A question about G7 Video

Discussion in 'Panasonic Cameras' started by photoeagle, Feb 20, 2016.

  1. photoeagle

    photoeagle Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 25, 2015
    Brad Harris
    Camera buying decisions are difficult. I'm considering the G7 and was not initially overly interested it its video capabilities. That was due in part a lack of understanding of the video capabilities.

    I'm guess I'm old school in thinking that a camera is for photos and a video camera was for video. On the G7 it is the merging of the two systems.

    Why would you want two systems on one camera? How much video do you shoot vs still pictures? Are you able to take video and later take a scene make it into a still photo?
  2. ThomD

    ThomD Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jun 1, 2013
    SF Bay Area
    The one place that I've found video to be useful ( as a still shooter) is the ability to extract 8M stills from a 4k stream. As an example, I was shooting dragonflies and caught this:

    This is a male (upper in the image), holding a female (center) behind her head while mating. (that's how they do it). The lower male just dived bombed the couple in an attempt to contribute to the gene pool. The 1st male shook him off and is making his escape (with his mate). This event took about .5 seconds Since I was shooting 4k, I have the full image set.

    Three's a Crowd - Tandemhearts
    • Like Like x 1
  3. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Legend

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    If your thinking is that a camera is for photos and a video camera is for video then yes, your thinking is quite old school.

    Why would you not want to have a camera that could competently do both. If you set your G7 up correctly, going from shooting photos to video is as simple as switching the mode dial to one of the C-slots (assuming you've customized it accordingly).

    Would you rather haul around double the gear, taking up more space and weight, having to learn two menu and control systems, etc., or have a single piece of kit that can do both? I really can't see a reason for the first option unless you're shooting with something like a RED (at which point what you're doing is far more serious and deserving of that kit).

    For me, video just tells a more powerful story. Yes, it's more work both during and after shooting, but the finished product is ultimately worth it because there are things that can be captured in video that a single image just doesn't capture. With my GH4's, I have cameras that I can shoot sports with, can shoot portraits with, can shoot 4K video with, can shoot slow motion with, all with one camera and one set of lenses.
  4. photoeagle

    photoeagle Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 25, 2015
    Brad Harris
    Thank you for the information. I have a new perspective on having video capabilities within the same camera. The ability to extract a still from video would make a useful tool. Especially with flitting subjects such as dragonflies.