Canon S21 or Panasonic GH1?

[Russell_D]

As a senior citizen, and long-time amateur photographer, I'm about to take my first steps into video. I've stayed with film cameras, as they give better definition than digital at the same price point, and currently use two Mamiya medium format cameras – a 645Af and a 7. Even with cropping when necessary, I can produce sharp 13 by 19 prints (HP 9180). So, I'm used to quality.

I don't want to spend more than £1,000 – ideally a little less, and have narrowed the choice down to the Panasonic GH1 or the Canon S21.

Videos on youtube – viewed in the highest definition available – seem to me to show much higher definition from the Panasonic, presumably because of the larger sensor. The images jump to life, whereas the Canon always seems to be struggling. The GH1 also attracts me because there's more control over depth of field, and I could use other lenses – for instance, prime lenses when a larger aperture was needed.

The Canon, being a “proper” camcorder, has a powered zoom, and faster autofocus - those appear to be the main operational differences.

I know that the Canon has a headphone outlet, which the Panasonic doesn't; but a work-around seems possible using the A/V output of the GH1.

My questions are:

1. How difficult is it to produce a smooth zoom by hand (GH1), without twisting the camera? I'd try to use a tripod whenever possible.

2. How significant is the difference in autofocusing speed? (my eyesight isn't good enough to focus manually).

3. I read – I believe on this forum – that the only way to get really good sound with the GH1 is to make a simultaneous recording and sync in software. I have a Fostex MR8 multitrack digital recorder, which outputs MIDI timecode (I think that's what it's called!). How possible is it to produce really accurate synchronization using such equipment e.g. of piano music played very fast?

Initially I want to video a friend's granddaughter, who dances beautifully, but I can see other applications for video once I have the equipment e.g. recording  piano performances (I'm a piano teacher) for pupils and friends.

What do you folks think? And are there any other factors I ought to consider?

Thanks in advance.

[jjj]

Don't worry about smooth zooming as it is a technique rarely used outside of live broadcasts for stuff like sports. The reason - it looks a bit pants and like a tacky 70s film.
Camcorders are better for point and shoot work, but if doing a more considered approach then the new DSLRs with video are a better tool - as long as you have full manual control.
Autofocus - again rarely used for serious video work as it can 'hunt' - i.e. search back and for for focus. Not that this helps you if you need AF, but if doing planned shots, it may be less of a problem than you think - use film camera style zoom controls [such as those made by Red Rock, Zacuto etc] if you can as they make life much easier and you can mark the controls with predetermined focus points - The focus puller in films does not even look through lens to focus!
Sound is normally done separately and synced in post - which is what clapper boards are for - very low tech, but it works.
The main thing to think about, whilst it is easy to do high quality photography on your own, good looking video is trickier, particularly as you need to get sound right - good mics are essential. If sound isn't right, it'll look awful - good sound is more important than good images as poor camerawork can be stylised, poor sound however is simply crap.

[hjulenissen]

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/

I think that the Panasonic tm700 is really something to check out for "casual but high-quality" video.

-h

[jjj]

The other essential thing to invest in is a good fluid head for your tripod. Which can cost a serious amount of money for a good one. And use a tripod, shaky cam is not  a good look most of the time - shoulder braces are good for handheld work.

[Russell_D]

Thanks jjj for telling me exactly what I need to know – and a lot I'd never realised, for example that the focus puller in films doesn't even look through the lens to focus.

Could you advise me further on a few points? I think I'm reasonably OK for sound quality – I have a couple of AKG C1000 mics, and a good preamp, which keeps background noise low enough for digital recording. But if I record sound and video separately, would affordable editing software give me spot-on synchronisation; for instance, right through the Chopin Polonaise-Fantasy, which lasts 12 minutes? By affordable I mean up to £100 say – classical musicians earn very little – all the money's in the Pop field!

Secondly, if I'm shooting a dancer, basically full length; then notice that her face is particularly expressive at a certain points in the music; you recommend not zooming in, so is it better to switch suddenly to a longer focal length? Presumably a professional set-up would include at least two cameras and operators working from different angles, but I'll never have that luxury! So how best to cope with that sort of situation?

