The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

GH2 impressions

Howard

New member
Peter,

I enjoyed your "user" review and why you selected the GH2 as your travel camera. Your unbiased, honest comparison to other cameras is refreshing. I also enjoyed your photos.

Howard
 

Rich M

Member
Short answer her: in my eyes the GH2 has reached a level of maturity, that it is on the same level as a APSC DSLR or even better in some regards, and already very close in my eyes to a FF DSLR, but MUCH smaller! Comparing to MF does not make any sense. So for me this is an ideal travel camera, maybe add 1 or 2 M43 lenses, maybe even a higher speed prime, and you will be satisfied. Or use it as a complement to an existing MFD system, just to have something to shoot high quality around anything you shoot with your MF gear.

Hope that helps for now. I so far love my GH2 and do not regret having bought one!
Thanks Peter. This is just so interesting....because quantitatively the GH2 is just an evolution in specifications from the GH1 and would draw comparisons from smaller DSLR's, etc.

However, there is something about this camera that I can only describe as qualitative in nature. It just reeks of POTENTIAL.....something that I did not feel with my GH1.

So maybe it's the evolution of the M43 system of lens offerings that make it more appealing....maybe it's just my own movement from larger cameras to smaller ones.....or maybe it's just a great little camera.

Now for just a few more fast primes....;)

R
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Peter

Thanks for a great review of the camera. I purchased one and it should have been with me last Friday but there was a snafu with the courier and I suspect it will turn up on Tuesday. After your review I am very excited to get my hands on one.

I should also add that for me, the choice for m43 came after a lot of introspection about going for a D700. Like you, the weight and smaller form factor were deciding points, especially as I have already achieved stunning results from my GF-1.

LouisB
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
Peter,

I enjoyed your "user" review and why you selected the GH2 as your travel camera. Your unbiased, honest comparison to other cameras is refreshing. I also enjoyed your photos.

Howard
Yes this is right. Helps them and me with testing too.
 

mark1958

Member
Peter I have started to do some GH2/5DII comparisons and pretty pleased with the GH2 performance. The size/weight trade offs are really an important consideration. Thus, I agree with pretty much everything stated in your review. There is one other major difference that I think is an important consideration. The depth of field differences between the 35mm DSLRs/medium format and the the micro 4/3rds systems. The fact that a more narrow DOF is difficult to get with the micro4/3 systems even with a fast lens would be a disadvantage for the m4/3 system.
 

lcubed

New member
Yes, I forgot to mention video, this is really stunning on the GH2. What are you using - AVCHD or MPEG4 ?

I found that AVCHD is only supported by Toast on my machine Quicktime does not support it, as also not RealPlayer and MediaPlayer.
VLC and imovie support AVCHD just fine.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Thanks all for your nice comments and feedback.

I just wanted to share my opinion on a compact but high quality travel alternative camera and I am overwhelmed by all the positive reactions! Meanwhile I think that M43 could easily become my preferred system for everyday photography. I hope you all will enjoy this camera as much as I do!

Looking forward to all the exciting new lenses which should arrive soon .....
 

Tesselator

New member
>Short answer her: in my eyes the GH2 has reached a level of maturity

I second that and on top it can do amazing video.
Not yet for me. Maybe the GH3? :D I want the more megapixels and the slightly better noise handling with the higher ISO levels but there are some major troubles with the GH2. There's the green noise at 800 ISO and above that most NR software (including the in-camera processing) doesn't detect as noise. And there is the inferior video. Inferior to a GH1 with the custom firmware applied. The touch-screen doesn't interest me - I can't even use it. :( Also the firmware options in both the GH1 and GH2 are slightly retarded - obviously written by a non-photographer or a weekend hobbyist. Then there are stupid marketing tricks applied to the hardware/firmware that make it a bit impossible! Like the fact that cameras sold here in Japan have no English language abilities just to name but one such. Etc. Combine these things with Panasonic's reputation as the worst company on the planet for customer support and honoring their warrantee (which I've experienced 1st hand with my first two GH1s) and I think I'll sit this upgrade out.

