60D vs. GH3
- Thread starter Spiri7o
- Start date
JuliusJ
Active member
Its seriously like you guys don't even try. Google it first. Next try to the search bar. Search exactly what your thread title is, im not going to do it for you because I don't give a fuck which one you should get. Nothing come up? Search one camera at a time, make a pros and cons list. Still can't decide? Google more. Lurk and pay attention more, make stupid and unnecessary lazy threads less.
Actually Julius, I have been for a few weeks now. Except, most differences I can find I don't really understand the meaning or how it affects the camera when it comes to filing skiing. Here I come because I am very aware multiple people on this site have experience with both, so this is me trying and using the internet. For the record I searched on here to and nothing came up comparing the two.
RockNRollNghtClb
Active member
huh strange
https://www.newschoolers.com/ns/forums/readthread/thread_id/749488/
https://www.newschoolers.com/ns/forums/readthread/thread_id/760756/
https://www.newschoolers.com/ns/forums/readthread/thread_id/749488/
https://www.newschoolers.com/ns/forums/readthread/thread_id/760756/
MLJ
Active member
check out this thread to help you make a better thread IF you don't find anything through search barhttps://www.newschoolers.com/ns/forums/readthread/thread_id/552650/
But personally I have a 60d and I can vouch for it. Solid build, lots of canon accessories available and great quality camera overall. The key is the lens however, because it becomes obvious when you cheap out on that. Unless you're a pro photographer ( which I presume you're not cause you don't know about these two cameras) having a super expensive camera is not vital.
I haven't used the GH3 though so I can't compare
But personally I have a 60d and I can vouch for it. Solid build, lots of canon accessories available and great quality camera overall. The key is the lens however, because it becomes obvious when you cheap out on that. Unless you're a pro photographer ( which I presume you're not cause you don't know about these two cameras) having a super expensive camera is not vital.
I haven't used the GH3 though so I can't compare
Just because something is popular does not necessarily mean it is sensible (people use Beats headphones to listen to .mp3s, for Christ's sake).
Canon's DSLR video capabilities were kind of impressive when the 5DmkII was released, but even then it was (and still is) plagued with flaws, and in some respects has gotten worse (overbearing AA filter on the 5DmkIII).
Of course, it should go without saying that none of these issues should have any impact on the integrity of your art. Your support and lighting matter more than your camera body, which in all reality is probably one of the least important pieces of equipment; as long as it meets some minimum, rudimentary criteria, it will enable you to do your job. Amazing image quality alone means nothing (care to explain why 99% of RED videos online are garbage?), while some of the best videos I've ever seen have had mediocre or terrible image quality. How does that work? Your technological means of communicating an artistic concept, and that artistic concept itself, are entirely separate. You can polish a turd all you want, but at the end of the day it's still a turd.
But if we must step into a vacuum for the sake of technological discourse, here's the reality: Canon's DSLR video capabilities have been far surpassed by numerous camera manufacturers for a fraction of the price. To consider Canon as a competitor at this point is laughable.
Canon's DSLR video capabilities were kind of impressive when the 5DmkII was released, but even then it was (and still is) plagued with flaws, and in some respects has gotten worse (overbearing AA filter on the 5DmkIII).
Of course, it should go without saying that none of these issues should have any impact on the integrity of your art. Your support and lighting matter more than your camera body, which in all reality is probably one of the least important pieces of equipment; as long as it meets some minimum, rudimentary criteria, it will enable you to do your job. Amazing image quality alone means nothing (care to explain why 99% of RED videos online are garbage?), while some of the best videos I've ever seen have had mediocre or terrible image quality. How does that work? Your technological means of communicating an artistic concept, and that artistic concept itself, are entirely separate. You can polish a turd all you want, but at the end of the day it's still a turd.
But if we must step into a vacuum for the sake of technological discourse, here's the reality: Canon's DSLR video capabilities have been far surpassed by numerous camera manufacturers for a fraction of the price. To consider Canon as a competitor at this point is laughable.