Autofocus is rubbish for proper video to be honest, it can wander so it's always better to manually focus. More of a pain especially if shooting handheld action stuff with shallow DOF, but auto is not that good for video if you want to do it the "proper" way rather than quick fun videos - there's a reason that people get paid to pull focus rather than leave it to auto!
You may want to look into the "GH13 hack" - I think it's a firmware mod for the GH2 series and seems to get a lot of praise.
Thanks for the info Conqueror. I keep flitting back to these reviews and the GH2 isn't exactly 'bad' for stills.
_tom_ The GH13 hack is for the GH1 and most people report that the GH2 unhacked is better than GH13.
I'd decided that as the GH2 was just about in budget, that I wouldn't consider the GH1.
the contrast detect AF of any mirror less camera will never track a bike or child. phase detect autofocus will and this is a huge benefit with moving subjects.
If you want to go small I'd be tempted to go smaller again to a true commact where at least AF is less critical as depth of field is huge
Is the issue that only sony have cracked AF during video on a true slr?
They are the only people to use 2 AF sensors I think it is.
_tom_ The GH13 hack is for the GH1 and most people report that the GH2 unhacked is better than GH13.
I'd decided that as the GH2 was just about in budget, that I wouldn't consider the GH1.
Ah fair enough! I read of people claiming the GH13 was on par with their 7D footage.
They are the only people to use 2 AF sensors I think it is.
SLT, that the semi transparent mirror?
Yes, "single-lens translucent" (bit dodgily worded isn't it)
Any more thoughts today anyone?
At the moment I'm leaning towards going for it (with the GH2 and kit lens).
I went into local Wildings this morning and didn't really like the handling of the camera, but I can see that it's small enough to go in my camelbak (especially with the pancake lens). And the size and weight will help massively when it comes to any cablecam or jib rigs I make.
You're not bothered about losing the extra reach of your Sigma 70-300? Because you'd need to add an extra lens to the GH2 setup to replicate what you already have, which narrows the price difference between that and upgrading to a 60D body. I know what I'd do 
I know what I'd do
You won't miss the extra length for video though. The clever cropping digital zoom takes care of that.
I probably need to do some more experimentation with long lenses, but so far I've used the 70-300 very very little.
For a start it's not that great a lens, then there's the narrow aperture - most of my photography involves being wide open.
I looked at the stats on Lightroom and apparently of my 9415 clicks with the 40D, I've only kept 35 taken with the 70-300. I've just looked through them and I can't say I'd upload any of them to flickr or put them in the family album except 2 of the Gormley statues on Crosby beach. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tryingtimes/sets/72157600337567537/
Clearly I'm not being creative enough, but it goes to show that I wont really miss that lens currently.
Oh - Seb - thanks for jumping in - only just saw your username!
Have you had a go with the GHx? Dabbled in video?
Long zoom is only really useful for wildlife or paparazzi isn't it? Or sports I suppose.
Birds and animals are pretty much the only time mine comes out, and really the reason I bought one after seeing tons of cool critters in Estes Park in Colorado (including a bear ) and coming away with a load of tiny teeny pics.
Hmmm - just found this other 70-300 shot which must have been before I switched to Lightroom.
Camouflage by tryingtimes, on Flickr
I like that. Good use of zoom imo. Not just framing something a long way off but picking out details from something closer.
Nice Alex.
A big advantage of zoom/tele is separating backgrounds nicely (and compressing perspective).
Seb could say it nicer himself, but if you browse the photos on his blog (which is good btw) notice how many are done with the 200mm f2. So include bike/sports photos in your need for the telezoom.
Tele is also nice if you want to get nice shots of field sports, as you can shoot from the end of pitch rather than the side. Got some nice pics at my rugby club recently with my 120-400 (/dreams of 400mm 2.8.....//).
There are no fast tele options available for m4/3 at the moment, unless you are happy manually focussing.
even at f5.6 tele separates backgrounds better than wide-standard.
To be honest, I don't personally think that the small mirrorless cameras (or even very small SLR bodies) suit tele lenses well. With increasing focal length I've been glad of increasing body size (plus grip) for stability/balance/handling.
Manual focus for film is okish, for stills of mountain bikers - erm... I guess I'd have to learn new techniques - prefocussing for example.
Telephoto is great for compressing perspective - it's probably why most amateur mountain bike shots always look less dramatic than it was in the flesh.
I have actually been meaning to try telephoto on steep stuff, but I only really have my LX3 with me on rides (which maxes out at 60mm 
)
some compacts seem to do ok at the tele end. I've been thinking about an Olympus mu tough for biking duties, which goes to about 120 or 140 (off the top of my head). Depth-of-field/background separation is always going to be a bit naff with a compact sized sensor though.
I'd say for MTBing you need the lens that gives you the shot from the limited vantage points you have. For example if you are on a steep hillside you have to be near the trail and riders, so wide angle.. but if you have to be on the other side of a ravine or something..
My fave from Seb's site is the really wide one of the Lakes hillside with the bikers in it. The texture of the hill really reminds me of being out there and scanning the views myself..
Hi Alex
I've dabbled in video, but only with 'proper' video cameras. I'm not especially convinced by the dSLR + video thing, though I think you can make a case that it makes more sense without the mirror thing getting in the way. But still... a stills camera with HD video built in is, at best, a big compromise on the video side (downsampling, dreadful video ergonomics, usually poor audio, etc. etc.). Most of the excitement around it is because limited depth of field with video used to be insanely expensive... and now it isn't. But like all 'looks', it'll wear thin over time. There's more to good video than incredibly narrow dof in every shot.
If you're happy with the Canon for stills but fancy dabbling in video I think you should approach it from that angle, personally, rather than throw the baby out with the bath water. So to speak 
The last episode of House Season 6 was shot entirely on the 5DMKII and looks incredible
Cheers Seb - I must admit, I find myself clicking on vimeo videos which have the most bokeh in the thumbnail!
I can't see myself in a financial position any time soon to be able to buy one of those Voigtländer f/0.95 lenses though
I'll sleep on it another night - this afternoon was spent photographing my Canon gear ready for putting on sale though!
I can't see myself in a financial position any time soon to be able to buy one of those Voigtländer f/0.95 lenses though
Thanks 5th - that looks like a great way to have a play!
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
