5,000 mile walk: 5DII users views of the GH2 for landscape, or something else?

[AndrewKulin]

I'll offer no input on the cameras, lenses or shoes to bring along but I will say what an awesome bloody personal project to take on!

Good luck with it.

[EgillBjarki]

Sounds very interesting! Good luck with your trip!

I recommend that you take only the Fuji X100 with you, but I am not sure that you are willing to only have 35mm view. I at least only take the X100 with me when I travel or do stuff that is not work related.

[Jim Pascoe]

Quintin

I would go with the GH2.  Only you can decide on the quality issue, but my experience is that the GH2 is very good with the right lenses.  You say you want to go with zooms but you really ought to consider the Panasonic 14mm and 20mm lenses.  They are almost weightless - seriously 55g and 100g.  The image quality is excellent too.  Take the zooms as well of course.  A spare body in the form of one of the GF's for example.  Noise is not really an issue at low ISO's and with a tripod there is no problem.  I cycled round Costa Rica with mine and got some great pictures.  We also have a whole load of Canon gear including 5D and 1Ds, but there is no way I would lug any of it on a day walk now let alone round the coast.  Even cycle touring where weight is less of an issue I would go with the lighter gear.  Image quality and gear is always going to be a compromise, but I know where I would draw the line.  Also, if you drop your camera off a Devon cliff, the GH2 is one third the cost of a 5D!

Jim

[Pelao]

Hi Quinten

The links to your blog and portfolio aren't active. I wanted to have a look at your style, because this can be relevant to your question.

I think you are asking a great question. While I am very happy with my M43 gear, the one area (relevant to my shooting) where I question it's performance is in landscape work. This is especially so when the output is large prints. Under the right conditions, and with good technique, M43 can (for me) do very well. But in a situation of great contrast and/or where shadows are important, I find even my 5D MK1 substantially better. One of the joys (for me) of shooting in the UK is the light, or rather than variations in the light. You don't want to leave any of it out...

The one camera that comes to mind other than M43 is the newish Sony Nex 7. Have a look at some of the reviews. Michael has reviewed it, there was a recent comparison here with the Sony A900, and this guy uses it for landscape portfolio work:

http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/

The native lenses may or may not meet your standards, but this camera can take a wide range of great lenses and features focus-peaking for manual focus. There is even an adapter for your EF lenses. It's a very light, versatile, and very capable camera.

Bottom line: I feel M43 might leave you with a few gaps. Either keep the 5D2, and lose the weight elsewhere, or look at the Nex 7.

Best wishes for your project.

[Glenn NK]

For a saving of 500g? I'd stick with the Canon.

Yes.  I look at it this way:  in time the OP will get stronger with the walking and weight difference will become less significant, but the lesser IQ camera will not get better with time.

Climbing Mount Everest would require a different solution.

[NigelC]

Just for context, are you doing this alone - you don't have to carry dog food as well!

Interestingly, the last time i did anything like that in Scotland (but only for a week) I had the 5D (now replacd by 5D2) with either 70-200/4 or 17-40 around my neck and the other lens on top of my rucksack. The reason I got a GH2 with 14-140 and 20 lenses was more to do with something that will fit into a small shoulder bag so that i could have something that delivered better than compact image quality (and video) when I wasn't primarily focusssed on taking photos - BTW, I haven't got the 7-17 or Oly 9-18 because it would take away that advantage. Having decided that the 5d is for times when i am focused on taking photos so i'm unlikely to be carrying other things, the 17-40, the 24-105 and the 50 macro have gone, replaced by 21, 28 and 35 Zeisses and a 100IS macro. So bearing in mind I also often carry a 300/4L and 1.4X, it's absolutely not a casual carrying option.

Having said that, if I was in your boots, I would go with the 5D and the 17-40/70-200/4s - an almost unbeatable combination of modest weight and high IQ. I find the GH2 is a strange beast - not saying the 5D2 is the last word in build quality but with zeisses particularly, is far more pleasurable to use and has a "heft" lacking in the Panny, which feels a bit plasticky although the lenses are quite nicely made and key functions are well laid out (unlike the printed manual!)

I'm not sure i can help you much on IQ, since I don't print bigger than A2. On smaller prints I sometimes have to check whether a file was shot with 5D, 5D2, GH2 or LX3. i have an A2 print from the LX3 which really surprises people, and an A2 from the 5D2 and 21mm Zeiss which you know straight away couldn't have been taken with the GH2. With the size of prints you have in mind i'd want the 5D.

