Canon 6D VS Panasonic GH4 - for video?

[duarted]

Hello,

I have a Canon 600D + Canon 70-300mm + Canon 18-55mm EF-S + Tokina 11-16mm

I'm planning to change camera and I'm wondering what are the advantages of Canon 6D and Panasonic GH4?

The main reason I'm upgrading is because of the noise in low light with the Canon 600D.

I use it mainly for VIDEO and I'll be also doing underwater videography.

I'm also looking to improve video quality from the Canon 600D that I have now.

Can someone help me? Thanks!

 

[rudimaes]

The GH4 is the better one for video, it's more recent and has more videomodes (even 4K).
Rudi

 

[Ido]

The 600D and GH4 are more or less equal on SNR (signal-to-noise ratio; basically, image quality in low light). You won't get less noise in low light by simply getting a GH4, and using slow lenses with it.
If you want better performance in low light, you don't have to get a new camera. Just get lenses that are better for low light - fast zooms and primes. You can get f/2 or faster primes, and f/2.8 or faster zooms. Then you have more light hitting the sensor, thus you use a lower ISO value, and you get less noise.
DxO Labs found that the 6D has about 1.5 stops advantage in low light over the 600D. If going to those wider apertures still isn't enough, or if you need more depth of field than you get at such wide apertures, only then the better-in-low-light sensor will be beneficial, really.

 

[KmH]

Another way to improve low light performance is to use supplemental lighting.
By using supplemental lighting you gain more control over light direction and light quality.

 

[Solarflare]

The main reason I'm upgrading is because of the noise in low light with the Canon 600D.

Then you have no business with Micro Four Third cameras like the GH4. They certainly dont offer impressive lowlight performance.

For the record - the current king of lowlight is the Sony A7s. And of course the Pentax 645z, even if for some reason DxOMark still hasnt tested that one. But you can get f/0.95 prime lenses for the A7s - the 645z ends at f/2.8 primes.

The 6D shouldnt be too bad either, though.

And yes you should check out bright f/1.4 or even f/1.2 primes. In respect to your current lense, you already have the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, so thats a bright zoom right there.

 

[duarted]

Thank you all for the comments.

Like Solarflare said I already have a fast lens with f2.8 but I still feel the need to use the ISO in some situations where there's not much light. Even worst when I'm using my 18-55mm or 70-300mm cuz they are f/4.

And I would rather get a new camera body, special if it's a FF and then buy a 50mm f/1.8 (since my 18-55mm will not be compatible). Would you recommend other lens to replace the 18-55mm on a FF?

I'm just worried on the 6D with the screen that doesn't flip-out like on the 600D, that's very helpful when you're shooting video.

So the GH4 will not improve much on the noise in low light, is that right?

 

[Solarflare]

The 6D seems to be listed as discontinued in places right now .. so a successor might appear soon ? Maybe with flipscreen ?

Canon EOS 6D, Sony RX1, Nikon D800E, Fuji X100s, Leica X2: all listed as discontinued | Photo Rumors



The GH4 is a "Micro Four Third". "Micro" means its a mirrorless camera; Four Thirds existed before, but they had been DSLRs. The sensor formats are:

Four Third: 17.3x13mm (4:3 aspect ratio)
APS-C: ~24x16mm (3:2 aspect ratio) (*)
Small format (aka full frame aka 35mm film): 24x36mm

(*): Actually Canon APS-C is even a little smaller than that, but I dont know the exact measures by heart. But everybody else uses about 24x16mm.

So as you can see, Four Third sensors are substantly smaller than APS-C sensors, plus they are a 4:3 format - thus, for 16:9 video, they lose even more in respect to sensor area than a 3:2 aspect ratio sensor.


About lenses, Canon doesnt allow EF-S lenses to be used on full frame bodies. Thats because Canon allows EF-S lenses to reach quite far into the camera body - if this would be done with a full frame body, the mirror would be destroyed the first time you tried taking a picture. Therefore, you cannot mount EF-S lenses on a full frame body.

So yes, all EF-S lenses will no longer work. While I can actually use my AF-S 35mm f1.8 DX (DX means APS-C on Nikon, while Canon calls it "EF-S", but only names lenses this way) on my full frame D600 - its pretty funny in every respect, and it even manages to light the full viewfinder. Havent actually done much with it, I would guess corner performance will be rather weak.