A “good fluid head” . . . “serious money” . . . OK, how serious; and any specific recommendations? I'll probably say OUCH, then look thoughtfully at my bank account, but I'm sure you're right.

I can see what you mean about the difficulty of producing good video on an amateur budget. Even the technicalities are much more complicated than stills – I'm having to learn about frame-rates, compression codecs, and how does shutter speed fit into all that . . . a whole new world. Fascinating, but I'll have to take things gently. Yes, photographs can be of a very high standard now – the cameras do so much for you; and 645 is ideal for me, because I can have autofocus (particularly necessary with a depth of field smaller than 35mm – depending on lighting and aperture if course), and automation if I need it. Then the control we have in even basic software is way beyond what an amateur could manage in a chemical darkroom. My grandfather was a professional – what wouldn't he have given to be able to adjust the entire tonal curve of an image using just a mouse!

It does seem that Panasonic GH1 is the way to go - thanks again for taking the time to advise.

[Russell_D]

hjulenissen – I have considered the Panasonic tm700, but can't get on with the colour balance. And the larger sensor of even a small DSLR produces a result that looks “right” to me – perhaps that's why I love medium-format for stills. There's no doubt Panasonic have some extremely clever engineers, and the GH1 manages to cover so many bases at a price that is just affordable. Thanks for the thought.

[michael]

Or wait a few weeks for the GH2 – a far superior camera. Just testing one. It's a knock-out.

Michael

[jjj]

But if I record sound and video separately, would affordable editing software give me spot-on synchronisation; for instance, right through the Chopin Polonaise-Fantasy, which lasts 12 minutes? By affordable I mean up to £100 say – classical musicians earn very little – all the money's in the Pop field!

Clapper board - simple and effective old school syncing. Fancy clapper boards have time code displays and big prices!
You simply line up audio and video in your editing software.

A “good fluid head” . . . “serious money” . . . OK, how serious; and any specific recommendations? I'll probably say OUCH, then look thoughtfully at my bank account, but I'm sure you're right.

A decent camera shop will have a display of tripods/heads, stick a camera on them and try panning and tilting. You can also alter resistance of movement to account for weight of kit and a spirit bubble to level head is vital. A rubber band can be used to initiate a smooth movement!

Secondly, if I'm shooting a dancer, basically full length; then notice that her face is particularly expressive at a certain points in the music; you recommend not zooming in, so is it better to switch suddenly to a longer focal length? Presumably a professional set-up would include at least two cameras and operators working from different angles, but I'll never have that luxury! So how best to cope with that sort of situation?

Shoot twice!
For each camera angle you want, shoot scene or part of scene again. Multiple camera setups are rare outside of live or studio TV. And if you change to a closer framing, change the angle you shoot from. If you shoot from same position then it looks like a jump cut, which is jarring. An angle of 30 degrees difference is often used as the safe minimum guideline.

I can see what you mean about the difficulty of producing good video on an amateur budget. Even the technicalities are much more complicated than stills – I'm having to learn about frame-rates, compression codecs, and how does shutter speed fit into all that . . . a whole new world.

You do not vary shutter speed very often in film. 1/48th for 24P is the norm. Use higher shutter speeds and movement starts to look stroby/jerky, use slower and movement look blurred. Both are used for effect, but sparingly. If you need to vary aperture you use NDs [neutral density filters] which are often built in to decent video cameras, alter gain or in case of DSLRs vary ISO.

[peterurban]

We love the gh1 for the video quality it gives us with a very compact and light setup, however a few things are to consider ....

1) zooming during recording is a no, no with this camera - it won't be smooth at all. If you want to produce a somewhat pro look you want to avoid zooming anyways. Take the above tip of shooting twice and then intercutting.