Sony is slated to be working on a pro-style body that's mirrorless and there are a some rumors and murmuring around the Nikon camp as well about similar intents. I think actually I'll be waiting for a curved FF sensor in a mirrorless body before I fork over the cash.

Then again the GH1 is currently selling here (new, in box, body only) for under $250 and if the GH2 ever approaches that price level prior to the curved FF, I may just go for it. Until then naw, not really... Panasonic needs to straighten up their act before they get my vote ($) and the GH2 isn't much better than the GH1 when it comes right down to it - worse when it comes to video.
 

Amin

Active member
There's the green noise at 800 ISO and above that most NR software (including the in-camera processing) doesn't detect as noise...
Peter, Uwe, Terry, are you seeing this? I haven't seen anything of the sort while working with lots of ISO 1600-3200 GH2 files in Lightroom 3.3.

Shadow noise is still relatively high, so underexposing and pushing shadows isn't going to give K-5-like results. Nevertheless, the GH2 has soundly exceeded my expectations when it comes to high ISO, and I've not been troubled by any green noise issue.
 

Tesselator

New member
I dunno if everyone sees it or not. I guess it may be according to sample, I dunno. But if you google it you'll see lots of threads and blogs reporting the issue. They seem to be scattered but in a somewhat diagonal pattern - sparse but present and noticeable (10 to 100 dots per image). Not like typical ISO noise. It may be correlated to exposure time too. I dunno that either. Most people I've read reporting the issue aren't as thorough as I am when it come to nailing down these sorts of things. :D

But I can say the same thing about the GH1 too: "the GH1 has soundly exceeded my expectations when it comes to high ISO...". The two cameras are not that different.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Not yet for me. Maybe the GH3? :D I want the more megapixels and the slightly better noise handling with the higher ISO levels but there are some major troubles with the GH2. There's the green noise at 800 ISO and above that most NR software (including the in-camera processing) doesn't detect as noise. And there is the inferior video. Inferior to a GH1 with the custom firmware applied. The touch-screen doesn't interest me - I can't even use it. :( Also the firmware options in both the GH1 and GH2 are slightly retarded - obviously written by a non-photographer or a weekend hobbyist. Then there are stupid marketing tricks applied to the hardware/firmware that make it a bit impossible! Like the fact that cameras sold here in Japan have no English language abilities just to name but one such. Etc. Combine these things with Panasonic's reputation as the worst company on the planet for customer support and honoring their warrantee (which I've experienced 1st hand with my first two GH1s) and I think I'll sit this upgrade out.

Sony is slated to be working on a pro-style body that's mirrorless and there are a some rumors and murmuring around the Nikon camp as well about similar intents. I think actually I'll be waiting for a curved FF sensor in a mirrorless body before I fork over the cash.

Then again the GH1 is currently selling here (new, in box, body only) for under $250 and if the GH2 ever approaches that price level prior to the curved FF, I may just go for it. Until then naw, not really... Panasonic needs to straighten up their act before they get my vote ($) and the GH2 isn't much better than the GH1 when it comes right down to it - worse when it comes to video.
I have not seen ANY green noise issue! And I so far did a lot of night shots and up to 3200 (even tried 6400). So do not always trust all these threads and reports on the net, sometimes I figured out that people just use their equipment and according SW in the wrong way and then are disappointed about bad results.

Your post shows me that you do not like the GH2, which is pretty ok of course, as it might not be the perfect camera for anyone. But for me the GH2 just triggered most of my knobs and so I went for it. And I am very happy.

Finally I would not even buy one for $200.- if I do not like it - right? And I would pay even $2000.- if I liked and needed this camera.