A single 50mm f1.8 of course is fine if you're okay to be limited to one single focal length; after all, a single 50mm lens on a Leica, thats all what Henri Cartier-Bresson needed to turn into one of the greatest photographers of all times.

Personally I would probably preferably use for video on a Canon DSLR the same lens I use on my Nikon: the (for Cannon new) 16-35mm f4 with image stabilization.

 

[goodguy]

Did you consider the Nikon D750 ?

In this review they said they think the Nikon D750 is currently the best DSLR for video.



Between the two you asked I would go with the 6D in a heart beat.

 

[duarted]

Thanks again everyone.

The Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens is quite expensive (1100 $US), is there any other lens for FF with the similar range but cheaper?

I don't want to go Nikon because I'm already used to the Canon, I also use Magic Lantern which I don't think it's available for Nikon and I have Canon lenses. But thanks for the suggestions!

 

[goodguy]

Thanks again everyone.

The Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens is quite expensive (1100 $US), is there any other lens for FF with the similar range but cheaper?

I don't want to go Nikon because I'm already used to the Canon, I also use Magic Lantern which I don't think it's available for Nikon and I have Canon lenses. But thanks for the suggestions!

No problems, it was just another camera to consider, don't think twice then and go for the 6D, well that's what I would do.

 

[Ido]

The Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens is quite expensive (1100 $US), is there any other lens for FF with the similar range but cheaper?

That's one thing you have to keep in mind if you're switching over to a 35mm frame setup. Good lenses are more expensive. I guess part of it is simply because they're bigger, but there are many other factors.
Canon has a 17-40mm f/4L lens for around $800. It doesn't have image stabilization, which is one of the key points for choosing the 16-35mm f/4L IS for video.
There's also Tokina's 16-28mm f/2.8, sold for around $650. That one doesn't have image stabilization either.
You could wait for Tamron's 15-30mm f/2.8 VC, but it probably won't be any cheaper than the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS.

 

[duarted]

Thank you again!

I found the 17-40mm at 645$US which is a big difference from the 16-35mm.

Do you think not having IS is a big difference on a lens with this range?

Also, do you think this lens would work well to do interviews? I usually use the 18-55mm for interviews and it works well.

I'm trying to get the best kit for my video purposes but it's hard to choose! Your assistance is being very helpful!

 

[Ido]

Thank you again!

I found the 17-40mm at 645$US which is a big difference from the 16-35mm.

Do you think not having IS is a big difference on a lens with this range?

Also, do you think this lens would work well to do interviews? I usually use the 18-55mm for interviews and it works well.

I'm trying to get the best kit for my video purposes but it's hard to choose! Your assistance is being very helpful!

Many beginners ask in general if IS is important. Truth is, that question can't be answered in general.
IS is useful when shooting video handheld. It's also useful for shooting handheld at slower-than-usual shutter speeds.
IS won't really do anything at fast shutter speeds.

You have to remember that 17-40mm on a 35mm frame (a.k.a. "full frame") sensor gives a vastly different field of view to what you get with an 18-55mm lens on an APS-C sensor. To be exact, you'll get the same field of view you're used to, by using focal lengths between 28.8mm and 88mm on a 35mm frame sensor.

 

[Solarflare]

Do you think not having IS is a big difference on a lens with this range?

Its a huge difference with video.

Well, unless you have technology like video tripod, steady cam etc, which stabilize the whole camera, then its not needed.

 

[duarted]

I usually shoot video with a Tripod or a Glide Cam. Of course there are times where you don't have it and you have to handled it.

Ok so I'm thinking on buying a Canon 50mm f1.8 for interviews which means I might not need a wide angle lens with a range going to 40mm like the Canon 17-40mm.

On this video Dave compares the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Lens (without IS) with the Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX. The Tokina wins on the most important aspects. The only problem with the Tokina is that you cannot use regular filers. I do like to use polarizer filters so that's a problem...

Tokina is 640$US and the Canon is 1600$US. There's also the one you mentioned Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens which is still 1100$US



What would you guys do in my situation?

Thanks Ido and Solarflare