2) you can forget auto focus for anything moving on this camera as well, it always lags behind the action. But then most pro shooters avoid af at all cost for the same reason and because af often logs onto the wrong target, even with much more expensive pro cams

3) the sound is pretty good but certainly not pro cam grade. I doubt though that the canon camcorder will do much better. At this level my guess is that the microphone makes more of a difference and the gh1 in cam mic is very good

My guess is that it's best to follow Michaels suggestion to wait and get the gh2 - that is if you can live with  manual focus for moving stuff - I worked with zone focusing in such occasions before and got pretty good results but it very much depends on cam angle and the subjects moving direction. I.e. On a stage with the subject moving 'parallel' to the cam instead towards or away it might not be too bad - tricky one. Using a magnifier on the LCD such as hoodloupe might help you to keep focus.

[lowep]

Russell,

Is there a big difference in the color balance of the TM700 and the GH1 that both belong to the same babyboom generation of Panasonics but then again kittens from the same cat are not necessarily the same color either. Reason I am asking is that I have a TM300 camcorder (smaller sibling of the TM700) that I bought earlier this year despite whinging on various forums about a green-blue color cast that I have not found after a few months of use to be a problem with my unit - though have had occasional problems trying to get an acceptable (according to my taste) manual white balance with a piece of white paper sometimes. BTW onboard audio system of the camcorder seems to deliver superb sound with the right mikes though am no expert. Just forget about the built in mike that is only good for looks.

Of course color balance can always be adjusted in post with programs like Premiere Pro that provide many of the same curve, levels, brightness, contrast, saturation, hue etc controls as "normal" still photo processing software just too bad skinny video files are not nearly as amenable to tweaking as big fat raw files from a DSLR. Wonder why  

That brings me back to my original question: what difference in any can one expect to distinguish in color balance and for that matter other aspects of video image quality such as details in shadow areas, low light performance, highlight wipeouts between the Panasonic "groundbreaking" GH cameras and "award-winning" hybrid HD flash camcorders?

I guess Panasonic don't put a sensor about a zillion sizes bigger in the GH1 than in the TM300/TM700 camcorder just for looks.

[lowep]

p.s. looks like am not only one asking this dumb question about the difference in image quality between Panasonic TMXXX camcorder video and the GH1&2 video quality if this recent thread on EOSHD forum is anything to go by. Most interesting observation about GH2 IQ for me is this one:

"IMO detail quality is really disappointing compared to the TM700."

   Cheez!!

Of course cannot believe everything you read on forums right?

[hjulenissen]

That brings me back to my original question: what difference in any can one expect to distinguish in color balance and for that matter other aspects of video image quality such as details in shadow areas, low light performance, highlight wipeouts between the Panasonic "groundbreaking" GH cameras and "award-winning" hybrid HD flash camcorders?

I guess Panasonic don't put a sensor about a zillion sizes bigger in the GH1 than in the TM300/TM700 camcorder just for looks.

I would guess the possibility of choosing between different lenses with different possibilities, and the creative possibility of playing with DOF?

Also, a larger sensor should perform better in low light, everything else being equal.

-k

[jjj]

though have had occasional problems trying to get an acceptable (according to my taste) manual white balance with a piece of white paper sometimes.

White paper isn't always white. If you want to WB accurately use a grey card as they should be neutral in tone.

[hjulenissen]

p.s. looks like am not only one asking this dumb question about the difference in image quality between Panasonic TMXXX camcorder video and the GH1&2 video quality if this recent thread on EOSHD forum is anything to go by. Most interesting observation about GH2 IQ for me is this one:

"IMO detail quality is really disappointing compared to the TM700."
...

Somewhat related:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?187165-GH1-meet-the-DSC-MegaTrumpets-res-chart
(A look at Canon 7D vs GH1 anti-aliasing/resolution performance in video modes)

Net conclusions? The GH1 and the 7D (and the 5D) don't display true high-def images. The GH1 and 7D look like they probably have about the same amount of real detail in 1080p mode, which would be the amount of detail you could expect from a 720p camera. They do, however, render a much sharper-looking image because of all the false detail they let through. Even though their overall true detail might be comparable, the GH1 is clearly much better behaved on the charts, showing less aliasing and less bothersome color contamination.