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

Terry

New member
If the RAW files were sensor dumps, all files from the same sensor, regardless of camera brand, should look the same and open with the same RAW converter settings. But they are not the same, so some processing is obviously going on. This is logical; all camera manufacturers want to give us what looks like "imaging according to them", even in RAW. Giving us pure sensor dumps would give us a situation where the lens manufacturer, the software houses and Sony decided how the output looks, at least for those using Sony sensors. And the software programmers wouldn't even need to talk with Nikon to know the "inner secrets" of their cameras. Sony would know what they needed to know.

No, the camera guys need their own secret formula, so that we can have that yellow Nikon look and the Olympus blue skies :ROTFL:
Isn't some of the difference in RAWs from the same sensor because the electronics used in the rest of the camera can impact the performance?
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Isn't some of the difference in RAWs from the same sensor because the electronics used in the rest of the camera can impact the performance?
It doesn't really matter if it's in the hardware or the software. It's still programming, and the output is a result of what the manufacturer wants to achieve.
 

Jonas

Active member
It doesn't really matter if it's in the hardware or the software. It's still programming, and the output is a result of what the manufacturer wants to achieve.
Programming...? Maybe.
The starting point for the discussion was if the data stream from the Panasonic GH2 raw files already were adjusted with regards to lens distortion. Now we are getting to a definition of what a sensor dump is. I wish we were sitting at that pub talking about it instead, I don't think I can take this any further by sporadic forum posts.

Cheers,

Jonas
 

Amin

Active member
The GH2 RAW files contain metadata indicating the distortion corrections (and CA corrections). This metadata is not "baked [irreversibly] into" the RAW files. in other words, a RAW converter can be designed to ignore and/or optionally apply these corrections. However, Adobe and others are playing ball with Panasonic such that the option to disable corrections is not enabled in those RAW processing apps. Meanwhile, other apps like Raw Developer ignore the correction metadata altogether, so you can see the images without correction. That's why I showed crops from both Lightroom 3 and Raw Developer earlier in this thread.

There have been cases when sharpening and/or noise reduction has been irreversibly baked into the RAW files. The Panasonic LX2/D-LUX3 was a well publicized case of this. It can be hard to detect such manipulations.

In the case of the Oly/Pana cameras which share the same sensor (all Micro 4/3 models except GH1/2), the RAW data looks the same to me with regards to color, signal/noise, etc, when processing in 3rd party apps like Lightroom, Raw Developer, etc. Any differences I see are explainable on the basis of differences in AA filter strength/quality and nominal ISO relative to highlight headroom.
 

Diane B

New member
I don't have the GH2 but am interested. There are several long threads on dpreview (yes, I know.....LOL) which are showing some issues with more noise than expected in GH2 images. It appears to be a strange pattern also. BUT i'm curious, to get back to the original thread subject, of impressions of the GH2 for still shooting by those here who have one.
 

Jonas

Active member
(...)
There have been cases when sharpening and/or noise reduction has been irreversibly baked into the RAW files. The Panasonic LX2/D-LUX3 was a well publicized case of this. It can be hard to detect such manipulations.
(...)
Hi,

Are you sure it was the LX2?
I tried to find information about it by googling. I came up with a lot of reviews and checked some of them (DPR, photographyreview, Steve's digicam and DCResource). Processed or manipulated raw files weren't mentioned anywhere and I also failed to find anything at the other hits I got.

Jonas
 

Jonas

Active member
(...)
BUT i'm curious, to get back to the original thread subject, of impressions of the GH2 for still shooting by those here who have one.
Are we having too much off topic noise here? Maybe.

I also wonder a little about several odd statements over at DPR and like you, I guess, I have seen several posters mentioning they love the camera for video but don't use it for stills (..as their xx APS-C is better at that). I don't think the GH2 is a bit worse than the old G1 which I find working very well for stills.
But, I often get puzzled by reading forums, this one included, btw.

regards,

Jonas
 

Diane B

New member
No, I found the lens correction conversation interesting, but since I'm mostly interested in stills hope there will be more input from that viewpoint. So far I'm not sure if I gain enough to upgrade from G1 and GF1. I'm leaning to just waiting %>) but I'm always open to being persuaded LOL.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I don't have the GH2 but am interested. There are several long threads on dpreview (yes, I know.....LOL) which are showing some issues with more noise than expected in GH2 images. It appears to be a strange pattern also. BUT i'm curious, to get back to the original thread subject, of impressions of the GH2 for still shooting by those here who have one.
Diane,

I had lot of DSLRs over the past years (E1, D2X, D200, D300, E3, A900, D700, K5, 5D2) and I also bought into M43 last year with the EP2. I think I said that already earlier, the best high ISO performance of all these cameras has the D700 - no wonder - right? I also can attest that there were issues with higher ISO especially with the E1 (of course) and the E3, as there were with all the older designs like D2X, D200 etc. But from the range of current "state-of-the-art" DSLRs the GH2 performs very well - I would say it is in the top range WRT high ISO - I am talking of high ISO in a range between 1600 - 3200. And I only am using RAW - NO JPEG out of camera.

