Part two of my hands-on experience using the GH-1. Read part one here.
In Part One, I talked about using the GH-1 as a still camera and compared it to my well-loved Olympus E-520 and the 12-60 lens. My initial conclusions is the two shooting experiences are comparable. But if you’re thinking of paying the price premium for the GH-1, you’re looking at using it for more than just stills. You’re eyeing this for its video capability.
Before I give my opinion on the GH-1’s video, I need to give the following disclaimer. While I’m just an amateur photographer, I’m a novice videographer. I’m under a lot of pressure to shoot video of my kids and post it to the internet so the distant grandparents can watch them grow up. (It feels like a classic give-an-inch-and-they’ll-want-a-mile situation! I post lots of photos, and then people want video. Maybe if I start posting a lot of video, they’ll want 3D holograms. Can’t win.) I don’t shoot movies or commercials. I do very simple edits and post on the internet. That disclaimer aside: How does the GH-1 work as a video camera?
In a word: Perfect.
It’s a bold claim, so let me tell you want I’m comparing it to.
- A dedicated camcorder. For a couple of years, I used a dedicated Sony camcorder. It recorded to those mini-DV tapes. Some things about the Sony were quite nice. It had an articulating LCD as well as a viewfinder. I found the LCD the most comfortable way to shoot video. It’s doubly helpful shooting young kid video, because I could flip the LCD around and my son could watch himself while making the video. He loved that and it was much easier to get footage that way. The only drawbacks of the Sony: First, it’s a dedicated camcorder. I’m a photographer, so I like carrying a camera everywhere. I don’t want to carry a camcorder around. Second, it uses tapes. When you’re used to a computer-based workflow and the random access you can get from flash memory, tapes are just a pain. I found myself avoiding the camcorder because I didn’t want to deal with tapes. Instead, I used:
- A digital point-and-shoot. My Panasonic LX-3 became my go-to video tool for several months. It solved many of the problems of the camcorder. I love carrying the LX-3 everywhere. It records great HD video to SD cards. The only problems: No articulating LCD. (I’ve got lots of footage of my son where he’s in front of the camera for 5 seconds, then says, “I want to see!” and you see him running around to the back of the camera to watch himself.) Also, at the time, I had a hard time finding good Windows software for editing the .MOV files the camera produced. I had to do an extra step of transcoding the .MOV files to .WMV.
The GH-1 is the best of both worlds. Like the LX-3, it shoots great HD video (in either 1080p or 720p) and it writes to SD cards. It’s a camera, so I’ll bring it with me to the park. Like the Sony camcorder, it’s got an articulating LCD. Then, the GH-1 has a couple of unique advantages thrown in. Unlike the LX-3, it’s got a dedicated movie button on the back. It’s very easy to start shooting video, no matter what mode the camera was in. And unlike any other combo-cam on the market, the GH-1 comes with a video-optimized kit lens. Autofocus is fast and silent, so you don’t hear the lens focus when you’re viewing your footage.
Finally, when my wife saw some of the first footage from the GH-1 on our computer screen, the first words out of her mouth were, “Wow. That’s a lot better than our camcorder.” I don’t know if she was more impressed with the HD video or the sound quality (the built-in mic is quite good). But whatever impressed her the most, suddenly the money I spent on the GH-1 had spousal approval.
Finally, one thing has coincidentally happened that makes it easy to use the GH-1: A new beta of Windows Live Movie Maker shipped that natively supports AVCHD video. I don’t have to do any separate transcoding steps to edit video.
You can see the results for yourself here. This is just a family movie, but you can watch autofocus and autoexposure in action.
