Scarlet vs GH1

[Glenn Thomas]

I was looking at the GH1 recently too. I'd seen the Philip Bloom videos which were nice.

Although they're fairly cheap, I think it's better to save for a Red. Simply because they'll be around for a lot longer. In music, if you're setting up a studio it's always good to buy a microphone that will last a lifetime. Something like an AKG 414, or U87. The same should apply to cameras. Get something that will not need to be replaced anytime soon. With 5 and 6k resolution, the S35 and FF35 will definitely be cameras that will last a long time. If consumer entertainment systems ever make the switch to 4k, there'll be no need to upgrade. Plus, the option to work at different frame rates.

Sadly, I think the GH1 already has a limited lifespan, much like the D90 and 5DII before it. The AVCHD codec, plus the crop factor that will make finding fast wide angle lenses a bit difficult.

That said, I hope my wife buys one

 

[Tom Visser]

I'm looking for some lens advice from someone who knows the ins and outs of the technical side of it.

Panasonic offers a very fast 4/3 sized lens through the Leica D branding.
Leica D Summilux 25mm f1.4 ASPH http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/dslr/lens/fixed_focal_length_lens.html
This lens can be used with the GH1 with the standard 4/3 to micro 4/3 adapter http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/gh1/optional_accessories.html#acc03

My question is - lenses are obviously an investment. I like the 4/3 and micro 4/3 concept and I hope they thrive and become even more popular than they already are, but I feel that it is still a minority with respect to lens formats. If I became more serious about still photography, I feel that I would go the rangefinder route. M lenses (bayonet) are very popular and if I put my money into M lenses, at least they could be used with other M-mount lenses. Do you feel that 4/3 lenses will replace M mount for any forthcoming non-Leica "rangefinder like" cameras. There are rumblings that Olympus plans to do something like that. Are there any technical downsides to using M mount on the GH with an adapter http://www.dpreview.com/news/0904/09042401cosinaadapter.asp so that the 4/3 Leica D Summilux would outperform an a Summilux-M 50mm f1.4 ASPH http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/2183.html.

I guess bottom line, if the D Summilux outperforms the Summilux-M on the GH1, it would make more sense to go with the D. If they are about equal, assuming that I could find a used one for about twice the cost, the M would be an interesting option for me if I could use it in the future with a rangefinder or rangefinder replacement (sort of what the 4/3 concept is to a point, no?), assuming that future cameras would still be using M mount (lets think 10 years from now). Does anyone feel that the Summilux-M would be the superior option on the GH1? I would believe that the quality of the glass is better, but is it also right to assume that since it is being adapted for a frame size it was not originally intended to be used with, that some of that advantage would be lost with the GH1?

 

[Tom Lowe]

No offense to 4/3 proponents, but why would someone choose that format over FF35? I think we are moving in the direction of FF35 -- or at a minimum S35/APS-C -- for cinema acquisition for nearly all cameras. 4/3 already has to compete with APS-C/S35. And FF35 is the real film killer.

 

[GPSchnyder]

No offense to 4/3 proponents, but why would someone choose that format over FF35? I think we are moving in the direction of FF35 -- or at a minimum S35/APS-C -- for cinema acquisition for nearly all cameras. 4/3 already has to compete with APS-C/S35. And FF35 is the real film killer.

Because not everbody wants that filmlike DOF everybody seems to want. And I think the 4/3 looks superior to ff35. But that's just me. And as I have not your Idea of what's the next cool, maybe there are others that think the same as me? Or even like 2/3" (which I do like even more than 4/3 for 3D Stuff)

Maybe it's that.

 

[David Rasberry]

4/3 should be the new "super16mm" format for digital cinema. It fills the hole between 2/3 and S35 quite nicely. Compact and less expensive lenses, Olympus makes a nice series of premium grade f2 and f2.8 constant speed zooms. More flexible DOF choices than 2/3 but still maintains deeper DOF capabilities in low light compared to the larger formats. I think it would nicely round out the RED digital cinema lineup myself, even if they just made a 4/3 mount for Scarlet/Epic. 4/3 lenses would cover 3k format on S35, maybe on FF35, for better HD finish than 2k at lower data rates than 4k and up. The 4/3 lenses are telecentric designs optimised for digital sensors too.

 

[John Caballero]

Not a lot of people are going to be able to afford the Scarlet FF35 and all the extras to run it. Many will have to go for the 2/3 which is even smaller than 4/3. Thats reality.

 

[David Rasberry]

Think about this for the ultimate Scarlet line.
3k 2/3" 10.1x5.35mm sensor
4k 4/3 18x9mm sensor (@2:1)
5k S35 30x15mm sensor
6k FF35 36x24mm sensor

 

[Kholi Hicks]

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=1632666#post1632666

I'm just sayin'. Now is a great time. Later is never promised.

Finally my PL mount showed up. Now I can use my anamorphics! Here is my take on a digital directors viewfinder. Sorry, I got excited!
Attached Thumbnails

__________________
HR|cinematographer HunterHRichards.COM
1.503.867.3030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cinematography Blog: LightPlusMotion.COM

 

[Emanuel A.]

No offense to 4/3 proponents, but why would someone choose that format over FF35? I think we are moving in the direction of FF35 -- or at a minimum S35/APS-C -- for cinema acquisition for nearly all cameras. 4/3 already has to compete with APS-C/S35. And FF35 is the real film killer.

I fully agree.

 

[Emanuel A.]