Finally 2: there will always be improvements and better cameras. No doubt a GH3 will be another milestone ahead (at least we can hope). But one must be honest with his/her requirements. So for me the GH2 reached this level (which the GH1 did not).
 

Tesselator

New member
Mmmm, no it's not that I "don't like" the GH2. But I've done my comparison homework and it's not enough of an improvement to justify the upgrade - for me. Others may justify it on the tough-screen alone. That's for them to decide. For me it's all about IQ 1st, menu options 2nd, ergonomics 3rd, and that's about it. And to those things there's so very little difference between the two that unless the upgrade is relatively painless (like < $250 painless ;) it's not really worth it.

"But one must be honest with his/her requirements."
But to me this does not include considering only what is available at the time one stops to ponder the market. For example I bought the D2x when it first hit! About 6 months before the D700 was announced I sold it thinking that the D700 was going to be everything I hopped for. It wasn't. I then set my requirements as I saw fit and waited. My requirements were:

  • 1080, 24p pristine video,
  • A full time - realtime live-view mode,
  • A sensor close to APS-C or larger,
  • 4 or 5 FPS continuous shooting,
  • Well under $1k,
  • Interchangeable lenses,
  • Performs well at 1600 ISO,
  • Has an LCD that can be swiveled around and hopefully closed in on itself,
  • Buily-in flash,
  • Hopefully used Compact Flash memory cards,
  • Can use Nikkor lenses - somehow,
  • Has or can be rigged with either a pro EVF or a real-time external monitor,
  • Could be remote controlled.

At the time there was no such thing and no one was even talking about such things. In fact most people in most forums said there would never be a serious camera that included video and that I was clearly deranged... (so shall it be for the curved FF sensor too I guess...) ;) But those were my requirements. So I hunkered down with one of my fifty two Konica/Minolta A2 cameras I had left over from a commercial project and waited. Yup, Panasonic GH1 was the first one to answer most of the important requirements. The continuous shot buffer is way to small and it doesn't accept compact flash but all others were addressed. Being "honest" does NOT mean selecting only from what's currently available. ;)
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Mmmm, no it's not that I "don't like" the GH2. But I've done my comparison homework and it's not enough of an improvement to justify the upgrade - for me. Others may justify it on the tough-screen alone. That's for them to decide. For me it's all about IQ 1st, menu options 2nd, ergonomics 3rd, and that's about it. And to those things there's so very little difference between the two that unless the upgrade is relatively painless (like < $250 painless ;) it's not really worth it.

"But one must be honest with his/her requirements."
But to me this does not include considering only what is available at the time one stops to ponder the market. For example I bought the D2x when it first hit! About 6 months before the D700 was announced I sold it thinking that the D700 was going to be everything I hopped for. It wasn't. I then set my requirements as I saw fit and waited. My requirements were:

  • 1080, 24p pristine video,
  • A full time - realtime live-view mode,
  • A sensor close to APS-C or larger,
  • 4 or 5 FPS continuous shooting,
  • Well under $1k,
  • Interchangeable lenses,
  • Performs well at 1600 ISO,
  • Has an LCD that can be swiveled around and hopefully closed in on itself,
  • Buily-in flash,
  • Hopefully used Compact Flash memory cards,
  • Can use Nikkor lenses - somehow,
  • Has or can be rigged with either a pro EVF or a real-time external monitor,
  • Could be remote controlled.

At the time there was no such thing and no one was even talking about such things. In fact most people in most forums said there would never be a serious camera that included video and that I was clearly deranged... (so shall it be for the curved FF sensor too I guess...) ;) But those were my requirements. So I hunkered down with one of my fifty two Konica/Minolta A2 cameras I had left over from a commercial project and waited. Yup, Panasonic GH1 was the first one to answer most of the important requirements. The continuous shot buffer is way to small and it doesn't accept compact flash but all others were addressed. Being "honest" does NOT mean selecting only from what's currently available. ;)
I understand from your requirement list that some of your wishes might never come true, but I hope for you ;)

Just to clarify, I did not jump on the GH1 or G1 as both did not satisfy some of my requirements, the most important one I did not like the EVF. Now the GH2 fulfills all that requirements I had (and still have) so I bought it and I am happy with it. But obviously my requirements are so much different to yours .....