[EinstStein]

Don't know your photo style, but you maight consider Leica M9 + 28mm + 50mm + 90mm, or M9 + 28-35-50 tri-elmar + 90mm.
Yes, it's expensive, but you can sell it afterward and may even make some money out of it.

[NigelC]

BTW, will you be carrying a tripod? The GH2 RAW files are quite ugly at 3200 and I can't fix that in ACR/PS without smearing all detail. Its best to confine to 800/1600, IMHO.

[BJL]

BTW, will you be carrying a tripod? The GH2 RAW files are quite ugly at 3200 ...

I take it that the likely main subjects are scenery, not fast action, so how much need would there be for ISO speeds like 3200? Even in cloudy conditions and with a zoom lens f/5.6 at the long end, 800 or less should almost always get the job done with stationary or slow moving subjects.

And if the ISO speed must be pushed so high because of stopping down to get enough DOF, then 35mm format will need to use twice the f-stop and four times the ISO speed of 4/3” format, so that 3200 with the GH2 must be compared to 12,800 with a 5D2.


The curmudgeon in me says "in my day, I could take sharp scenic shots in cloudy conditions, hand-holding with a kit zoom lens and ISO 200 film ... And no IS!"

[ripgriffith]

Most likely, this is a once-in-a-lifetime trip and for such, at least to me, image quality trumps everything else, crop-able image quality ("Yes, I know the image of Nessie is fuzzy and noisy, but she was 200 meters away and I only had my point and shoot with me").  In my book, that adds up to high-resolution large sensor and super-sharp lenses (Michael seems to be doing just fine with the Nex7 and the 18-200).  Instead of a tripod, I would be inclined to carry refillable sandbags and for the weight saved by that, please take a back-up camera ("There Nessie was, large as life and my shutter jammed"!)!!

[BJL]

If telephoto reach is important for that photo of Nessie, more/bigger pixels on a bigger sensor are useless. What counts is angular resolution of the subject, and the two ways to do that are
- longer focal lengths
- higher resolution in lines per mm, mostly meaning smaller photosites, along with sharp enough lenses.

So if the 5000 mile walk limits the size of telephoto lenses, say to 200mm or 300mm rather than 400mm and up, then smaller photosites are the key (and zoom lenses rather than primes, to have the desired focal length available on short notice). And that mostly means smaller formats. Even the 36MP Nikon D800 only matches about 9MP in a micro four thirds body or 16mp in a Sony NEX or other "APS" format.

[Dan Wells]

       I'm a D3x user, and am thinking NEX-7 for a small, light travel cam. I've been using the GH2 in that role, and have mixed impressions of it. The resolution is pretty good (not D3x, but then again, what is), but I find the dynamic range lacking - worse than I expected. The video is GREAT (I've used it alongside a Sony EX1, and it keeps up surprisingly well), but the controls are notably clunky... There is no viewfinder on the GH2 that I find really satisfactory - the EVF's colors are way off, and the rear LCD is low-resolution.
    The NEX-7 is supposed to improve substantially on the GH2 in the three places where I don't like the GH2 as much - dynamic range supposedly nearly keeps up even with a D3x, the triple dial controls leave everything highly accessible, and the LCD and viewfinder are both superb.
     I don't have my NEX-7 yet, and haven't decided on lenses, so what I've got below is what I've managed to distill of others' experiences, not from personal experience.
      The problem is lenses - the 18-55 that comes with it is a better than average kit lens, BUT it's a kit lens. The 18-200 superzoom is a better lens than the 18-55, but still not a great lens... The 55-210 is, again, better than average for what it is (a cheap variable aperture modest tele zoom), but nothing special. The 18-55 and 55-210 were both designed for the less expensive NEX bodies, and for users moving up from compact cameras, not for landscape photographers used to superb lenses and looking for a lighter system. The 18-200 was originally designed for the NEX-mount camcorders, and is a great video lens that is a pretty good still lens on the side.
     As for the primes, the 24 Zeiss (expensive) and the 50 are supposed to be very nice, the 16mm pancake gets very mixed reviews and I haven't seen much at all on the 30 Macro.
    Of course, the NEX-7 is easily adaptable to just about any lens, from 50 year old Olympus PEN lenses to current Leica glass. Except in the case of Sony Alpha lenses, you lose autofocus, and very few lenses (a few third-party Alpha lenses) provide image stabilization, but there's huge choice (some of it truly excellent)...

                                            -Dan