeling this debate will go forever.

Probably even though it's largely an unnecessary distraction, IMO. The internet allows us to share so much information so efficiently that I think paralysis by analysis is a problem growing exponentially (I'm assuming EosHD is referencing the tests from slashcam?). Tech is also changing so fast that gear is taking on product cycles that used to only reserved for computers. I mean, 10yrs ago people we making films with SD cameras like the XL1 and DVX100 and today people seem to enjoy bickering about cameras more than using them and rejoicing in the almost unimaginable plethora of options to choose from. But that's a rant for another day.

Going back to my first post for a second, I probably shouldn't have used the word 'significantly' but nothing else is debate-worthy, IMO.


Lethal

 

[Chaos123x]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Indeed the Af100 is easier to use because it's a dedicated video camera but it cost 7 times more than the gh2.

I think it would be wiser to invest the extra money in glass. There will always be new cameras coming out, but your lenses will last a lifetime.

 

[LethalWolfe]

There will always be new cameras coming out, but your lenses will last a lifetime.

Agreed. And for people that only have experience with fixed-lens cameras that is something they might not have thought about.


Lethal

 

[baypharm]

I don't usually like bashing Internet personalities, but Barry Green is one that I've lost total respect on. Obviously I'm assuming his opinion is biased because he sells books and training on the AF100. And that is reflected with him closing a thread that was bashing the AF100 on DVXuser, claiming he'd rather lose users on the forum than keep this bashing going on. Wait. What?




I have a feeling this debate will go forever.

I have to agree with you there.

 

[yoak]

Is your GH2 hacked or not?
I hacked mine for fun (never should have I guess), and I have weird things happening during longer takes. Aperture suddenly jumps up and down during TL shots etc.
It´s a pain to work with IMHO, but it produces ok images. I would use the AF101 on a gig like that. It´s a videocamera after all. I don´t think it´s a very good one, it has too much banding I think and noise in the blue channel (I own one and shot a few TV series with it, and the footage didn´t hold up well in post)

BTW, the GH2 can´t even come within a mile of RED EPIC footage, even if all is rendered to 1080 Prores.
I´ve did exactly the same steadicam shots in my house with the AF101, GH2 and the RED EPIC and when I compared them I have to say it´s amazing just how much cleaner the RED EPIC footage is (it should be).