Maybe you would be happy with a D7000 or even a K5? Check these out. If you want to use Nikkor lenses and have the best APSC sensor available today, then the D7000 would be a no brainer. And the GH2 is just not what you want to have!
 

Amin

Active member
But I can say the same thing about the GH1 too: "the GH1 has soundly exceeded my expectations when it comes to high ISO...". The two cameras are not that different.
The GH1 (my primary camera ever since it was released) also soundly exceeded my expectations too when it came to high ISO. The GH2 seems to match or exceed that performance without the banding which affected some of my GH1 images. That exceeded my expectations.

Amin - I'm not shooting a GH2.
Oops, my mistake. I thought I had read somewhere that you picked one up :eek:.

Regarding the apparently widespread green noise issue, either I have an unaffected unit, or my observational skills are weak. Either way, I'll count myself lucky :).
 

Tesselator

New member

Terry

New member
Tesselator - I wasn't saying that it wasn't happening but instead pointing to a bit of different tech that Panasonic is using that might be why it doesn't seem to be corrected in RAW processors. I'm not a techie when it comes to sensors and how they function.
 

Tesselator

New member
I understand from your requirement list that some of your wishes might never come true, but I hope for you ;)

Just to clarify, I did not jump on the GH1 or G1 as both did not satisfy some of my requirements, the most important one I did not like the EVF. Now the GH2 fulfills all that requirements I had (and still have) so I bought it and I am happy with it. But obviously my requirements are so much different to yours .....

Maybe you would be happy with a D7000 or even a K5? Check these out. If you want to use Nikkor lenses and have the best APSC sensor available today, then the D7000 would be a no brainer. And the GH2 is just not what you want to have!
When I say "can use Nikkor lenses" I mean in MF. I don't expect AF. In fact I hate AF. What a silly thing to do... putting automation to a lens's focusing apparatus - heh, lamers! :D I'm actually serious here tho.

So the GH1 fits that - and for that specific requirement all m4/3 cameras do as well.

The K5 does look pretty nice! I used it for a day. A real pleasure to shoot. Still too short on the current list of -my- requirements tho. I've read about the D7000 but not had the opportunity to shoot with it yet.

And thanks for your added hopes, they certainly can't hurt. :)


Terry,

Ah I see. And thanks for the link. Interesting!
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
More like this: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=37314528 At the time I read that I did a search and found 4 other sites from other uses that were saying the same things. <shrug>
Every single camera new to the market the last... 10?... years has had some kind of green, red, yellow, dead pixel, banding, front focus, back focus etc. issue. At least according to the forums at dpreview. For some strange reason, it has never affected my photography in any serious way. As for the GH2, all user reports that I've read say the camera is great and a real improvement from the GH1. I will certainly buy one, not to replace the GH1, but in addition to the older model. These cameras are so dirt cheap compared to most of the hi-end competition and deliver in spades for almost everything I and my clients need, except sports photography (buffer size and AF speed). Just five years ago, the same image quality plus the same video quality would have cost me 20 times as much or more, and I would have needed an assistant to carry the stuff. Ten years ago, this kind of technological features wasn't even a distant dream for most photographers.

People have different needs though, and wants. Some need more DR, some need better high ISO. For some reason, we lived happily without ISO 102,400 until recently, but our memories are short, or at least mine is :)

Complaining about the image quality of current cameras is like complaining about the food on airplanes. You are flying halfway around the globe, 10,000 meters above ground, close to the speed of sound for a price that wouldn't get you across the country by bus 50 years ago, and then you blame the stewardess because the omelet isn't warm/salty/tasty/yellow enough.
 
Top