With that in mind you should not be disappointed with the GH2 I guess. Are there better performers in high ISO? Sure there are. But for a small and handy and light weight cam like the GH2 the results are stunning.

If Olympus had incorporated the GH2 sensor in the E5 instead of the older 12MP chip all together with their new "xyz-picture engine" and weak AA filter, I would have switched back to Olympus without any further thought - so excellent I find this new sensor in the GH2.

I can say nothing negative about this camera and I am usually very picky! Will there come a better camera in the future? Sure! Will I then buy this one? Most probably!

But for now the GH2 is the absolute optimum in my eyes WRT size, weight, usability, IQ and price ... did I forget something?
 

Amin

Active member
I don't have the GH2 but am interested. There are several long threads on dpreview (yes, I know.....LOL) which are showing some issues with more noise than expected in GH2 images. It appears to be a strange pattern also. BUT i'm curious, to get back to the original thread subject, of impressions of the GH2 for still shooting by those here who have one.
Diane, sorry for helping this thread off topic. Maybe a moderator could split it for us? We seem to have 3 interesting topics going here: GH2 impressions, Pana 7-14 impressions, and RAW format issues...

Hi,

Are you sure it was the LX2?
I tried to find information about it by googling. I came up with a lot of reviews and checked some of them (DPR, photographyreview, Steve's digicam and DCResource). Processed or manipulated raw files weren't mentioned anywhere and I also failed to find anything at the other hits I got.

Jonas
I am positive. That issue was largely missed by the big review sites. I am a bit embarrassed to refer you to my dated blog post (prominently displaying some of my misconceptions at that time about pixel pitch and DR, etc :eek:), but you can find some references there about the LX2 RAW issue: http://seriouscompacts.blogspot.com/2007/05/keeping-raw-raw.html
 

Terry

New member
I am positive. That issue was largely missed by the big review sites. I am a bit embarrassed to refer you to my dated blog post (prominently displaying some of my misconceptions at that time about pixel pitch and DR, etc :eek:), but you can find some references there about the LX2 RAW issue: http://seriouscompacts.blogspot.com/2007/05/keeping-raw-raw.html
This was definitely the case. It was not only the LX camera of that era it was also the the FZ50 which was the flagship superzoom. I forget the actual tests that were done but there were plenty of pixel geeks that went over the output with a fine tooth comb. At that point in time Panasonic had a horrible reputation (which is still not perfect) about their noise reduction. Go back to the cons on every review from the 2006-2007 timeframe and look at the cons. Each new camera revision also had a revision of the venus engine said "we've made it better" on NR and they would get slammed again.

Everyone always said don't touch the noise reduction leave it all to me....well they have and now people say eeeeeeeeew it has noise :loco:
 

Diane B

New member
Thanks. I guess i'm wondering if its worth the upgrade right now from the G1. I also shoot with a 5D and mostly fast primes but I've been transitioning more and more to m4/3 over the past 2 years (I no longer shoot commercially and don't print larger than 16 x 24 and mostly print in range of 13x19). I'm glad to hear others here being well pleased with it considering performance, price and size.

Diane,

I had lot of DSLRs over the past years (E1, D2X, D200, D300, E3, A900, D700, K5, 5D2) and I also bought into M43 last year with the EP2. I think I said that already earlier, the best high ISO performance of all these cameras has the D700 - no wonder - right? I also can attest that there were issues with higher ISO especially with the E1 (of course) and the E3, as there were with all the older designs like D2X, D200 etc. But from the range of current "state-of-the-art" DSLRs the GH2 performs very well - I would say it is in the top range WRT high ISO - I am talking of high ISO in a range between 1600 - 3200. And I only am using RAW - NO JPEG out of camera.

With that in mind you should not be disappointed with the GH2 I guess. Are there better performers in high ISO? Sure there are. But for a small and handy and light weight cam like the GH2 the results are stunning.

If Olympus had incorporated the GH2 sensor in the E5 instead of the older 12MP chip all together with their new "xyz-picture engine" and weak AA filter, I would have switched back to Olympus without any further thought - so excellent I find this new sensor in the GH2.

I can say nothing negative about this camera and I am usually very picky! Will there come a better camera in the future? Sure! Will I then buy this one? Most probably!

But for now the GH2 is the absolute optimum in my eyes WRT size, weight, usability, IQ and price ... did I forget something?
 

Jonas

Active member
(About LX2 and raw format)
I am positive. That issue was largely missed by the big review sites. I am a bit embarrassed to refer you to my dated blog post (prominently displaying some of my misconceptions at that time about pixel pitch and DR, etc :eek:), but you can find some references there about the LX2 RAW issue: http://seriouscompacts.blogspot.com/2007/05/keeping-raw-raw.html
Hi

I see nothing wrong in linking to your blog.
I read it and I also read about a third or so of the comments. Unless I missed something this was a case about on-board noise reduction circuits. I didn't see any other pre-raw "processing" mentioned.

I "know" from sources I have forgotten about now that Canon does this. I think I mentioned it up-thread somewhere. As it was described to me the Canon implementation is clever and without, or close to without, side effects. Panasonic were less successful.

I don't know if this is anything I would call processed raw files. If clever on-chip hardware sensor circuits does something then it is far from distortion correction or sharpening and everything else we usually do in post.

Again, I would be happy to learn about any other form of "processed" raw files.

Thank you for the link and the further links!
 

Diane B

New member
Amin, as I told Jonas, I was also interested in the conversation about the processing. I was just hoping to nudge folks into continuing to post ongoing impressions of still shootng with the GH 2 into the thread. All's good. %>)
 

CPWarner

Member
Daine,

I had a GF1, a G2 and now a GH2. Yes I switched around a bit and made the GF1-G2 switch due to always wanting the viewfinder and preferring the grip on the G2 to the flatter GF1. My thoughts are that the GH2 does have a nice step up in the image quality in stills over the G2. Higher ISO performace is more usable. I would not use over ISO 400 on the G2, but feel I can use even 1200 on the GH2. I would not do that for images I plan on printing large, but it is there for smaller sizes. I also feel there is a bit more dynamic range on the GH2. So overall, I am very happy with it. I have to admit that I have not taken a ton of images with the GH2, but with those that I did, I am very happy with what it produces.

I should add that autofocus is vastly improved over the GF1 and G2. Very usable. Also the EVF is even better. Lastly, the touchscreen is actually quite cool if you are on a tripod and doing macro work. Very nice for picking your focus point. That is the same as in the G2, but you are comparing to a G1, so that feature would be new to you.

Cliff
 

lcubed

New member
coming from a G1, i'm forever trying to use the front thumbwheel on the GH2.
it's going to take a while to retrain the muscle memory!!

i really do like the usability of the higher ISO values, since most of the places i tend to shoot disallow the use of a tripod.
 

Tesselator

New member
I think there are no OT parts to this thread so far. It's all on target even if varied somewhat.

Diane, Read back through the thread. Some people think it's worth the upgrade (for stills) and some do not. I'm one of the ones who don't - at least not at the current price point - there's just not enough difference between the GH2 and GH1 for me to justify a $700 price increase over the current GH1 ($500 if you live in the west as the GH1 is about $500 there and about $200 here - new).

This particular sub-forum is where you want to be if you want to be convinced to buy the newest Panasonic gear though. ;) This is the most pana-positive crowd I've run into on-line so far. ;) They even like what most others think is low grade, mediocre, and/or over priced. :D It's all good tho. It takes all kinds of folks to make the world go round and I'm all for that - but just a heads up as to where you are. And I'm not saying it's a bad place to be either. :) I haven't read the other sub-forums enough yet to know if this is the case for the entire site or just this sub-forum though I suspect it's only us M4/3'ers. If nothing else the positivity keeps us enthused about our hobby and purchase decisions! :thumbs: I think it's not an ideal place for critical objective equipment analysis tho. Of course, few are...
 

Diane B

New member
I do know where I am LOL--been here for over 2 years. I'm asking for ongoing impressions as people continue to shoot with it. Some people have immediate impressions based on what they are looking for specifically, others have impressions or opinions that build as they shoot with a camera. I thihk its a pretty new camera for "writ in stone" impressions quite yet. So--I hope people will continue to discuss their experiences shooting with the camera, pro and con..
 

CPWarner

Member
Tesselator,

Lets see. Direct comparison of a GH2 with 100-300 to a Canon 1DsII with 100-400L. Cost: $950 for the GH2 body (what I paid) and $600 for the 100-300mm (note there are better prices out there) for $1550. Used on the 1DsII is $1800 and the 100-400L around $1100 for $2900. Comparison images indoors on tripod there was better shadow detail on the GH2/100-300 but better highlight control on the 1DsII. So given the reputation of the 1DsII and real prices (I just sold mine so I know what one can get) my Panasonic gear was half the price for very similar performance in that range.

This forum has users of the equipment. Unlike other forums where the forums are overrun by people with an axe to bury, this one tends to get enthusiasts who use the equipment. That said, the only person I see posting that Panasonic gear is low grade, mediocre and over priced is you. So please provide links to those other posts from people actually using the equipment who think it is low grade, mediocre, and overpriced. To the contrary, I see other sites, for example Michael Reichmann, a frequent critic of equipment, who regularly posts images with a GH1 and now a GH2. That said, the GH2 has significant limits. I think action photos are difficult. The GH2 is better with its noticeably faster autofocus, but not as good as a dedicated higher speed camera such as a 7D.

I do not think that a GH2 is in the same league as 1DsIII or top line Nikon. I also think they are not as good as a M9. But if you feel the Panasonic m4/3 equipment is overpriced, do not go looking at a M9 and it's lenses! Personally, I think it is a good balance between capability, portability and price. But that is my opinion.

Cliff
 
Top