GH1 vs GH2: is the gh2 worth the extra money for the no-budget hobbiest?

[mooglinux]

I sort of asked this before but hopefully this time I can better explain just what I want to know:

I have been doing still photography for a few years now on a Sony a200, a camera which has served me extremely well. The freedom to manually alter all settings and exposure, or leave it to the camera, has let me learn a lot about photography. And I inherited a couple minolta lenses from my grandfather to boot. I still haven't exhausted all the creative potential of this camera.

For some time I have had the itch to dive into creating video as well. I got a cheap samsung smx-f50bn/xaa camcorder, but it only shoots interlaced (in widescreen mode), the chroma noise is awful, and while you can change apeture and shutter speed, you can't specify both at the same time, leaving you at the wims of the awful automatic exposure. Borrowing a canon sx160 IS is better with chdk, but still lousy. You have essentially no control over exposure on that either.

Comparing the image quality and freedom of control I get with stills on the a200 to the nonexistant control and dismal image quality on the camcorder and canon pas, I sometimes want to scream in frustration at how limited I am by the video capable devices I have access to.

Reading eoshd has excited me enormously at the rapid increase in capabilities gained from cameras through hacking, and the falling cost of good video. The gh1 and gh2 have espectially caught my interest, espectially the wider selection of cheap lenses which can be used, including the minolta and nikon photo lenses I have access to. This is espectially important because I am a very poor college student with very limited funds to devote to videography.

MY QUESTION IS THIS: How does a hacked GH1 compare to a hacked GH2?


Given that the GH2 is going for about 2x the price of the GH1 on ebay, might I be better served by purchasing a gh1 and spending more money on lenses and accessories? (Anamorphic lens, microphone, rails, etc)

I do have a handful of minolta and nikon lenses from 35mm film cameras, and may sell my a200 to help pay for the new camera. Only carrying one camera would be nice.

Thoughts?

[MOONGOAT]

Both would serve you well. I think the GH2 is significantly better and most people here would tell you that, but it's not the camera that makes you good. Skills are learnt with lesser tools. If you can only afford a GH1 go for it, but my advice is keep looking around. Or, if you don't need it right away, wait a little longer. Something else is bound to present itself.

[Tim Fraser]

Or you could consider:

 

http://www.eoshd.com/content/7074/hacked-gf2-the-300-digital-cinema-camera

 

Check out the frame grabs!

 

footage at 1080/24p 44Mbit for about £100 is not too bad if you can live with the limitations one being lack of mic socket.

[andy lee]

gh2 is worth the extra money

[mooglinux]

gh2 is worth the extra money

 

Could you be a little more specific?

 

I know the GH2 video quality is better, but how much better?

 

I know both the GH1 and GH2 hacks add extra video features (i think the zebra striping focus assist is one?) but what does a hacked GH2 have that a hacked GH1 doesn't?

 

The GF2 is considerably cheaper....I'm not sosure about the level of manual control you get on it through. Thats one of the bigger things I really want. :/

[Axel]

Could you be a little more specific?

I know the GH2 video quality is better, but how much better?
(...)
The GF2 is considerably cheaper....I'm not sosure about the level of manual control you get on it through. Thats one of the bigger things I really want. :/

I don't know the GH1, but I'd say qualitywise they are both more than enough (for webfilms, indie-cinema) and not enough (tv features require at least 4:2:2, big popcorn cinema will look way better with 10-12-bit). Apart from that consideration, what I still like, no, LOVE about my ole GH2 is it's happy marriage with old and manual lenses and it's manual-intuitive functions.