Not a lot of people are going to be able to afford the Scarlet FF35 and all the extras to run it. Many will have to go for the 2/3 which is even smaller than 4/3. Thats reality.

John,

I agree with you too. That's why a think that 5D Mark II is a no-brainer.

Tom,

By the way, I've shot some stuff with 'her' and I've found 'her' too much sexy. I love 'her' as motion picture camera anyway.

E.

 

[M Most]

Because not everbody wants that filmlike DOF everybody seems to want. And I think the 4/3 looks superior to ff35. But that's just me.

What I think would be quite interesting would be for Leica or someone else to build an anamorphic lens for 4/3. That would make it a very interesting choice, particularly if recording options other than AVCHD were eventually included. There is currently nothing anywhere near that price range that easily allows a true anamorphic format (in part because aside from the Arri D21, there is nothing else - including Scarlet - that uses a 1.33:1 aspect ratio for its sensor).

 

[David Rasberry]

There are valid reasons for choosing a smaller format for many types of production. The shallow DOF of FF35 can be as much of a problem as a creative tool, especially in low light situations.
It is interesting that an emerging trend in still photography is deep DOF achieved by compositing multiple stills taken at different focus points from close up to infinity so that everything is in focus.
From shooting theatrical productions for documentation I can tell you that getting a 40 foot deep set in focus from front to back under stage lighting conditions can be a real challenge with 35mm still cameras for instance. Shooting 2/3" video, appropriate depth of focus was much easier to achieve.
Larger formats also require larger, heavier, more expensive optics for equal performance. The 4/3rds Leica Summilux mentioned above is 1/2 the size and weight of its M mount 35mm counterpart and 1/3rd the price.
In the film world, size, weight, and aesthetics can drive the choice of super 16mm over 35mm for many types of production even when cost is not so much of an issue.

 

[Robert Altman]

No offense to 4/3 proponents, but why would someone choose that format over FF35? I think we are moving in the direction of FF35 -- or at a minimum S35/APS-C -- for cinema acquisition for nearly all cameras. 4/3 already has to compete with APS-C/S35. And FF35 is the real film killer.

Ditto.

 

[Michael Peterson]

A lurker but I can't bite my tongue anymore as i knew I shouldn't click on the link to this discussion I thought you guys would be comparing apples to apples (GH1 vs scarlet 2/3, and still the Scarlet is twice as much) but instead you are talking GH1 vs Scarlet FF...why stop there? Why not compare GH1 vs Epic Pro? I mean you are talking $1500 vs 10K without the lens here! Can you be serious?

I will crawl back to my lurker status now.

 

[GPSchnyder]

I will crawl back to my lurker status now.

Don't have to, because you're right. I think the Output of the GH1 and the Scarlet 2/3" Fixed will be equal. DOF wise at least. Of cause the Scarlet is raw and super smooth, but comparable. The FF35 is a whole other thing.
But some people here are just against everything not RED.

I've ordered the GH1 (a RED One ;-) ) but that doesn't mean that I think the Scarlet will be far superior. But I can do stuff now with the GH1, get used to the DOF which will be near to the fixed imho (4/3" F4 max against 2/3" f2.4) Don't know, but I think so. This means after going to Scarlet my Look will not change that much, just be smoother and sharper hopefully

And the GH1 can be used for behind the Scenes, Interviews and Stuff afterwards. With it's face detection it should be great for stuff like that.

 

[David Rasberry]

GH1 and 5Dii are both quite good cameras for what they are. If I had to pick one for video production use it would probably be the GH1. 5D is just too inflexible and a PITA to shoot video with other than as a casual camera or for short web clips. Great still camera though. No question it has great sensitivity and latitude.
I don't need another still cam, and I'm not willing to compromise function and appropriate ergonomics for general film/video production to the extent these hybrids require. For efficient day in day out video production I would still take a 1/3" HDV cam over either of them.

 

[Zack Birlew]

Yeah, it's hard to compare at the moment. Micro 4/3" format gives you some more of the shallow DOF look but the 2/3" Scarlet will kill in terms of resolution alone. For a moment, I too thought that RED should consider a 4/3" camera but then quickly disgarded that idea because, like many of you have said, the S35 frame size is the next logical step fromn 2/3", not the inbetweenie Micro 4/3" format. The GH1, as I see it now, has the unique position of being adaptable to many different uses for a very small fee. The only problem is that the AVCHD format is pretty limited, more so than even HDV was! So, for all of the fancy color correction and effects work filmmakers do these days, it's not a very viable solution, even though it is technically a useful one that has been geared towards that purpose. Scarlet, however, is the complete opposite. It is a fully functional cinema camera designed for complete flexibility and control in post as well as during production. In that sense, the Scarlet has already won.

 

[John Caballero]

The only little problem that truly gets in the way at this point in time is that Scarlet doesn't even exist! I know is a minor point considering all that wonderful resolution the Scarlet provides the filmmaker. It is a true little wonder isn't it? So much joy at this moment in time. Coming back to reality the fact is that I am getting a GH1 NEXT month and in the ones that follow I'll make the money I invested back and I will still have time to wait for Scarlet who knows how much longer.

 

[dvpixl]

who knows...now that no one will know the final design of these cameras before release, maybe a 2/3 sensor is not even there anymore.

 

[Peter Mosiman]

who knows...now that no one will know the final design of these cameras before release, maybe a 2/3 sensor is not even there anymore.

I sure hope it is. Perfect DOF/everything else for me.:sifone: