Panasonic GH2 Revisited at luminous Landscape
There is a new article about the GH2 written by Luminous Landscape (Click here). I am going to post only a few key points of his review but I higly recomment to read the full text!
Video: “Let it be enough to say that with a fast lens (for shallow DOF) it is to my mind the best video capable DSLR type camera on the market. ”
Viewfinder: “In fact, I would say that it is an many instances preferable to the dismal (meant literally) and small optical viewfinders found on the smaller and usually inexpensive DSLRs.”
Ergonomics: “It doesn’t have the elegance and stark simplicity of a Leica M9; in fact quite the opposite. But, given that it is a small form factor DSLR style camera with full features, not only for still photography but for video as well, it does a remarkable job of satisfy sometimes contradictory needs.”
Reliability: “I’ve owned the GH1 for a couple of years and now the GH2. Both have been totally reliable, as have all the Panssonic lenses that I own, with the exception of the new 100-300mm. It failed just a few days after I got to Mexico, with a locked-closed aperture”
Focusing: “Though the GH2 uses contrast detection AF, you wouldn’t know it from its speed.”
Mirror Vibration: “There is no Mirror Vibration”
Image Quality: “The difference between APS-C and MFT is de minimis.”
Battery: “poor battery performance”
The biggest issue? “The biggest issue with the Panasonic GH2 is that a great many people that want to buy one, can’t, because these cameras seem to constantly be in short supply” (P.S.: Amazon US (Click here) says “Usually ships in 1 to 2 months”)
Do you agree with the LL analysis?
And you can check if the GH2 is in Stock by visiting the direct product pages at Amazon, Adorama, B&H, J&R, eBay.
Share
Recent comments
Comment from snowflake: That explains why it was so sharp. My lo...
Comment from pdc: Actually the red moon was taken with a N...- Comment from snowflake: Hi pdc
Thanks for the link to your ph...
- Comment from pdc: So nice to see some constructive posts f...
calxn
2 years ago |> Image Quality: “The difference between APS-C and MFT is de minimis.”
I love how you left out the dozen caveats he mentions about the image quality of MFT. That one liner would lead people to believe he thinks there is minimal difference between APSC and MFT in all cases.
For the most part, I would agree with most of what he said. The one failing of the GH2 is still photo image quality. Something he LL clearly points out. If you want to use a GH2 for video, it sounds great. If you really love still photos more than video, it’s really hard to chose the GH2 over something like the D7000. In the same way, when I really want top image quality, it’s really hard for me to reach for my D7000 when I have access to a Hassy.
Panasonic is doing everything it can except for improving image quality. They also seem to be stuck in the DSLR mindset with the G and GH series. If they would fix both those problems, a lot more people would buy into m43. As it is today, there has been no new innovation in m43 since the introduction of the format with the exception of improved video and only in the GH series. The track record of m43 in the last 2 years is pretty scary and reminds me of the failures of regular 4/3.
calxn
2 years ago |Panasonic has one problem with trying to improve image quality. As LL mentions, m43 is a really tiny sensor. It’s just almost impossible for it to ever approach the IQ of an APSC or FF sensor. Physics just disallows it.
Outside of the law of physics, you would expect a new gen sensor to have some improvements in dynamic range. The APSC and FF sensors are still improving. Why aren’t Pana’s sensors? Its stagnation makes me wonder if they just don’t have the technology or cannot do some things because of patents belonging to companies who have been making sensors much longer (e.g. Kodak, Sony, Canon).
Igor
2 years ago |Sure, there are possibilities to improve the sensor, and the recent Panasonic patents demonstrate that they are researching various possibilities to make it better.
In fact, the GH2′s sensor was significantly redesigned, even though focus was more on video capabilities than on it’s still image quality. At the same time, the Panasonic GH2′s sensor, which receives a 60 in DXOMark tests, is on par with cameras like the Canon 1000D (DxOMark Sensor score = 61.6), Nikon D3000 (62.4) , and Sony A230 (63.4) – or in other words, the last generation of APS-C cameras, but that is to be expected with its smaller sensor. http://www.dxomark.com/…xOMark-reviews/DxOMark-review-for-advanced-compacts
I guess, you refer on the infamous Sony IMX071 sensor, however this sensor has it’s own limitations. BTW, what kind of “physics” you address in your comment, since the dynamic range is also proportional to the physical size of the potential well (so called “pixel size”)?
Dummy00001
2 years ago |> As LL mentions, m43 is a really tiny sensor. [...] Physics just disallows it.
Isn’t it time to end that crap?????
D7000 has 16MP APS-C sensor. Making out of it a 43 sensor would give you 10MP – with all the same physics. (370mm^2 vs. 225mm^2.)
So. It is possible to make a good 10MP 43 sensor – or half stop worse at 12MP; matching the actual APS-C generation – it is just Panasonic who is incapable of doing it.
Joel
2 years ago |agree 100% and I for one would be happy with that 10mp sensor (or 12mp minus half a stop if they feel the need)… I hope that is what the G3 has, stick to 12mp but just make a much better sensor…
TR
2 years ago |Well said!
cL
2 years ago |Larger pixel = less pixel. So yes, physics disallows it (not sure what your logic is). It’s like you’re arguing it’s possible to put 500 apples in a small basket (when it’s not true). But he was also wrong arguing not able to put 500 apples in that small basket makes that basket a bad basket.
caver3d
2 years ago |You clearly don’t understand the GH2 nor micro 4/3, and I would bet you don’t own one. I have the GH2 and other micro 4/3 and 4/3 cameras. The IQ is very, very good with the GH2. If you adjust the settings you can achieve OOC jpegs rivaling Olympus. I should know as I also have Oly cameras. And the 4/3 sensor is not a TINY sensor, as you mention. This false comment continues to pervade the internet. Being smaller than APS-C does not make it tiny. And dynamic range has improved significantly with the Pany sensors.
Enough with the uninformed, nonsensical comments on your part. Physics is definitely not your game.
Mike
2 years ago |calxn is here alot. He doesn’t appear to own anything in the 43 or m43 world, but he likes to tell us how horrible our gear is compared to his beloved Nikon. He really shouldn’t depress himself so much and find the rumors site for his chosen company.
More of the reason that any other image quality points were ‘left out’ was that the admin didn’t want to repeat each and every word in the source article. It’s all there.
What calxn does ignore is a growing trend of positive reviews from nearly each and every reviewer for the GH2.
Every format has it’s compromises, if you can’t outweigh a slight loss of stills quality to APS-C or larger formats against the fantastic video quality and smaller and lighter cameras and lenses, then why even bother looking at m43rds ever?
mclarenf3
2 years ago |@caver3d
I dearly love my Olympus bodies, but recently purchased a G2 because of the features/ergonomics. I really miss the beautiful OOC jpegs my Olympus bodies would deliver. Got any tips regarding what settings I should change in order to get the same or similar OOC jpegs out of my G2?
I’ve been playing with the WB and I love that it allows you to adjust it for each preset. So I’m almost there with the colours.
mahler
2 years ago |Unfortunately, you have no clue what m4/3 and the GH bodies are all about.
It is about camera systems that are more portable than tradtional DSLRs without sacrificing a significant amount of image quality. In this respect m4/3 is at the sweet spot. The mentioned D7000 and its lens system are far less portable than a comparable m4/3 system.
The GH body concept is the one that bring m4/3 really forward, because it is able to replace DSLR systems. The view finder is aleady better than most APSC optical view finders and within one or two model generations, it will close the gap to most DSLRs, while provifing additional advantages a DSLR system can never have.
Within 2 years m4/3 has achieved much more than the DSLR siblings in the same time. You just have to look how quick CDAF can now be. The G/GH form factor is an asset for m4/3 and not a dead end. The image quality of the GH2 has been significantly improved most notably in the high ISO range. This leads to a more constant image quality over the entire ISO range. APS-C IQ might still be slightly (very slightly) better, but this compromise is something many will accept in favor for the more protable system.
Mr. Reeee
2 years ago |“It is about camera systems that are more portable than tradtional DSLRs without sacrificing a significant amount of image quality. In this respect m4/3 is at the sweet spot. The mentioned D7000 and its lens system are far less portable than a comparable m4/3 system.”
This is exactly the point of the article. The marginally lower IQ of M4/3 images is to be expected for many reasons. He’s not glossing the differences over, but highlighting them as well as calling attention to the many positive aspects of M4/3 and the GH2 in particular.
When I was deciding which interchangeable lens camera to get, it boiled down to either a D7000 or the GH2. The trade-offs between IQ and size/weight were tough, but the D7000 wasn’t so MUCH better that I could live with the APSC size/weight penalty. Portability was the kicker and the GH2 won. And maybe I’ll buy a third battery.
If I REALLY want high IQ, I’ll get a D700 (or it’s successor) where the positives and negatives are far more apparent and the sacrifices and trade-offs will be more acceptable.
@calxn … Sensors aside, a lot of what could be improved can be done in software. ie: RAW shooting aside, why do Oly’ JPEGs have slightly better sharpness and a bit less noise than Panasonic JPEGs?
calxn
2 years ago |Funny how people always bring up weight and the fast CDAF of the pannys when the topic is dynamic range and high iso. I agree weight is a huge advantage of m43, given they’re all piles of plastic when the DSLRs from Nikon and Canon have weather sealed magnesium alloy bodies. I’m sure the fast CDAF is great. Having owned and used all the Nikon pro bodies, I know what a pleasure it is to have fast AF… some of the time. Unfortunately, unless you’re a spec freak or shoot sports, the fast AF is unappreciated 95% of the time. Plus, the fast CDAF doesn’t compare to the pro AF, especially for predictive continuous AF.
I don’t hang around the m43 forums just to harass you guys. Supposedly, the lame Oly and Pana corp read these comments (so the Admin say). I would love to see m43 succeed, but there has been zero improvements in the two areas I am more interested than the weight of plastic — DR and high ISO. You sugar coat everything and the single source m43 sensor producer will think everything is peachy. They’ll think “we’ll keep pushing the video boundary and ignore DR and high ISO because these droids out there will keep buying our stuff.”
Also, people always bring up the DxO numbers for the previous gen APS-C cameras like the rebels and D3100 when comparing the latest gen m43 sensor in the GH2. Who the hell want to own a D3100? The only APS-C I’ve been able to live with since going FF and medium format is the D7000 and Pentax K-5. I don’t think this new gen sensor is the last we’ve heard from Sony in DR and high ISO. I don’t think we’ve heard the last from Nikon in their FF sensor either. I would also bet Canon has been scheming to trump Sony’s and Nikon’s sensors. Panasonic… they’re not scheming against anyone. Their droid customers pump whatever they put out. Everything’s peachy. Then the NEX thing happened.
cL
2 years ago |You basically just killed yourself with your own argument…. You said it’s the physics, it’s true, it’s the physics that DR can’t be improved (unless there is major innovation). But m4/3 can’t help with that so it has to go with comparable overall IQ and it did, and it has the size advantage. So I don’t understand what are you arguing beside being a prick? Once APS-C hits 18MP, guess what? It’s the physics that its DR can only go downward.
George
2 years ago |This is unfortunately very true.
After switching back to APS-C, i again enjoy taking kids indoor at night @ ISO1600 and can print them on A4 and results are really good.
On the other hand, i currently own a Canon 60d, Live view and AF in movie mode is a huge joke and of course AF noise is unbearable even with an USM lens.
One more thing is i really miss going out with my g1 with 14-140, when i carry 18-135mm for my Canon, it sometimes it feels like i am carrying a bazooka.
But then again, i hate to say this but ISO matters and it matters big time. 18 months ago, i never cared ISO performance… cause, one cam’s ISO performance was worse, the other one’s was bad etc.. ,but today even @ 3200 ISO with a little lightroom touch i can get high quality A4 prints with APS-C sensors.
And it seems as more m4/3 becomes a problem for Canon-Nikon they will keep pushing for more MegaPixels and much more ISO performance, since this is the place where m4/3 can not compete. Because APSC allows but m4/3 does not …
As calxn wrote “Physics just disallows it.”
If you follow other rumor sites, you already know that Canon is going to release a 40MP camera late/early 2011/2012. And we will see much better ISO performance from both manufacturers. Other than fanboys of Oly and people like “Tom Hogan” who are great photographers, but zero knowledge when it comes to R&D,marketing,accounting,BA know that Oly is almost dead, they will just try to keep footsteps of other brands.
Even we got great lens news at the latest show, to be honest i only see Pana will keep pushing their movie mode of m4/3 but i think they already know that m4/3′s will be people’s second pocket cam. Not their main body. And i think if you look at GF2′s specs, you can understand this.
Hey but who knows maybe someone even Tom Hogan will step up and write a prescription for m4/3 camera manufacturers how they can save their companies
)))))
Daemonius
2 years ago |How can save it? Lower mpix to lets say 10, or keep 12, increase DR, decrease noise. Improve EVF and give it nice rugged body. It will be sucessful even between pros after that.. More mpix isnt needed, more DR and cleaner ISO, thats needed. Plus thanks to being quite small, they can maybe throw away AA filter..
Ranger 9
2 years ago |I’m sorry that the laws of physics don’t permit George to get good photos of his kids at ISO 1600 with a 4/3-size sensor. Being a not-very-discerning photographer, I shoot a lot with my GH2 at 1600 and 3200, and get results that I (and other people) consider perfectly satisfactory. But as Chico Marx said in one of those movies, “Who ya gonna believe — me, or your own eyes?” So I guess I’ll have to believe George’s interpretation of the laws of physics rather than the quality of my own results.
George
2 years ago |“Being a not-very-discerning photographer, I shoot a lot with my GH2 at 1600 and 3200, and get results that I (and other people) consider perfectly satisfactory”
Yeah just like you said. If you are satisfied with GH2′s Iso 1600 & 3200 performance then you are indeed “not-very-discerning photographer”
cL
2 years ago |Kids nowadays….
Ranger 9
2 years ago |I agree with most of it. I managed to get a GH2 during their brief December availability window in the Panasonic US online store, and have been using it a lot. It just works, for just about everything I want to shoot. Image-quality improvements don’t seem all that huge vs. the GH1, but the usability improvements (one-click focus assist, “constant preview,” mic levels etc.) are exactly what a photographer needs.
My main disagreement with the reviewer’s comments is about battery performance: It’s not so much that it’s “poor” (seems a bit less than the G1 and GH1, but not much) as that it’s worrisome because, like the camera, spare batteries are so hard to get! I lucked into finding ONE extra battery (via H and B Electronics) but still can’t take the camera out for a long shooting day without wondering in the back of my mind whether I’ll have enough juice to get through it. Once I have several extra batteries, as I do for the G1 and GH1, I’ll stop worrying.
zebarnabe
2 years ago |I’m wondering about battery performance… with GH1 I can take more than 1000 photos on a single charge – sure, I take lots of small bursts, rarely use LCD or flash (what I would call ideal battery usage conditions)…
Yesterday I took about 600 shots on an event (lots in RAW), today I took more than 400 in a travel to another country … I still have battery, not too much but it should handle 200 more or so… Basically my 16Gb cannot handle the usage of 2 battery charges…
So… Is GH2 battery only able to handle 250 shots?
Ropo
2 years ago |Calxn
You seem to be ignorant of the facts re sensor size may i recommend this article from a Physicist.
http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/sensor-size.html
zebarnabe
2 years ago |Nice article, it did not teach me anything, but gives a very nice argumentation (and I quite agree with it).
Still… some APC sensors perform quite better than micro four third ones (DR and ISO), but they aren’t cheap, I will be waiting for a GH3 or even GH5 before getting an upgrade from my GH1… and most likely get some better glass first …
That website looks quite awesome in other written articles, thanks for sharing :]
Daemonius
2 years ago |It should have battery grip and better batteries.
APS-C vs m4/3 .. hm, depends on which APS-C.
GH2 is good, if you know how to process it, you can get great photos. If you dont, well, you should use something else that doesnt need processing magic to work. Pentax K-5 for example.
GH2 lacks as every m4/3 in DR and has a bit noise even at base ISO. While both can be “fixed” by clever processing and shooting, its still there and requires some aditional work. So nothing for newbies. Plus if you want really good quality out of GH2, you need good lens and good software. Neither of this is cheap. To get best results from GH2, you need quite a lot of money and time.
MP Burke
2 years ago |At the risk of plagiarism it’s worth quoting further from the Luminous Landscape article to clarify Michael Reichmann’s opinions on the GH2′s image quality.
In one section he says:
“…. with the same Megapixel count, (four thirds) will not have as high image quality as larger sensors, especially low noise at higher ISOs. That’s the bad news.
But – is this difference visible? I would suggest that at normal print sizes (up to 13X19″) the answer is likely no. Theory is one thing, but practice is another. Do you regularly print your work at 20X24″ or larger? Great, then you should be using at least a 24MP camera and likely medium format. Smaller? Then, unless you’re pixel peeping, the difference between APS-C and MFT is de minimis.”
Surely the point here is that if you are regularly having to impress people with bigger than A3 prints or looking for huge file sizes, the change from 4/3 to APS-C is not big enough and you will be looking to medium format.
Further down in the article he says:
“I have an Epson 3880 printer here, and have been making 13X19″ prints, with a number of them now framed and hanging on my walls in San Miguel, as well as several given and sold to friends and acquaintances here. No one has yet said – Gee, I wish you’d shot these with a larger format camera.
Is the GH2′s image quality good enough? Yes, it is for me, and for my purposes while I live in Mexico this winter. If I need higher resolution or better high ISO capability then I’ll have other choices available down the road, but for the type of shooting that I bought it for it excels.”
These statements accord with my experiences with my Panasonic G2 with its sadly outdated sensor. It was meant to be a second camera with my Bronica RF 645 being used for higher quality landscape type photography and the G2 being used for macro, videos etc. In reality photos and videos from the G2 are often viewed on my TV and I find myself increasingly shooting in the 16:9 format (if the subject allows), despite the loss of pixels, because it fills the TV screen.
On the other hand, 30 MP scans from medium format Velvia film often end up being reduced to 1MP or less for display on the web.
Thus I usually find the resolution performance of the sensor “good enough” and as stated in my review of the G2, think Panasonic should prioritise the dynamic range performance, which can impact the appearance of photographs, whether viewed at 100% or not.
Chris
2 years ago |I always take what the LL (and Online Photographer) have to say with a grain of salt. They’re hyperbolic and self aggrandizing salesmen at heart, and not to be entirely trusted.
George
2 years ago |This is unfortunately very true.
After switching back to APS-C, i again enjoy taking kids indoor at night @ ISO1600 and can print them on A4 and results are really good.
On the other hand, i currently own a Canon 60d, Live view and AF in movie mode is a huge joke and of course AF noise is unbearable even with an USM lens.
One more thing is i really miss going out with my g1 with 14-140, when i carry 18-135mm for my Canon, it sometimes it feels like i am carrying a bazooka.
But then again, i hate to say this but ISO matters and it matters big time. 18 months ago, i never cared ISO performance… cause, one cam’s ISO performance was worse, the other one’s was bad etc.. ,but today even @ 3200 ISO with a little lightroom touch i can get high quality A4 prints with APS-C sensors.
And it seems as more m4/3 becomes a problem for Canon-Nikon they will keep pushing for more MegaPixels and much more ISO performance, since this is the place where m4/3 can not compete. Because APSC allows but m4/3 does not …
As calxn wrote “Physics just disallows it.”
If you follow other rumor sites, you already know that Canon is going to release a 40MP camera late/early 2011/2012. And we will see much better ISO performance from both manufacturers. Other than fanboys of Oly and people like “Tom Hogan” who are great photographers, but zero knowledge when it comes to R&D,marketing,accounting,BA know that Oly is almost dead, they will just try to keep footsteps of other brands.
Even we got great lens news at the latest show, to be honest i only see Pana will keep pushing their movie mode of m4/3 but i think they already know that m4/3′s will be people’s second pocket cam. Not their main body. And i think if you look at GF2′s specs, you can understand this.
Hey but who knows maybe someone even Tom Hogan will step up and write a prescription for m4/3 camera manufacturers how they can save their companies )))))
Spoo
2 years ago |Is there an echo in here, or do you really feel the need to post the same message twice???
Rupert Brun
2 years ago |I ordered a GH2 as soon as I could. I collected it the day it arrived in the shop, one of the first shipment into the UK. I took it back for a full refund. Yes, a great camera in many ways but a full stop less dynamic range than the GH1! Come on Panasonic, stop cramming too many pixels onto what is, as others have said, a small sensor. Battery life is also (as predicted) poor, vastly more powerful image processing than the GH1 and a smaller battery. And the jpeg quality is, in my view, worse than that of the G1 at base ISO. I grant it’s better at higher ISO but I shoot most of my pictures at base ISO. Panasonic really lost the plot on this one in mhy view, despite the fact that some people have managed to get great results from RAW I think this is as much to do with the co-incident arrival of Lightroom 3 with its superb RAW processing of G series images.
YouDidntDidYou
2 years ago |not too sure why you “have to” shoot at base ISO, deciding to take it back for a refund after one days use (11th December) seems a bit extreme…
Rupert Brun
2 years ago |Sorry, I shoujld have been clearer. I took it back after 1 week use. Of course you don’t have to shoot at base ISO but you get the best quality if you do. With the G1 the quality starts higher than the GH2 at base ISO – I’m just acknowledging that it deteriorates faster on the G1 as the ISO goes up.
Daemonius
2 years ago |All G cameras require RAW and bit knowledge of processing to get most of it. JPEGs are no go, cause frankly.. Panasonic JPEG engine sux. Compared to Olympus its joke and horrible one. But RAW, thats different.
If you know how, you can get more from any G than any Olympus. But RAW only. And actually LR3 isnt best, Capture One from Phase One is best. You can get colors and photo, you see on Panasonic back LCD with that SW, with minimum effort. And more, if you know how..
DR of those two cameras (GH1/GH2) is pretty much same, just GH2 tends to underexpose and use different curve, so it has bit less contrast. Nothing that few clicks cant change.
Only thing I can agree is, that GH2 is bit grainy at base ISO, but it has bit more MPix, so if you downsize it.. its actually same as G1 or better. Plus its capable of resolving more detail than G1.
You should give it much longer chance.. Btw. what lens have you used?
cL
2 years ago |Sounds like G1 is better to me…. They probably upped the base ISO so high ISO looks better, when the ISO 1600 really is the old ISO 800.
As for tone curve and contrast, it’s probably subjective. Some people prefer lower contrast because it retains more detail, then you go ahead and up the contrast in Photoshop without sacrificing DR as if you shot with high contrast to begin with (yes, that’s one trick to manually increase your DR without paying $$$ for better sensor). Didn’t I tell you guys learn a little photography theories help achieve better photos without better cameras?
hd72
2 years ago |So, quality is poorer at the base ISO, but you shot at the base ISO because that’s what gives the best quality? I think we’ve found your problem.
I took way too many photos at ISO 100 on my GF1 before realizing that I’d get more dynamic range at ISO 200 instead. Now I only ever use ISO 100 if I’m trying to shoot a large aperture in bright light -almost like a one-stop neutral density filter.
It’s an oversimplification (and a myth) that the lowest ISO always gives the best quality – but that’s what we’re frequently told. There’s a reason Olympus removed ISO 100 from their latest m4/3 camera – the real ‘base’ has been ISO 200 all along.
Ulli
2 years ago |I think the iso 100 option is for smoother image quality…i use it alot because in many cases i don’t need wide dynamic range.
Rupert Brun
2 years ago |> So, quality is poorer at the base ISO, but you shot at the base ISO because that’s what gives the best quality? I think we’ve found your problem.
I guess English isn’t your first language. If you read my post agin you will see that what I said was that the GH2 is poorer than the G1 at base ISO. But both give their best quality at base ISO obviousl! Straight comparison of in-camera jpegs shows conclusively that the GH2 is noiser and softer than the G1 at base ISO. When you get up beyond 800 ISO the GH2 is ahead but obviously much lower quality than it was at 160ISO. And I do agree you have to use RAWQto get the best out of G series cameras – but DXoMark which just tests the sensors shows the GH1 has one stop lower noise and wider dynnamic range than the GH2. It’s there very clearly for all to see. Of coures some people who haave spent a fortune on a GH2 might not like to admit that the GH1 gives better quality, RAW or JPG.
John
2 years ago |All I use is for my job is the GH2 and my clients love the results:
http://Www.alphaVR.com/tours/properties/view/128
pdc
2 years ago |At the price point the GH2 presently has no equals. If stills is your game, but you want the portability of MFT, don’t get a GH2, and wait for the G3 specs to come out (March/April). If you can’t wait to get into MFT buy a used G1 (bodies going for about $250) – the investment in the lenses is worth it. The G1/G2/G10/GH1 will give you excellent stills in good light shooting at lower ISOs, but blown highlights and shadow detail clipping will occur in high DR scenes. The above whining about Panasonic JPEG processing is just ignorant BS – shoot JPEGs and RAW simultaneously, and you will find that you keep the JPEGs as often as you process RAWs.
Redkite
2 years ago |I find this constant moaning about an excellent camera very depressing. I’ve had my GH2 since December 2010 and find it a superb camera and a joy to use. I post regularly to Flickr, and I belong to a local Flickr group. When I compare my images with those from my Canik companions I believe mine to be just as good and often better. Given the portability of my system over an equivalent Canik system I conclude that the GH2 is a clear winner.
Also, I’m surprised that more mention isn’t made of the G system’s excellent live view – a must for serious photographers. I’ve tested Canik’s so called live view and find it to be useless in comparison to the G series cameras.
I know that my GH2 isn’t a Canon 5DMKII but some of us don’t want to lug that sort of bulk around and the the extra quality from the 5DMKII is minimal unless you want to make huge prints and I don’t.
I’ve been taking pics for 50 years and have used all systems. Worked in the photographic industry for 43 years.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oxfordshirechurches
dko22
2 years ago |my brother recently got a Canon 500D. He was astonished how much crisper and more detailed my images were than his. This was with the G1. Is it PP (yes you do really need to use RAW with the Pannys whatever some people say)? Is it the lens (of course kit lenses or superzooms for this system hardly get the best out of the camera)? Or do we persist in spreading myths about the so-called poor IQ of the G system. OK, high ISO isn’t that great and that cam can struggle even more than others with high contrast lighting which are a couple of reasons why I have just got the GH2. Video is just a bonus.
But as the E5 has shown, it is possible to get superb images out of even the older sensors. I spent quite some time comparing my D700 to the G1 and concluded that in average-good lighting conditions, there is virtually no difference in IQ. And so I sold the D700. Then I invested in the 7-14 and 20 which gave even better results. The G1 does require a bit more work as you need to nail the exposure but then that’s why the system has liveview –yes, a proper functional liveview which doesn’t require a tripod to make it any more than a tick on a spec list. Photography is a package, not just the camera. If LR3 can work miracles with the G’s then the additional cost for this software is a relatively small part of the total system cost. And then there’s the printer. And did we mention lenses? Oh yes, I forgot about the small matter of weight. And not having to clean the sensor ever other week –I’m surprised how little emphasis is given to the latter.
Paulus
2 years ago |+1
pdc
2 years ago |So nice to see a constructive post from an experienced photographer.
snowflake
2 years ago |Progress – Physics predicts it.
It is funny, about a decade ago I remember everyone saying that digital cameras will never equal the quality of film. Now, most professional photographs are shot with digital cameras, and the use of film is gradually disappearing.
I look back over my photographs shot with my old Canon F1 camera in the 70’s shot with L series lenses and they look no better than what I shoot now with the GH1, in fact, the pictures with the GH1 are better.
The progress in sensor technology has nowhere reached the limits of physics yet. The foveon sensor offers the potential to have a m4/3 sized sensor to exceed current full frame sensors in dynamic range and color rendition.
Also, there are the constantly surprising techniques and innovations used to improve the details that can be extracted by ever smaller sensors. Sensor technology keeps getting better and it shows no sign of slowing down yet.
The biggest area for potential improvement is in software processing that integrates with the sensor.
The Eye is actually a poor camera, but the ability of the brain to process and integrate images, allows us to see the big picture (wide angle) or focus like a moderate telephoto. We can see a picture with wide variations in brightness since we can integrate in our mind the image over time. We also have some idea as to what an image looks like and we can fill in the blanks, as evidence by the fact we do not see the blind spot created by the optic nerve’s connection to our retina.
In many ways Image processing is becoming like our brain. Eventually the ability to post process the image with a dynamic integration with the sensor will allow extremely high resolution pictures with unbelievable dynamic range at amazingly high ISO settings. Just as there are purists today saying that m4/3rd just do not offer truly high quality prints, in the near future the same discussion will be reoccurring over sensors that are even smaller.
How will this be done? I think I know, but that is hinted at in the post.
ecdy
2 years ago |To get away from sensor size and to ergonomics, I disagree with “It doesn’t have the elegance and stark simplicity of a Leica M9; in fact quite the opposite.”
I don’t have a GH2 but do have two G1s, and also about twenty Leicas, from something dating to the twenties to a few M6s, and never found a digital camera that I thought gave satisfactory quality with Leica-like “elegance” and ease of use until I got the G1. The 14-140 and the Olympus 9-18 zoom lenses are vewry convenient and give excellent image quality in fair-go-bright light, and I use Leica or Canon lenses with adapter and manual focus when I work in very dim light. With manual focus using the evf and quick-change bayonet lens mount the G1 is just as easy and quick to use as my M6. And nowhere near as heavy and as cumbersome as the thick M9.
The only problem with using Leica/Canon rangefinder lenses with the G1 is that fast ones are not available with short enough focal lengths; the fastest I have is a Summilux 35/1.4 which comes out to 70mm for M4/3. I think there will be a movement by M4/3 lens makers to make faster wide-angles. Considering that for M4/3 digital correction is possible, the image size is a lot smaller than full frame 35mm, and the lens flange to sensor distance is a lot smaller than it is in film 35s and in DSLRs, it should be relatively easy for any lens maker with reasonable software to design a fast WA. I’d vote for a 14mm (28mm equivalent) f1.4; I’d be pretty happy at ISO 1600 with that, especially considering that there were no reasonable ISO 1600 color films back in the day.
pdc
2 years ago |So nice to see some constructive posts from owners of Panasonic G1 and GH2 systems who appreciate what Panasonic has achieved in less than 3 years, and who look forward to the great future for MFT.
Here are some stills of mine – let’s share our good experiences:
https://picasaweb.google.com/pdcsylva/LumixGsystemSamples
snowflake
2 years ago |Hi pdc
Thanks for the link to your photos. Nice work.
All the photos are nice but what first caught my eye was what I assume is a moonrise given the extra red color.
For me, all the camera has to do is what you have pointed out, take pictures that I can enjoy taking and sharing.
pdc
2 years ago |Actually the red moon was taken with a Nikon R60 (red) filter.
snowflake
2 years ago |That explains why it was so sharp. My low horizon moon shots are much less sharp. To much atmosphere.
Good trick