Reading mode: Light Dark

GH2 Hands-on from Photokina (EOSHD.com ) - very positive!

Go to last post
E

Everdog

Senior Member
Messages
4,837
Reaction score
174
Location
OH, US
I copied the post by timiano because the title said GH1 (I hope you don't mind).
timiano said:
Some sample shots, not terribly scientific, but the GH2 looks like it's going to be awesome.
Click to expand...
Member said:
Looks like we're reasonable up to ISO 3200 and then it starts pushing its limits...all be it still usable to a fashion.
Click to expand...
Member said:
Nice.
Click to expand...
http://www.eoshd.com/content/354-Panasonic-GH2-Hands-on-and-sample-footage

The reviewer from a Canon site says:

"The camera resolves a lot more detail than the Canon DSLRs or the Nikon D7000, which look very soft in comparison."

I think that is high praise.
 
Everdog said:
ISO 800 is silky smooth, it looks like ISO 200 on the GH1. It really is virtually noiseless. ISO 1600 is clean and ISO 3200 perfectly useable especially in video mode.
Click to expand...
Now this was a prototype so the final product may be different. My guess it will either be the same or slightly better.
Everdog said:
•The image is free of moire and aliasing.
Click to expand...
Tht is good news, but I am not sure how much testing they really did.
Everdog said:
•For run and gun, the AF is by far the best system over Canon and Nikon's.
Click to expand...
Does that mean Canon and Nikon are better? That would make sense because they have faster motors in their high-end lenses. From what I have read, the GH2 faster than most kit lenses.
 
Canon and Nikon offer very poor af in video almost useless, although the new d7000 promises an improvement, all in all though they dont even register as having af in video mode.
 
I don't think anyone was whining about too many MP. Most of us were concerned that the focus on MP would be a marketing gimmick to cover a failure to improve IQ, noise, and DR.

The evidence so far seems to indicate that those fears may be unfounded. And that the GH2 is looking very nice. The evidence so far is a bit confusing, but the video looks to be much improved. Focus speed seems to be improved and there are some nice features added (like touch LCD). That said...

It's a bit early to claim a complete win. There are a lot of fanboys running around shouting "awesome camera" and detractors screaming "it's junk". The reality is somewhere between extremes. IMO, detailed, structured testing like that performed here at DPReview and longer-term usage reports by owners of the GH2 is the only way to make a valid purchasing decision.

Which brings me to my last point - purchasing decision...

Unlike the lookie-loos who are merely interested in the GH2, some of us (including ME) want to buy a new camera in the short term. Ever since I read about the GH1, I realized that a mirror-less, video-optimized, combo cam was the right camera for me. The only issue was finding one that had all the minimum-level features and quality I wanted. For me, it's not theoretical; it's about where I slap down my hard-earned money.

The GH1 came close but didn't quite make it for me. The Sony A-55 was also close. OVF DSLRs like the D7000, 7D, and 5DII aren't even on my radar screen. The GH2 is VERY close.

All the babbling by marketing people, or hysterics by detractors and fanboys don't make a dent on my opinion. I want facts or experience based on actual usage. If someone doesn't have actual experience with the camera or can show me factual evidence, then their opinion is just intellectual dissembling. (No offense meant to any specific individual.)

Regards,

Dan.
Everdog said:
Everdog said:
ISO 800 is silky smooth, it looks like ISO 200 on the GH1. It really is virtually noiseless. ISO 1600 is clean and ISO 3200 perfectly useable especially in video mode.
Click to expand...
Now this was a prototype so the final product may be different. My guess it will either be the same or slightly better.
Everdog said:
•The image is free of moire and aliasing.
Click to expand...
Tht is good news, but I am not sure how much testing they really did.
Everdog said:
•For run and gun, the AF is by far the best system over Canon and Nikon's.
Click to expand...
Does that mean Canon and Nikon are better? That would make sense because they have faster motors in their high-end lenses. From what I have read, the GH2 faster than most kit lenses.
Click to expand...
 
Dan Clark said:
Dan Clark wrote:

The only issue was finding one that had all the minimum-level features and quality I > wanted. For me, it's not theoretical; it's about where I slap down my hard-earned > money.
Click to expand...
Hey Dan

Only thing I sometimes don't like about this approach, and I've been there, is the waiting for the perfect camera. Circa 3 years ago, if someone slapped a GH2 in your hand, you probably would have thought you were never going to buy a camera ever again.

But, there's always going to be something on the horizon that raises that bar that bit higher every time. If you're in the market to get a new camera, my suggesting is to buy now.

Personally, the GH1 wasn't perfect for me (coming from 5D), but very suitable. The GH2 is what I wanted really, but it didn't exist. Did I wait, no. I bought the GH1, knowing that when the next better quality revision comes around that I'd be buying that too. And you know what, I've enjoyed the GH1 immensely and don't regret the compromise.

Now the GH2 is here, and it lives up to what I think it is going to be, I'll probably settle with it and skip a generation from now on. I know it's hard earned cash, but if you're in the market and ready to buy, get it bought :-)
 
and love it, cant be criticised for wanting more of the same, to some extent that what we are getting, whats not to like? ;-)
 
Everdog said:
Everdog said:
•For run and gun, the AF is by far the best system over Canon and Nikon's.
Click to expand...
Does that mean Canon and Nikon are better? That would make sense because they have faster motors in their high-end lenses. From what I have read, the GH2 faster than most kit lenses.
Click to expand...
Im pretty sure hes referring to video mode AF. In fact, most of his hands-on is in reference to video mode. I cant see it being better than the 51pt AF system in the D3s... that would be something.

Its also interesting he doesnt mention Sony, since the PDAF in their a33/55 is on a totally different planet.
 
Dan Clark said:
...All the babbling by marketing people, or hysterics by detractors and fanboys don't make a dent on my opinion. I want facts or experience based on actual usage. If someone doesn't have actual experience with the camera or can show me factual evidence, then their opinion is just intellectual dissembling. (No offense meant to any specific individual.)
Click to expand...
You'll have to wait for objective facts. They'll start to trickle out once reviewers get their hands on production cameras.

I've used Panasonic cameras and specifically Micro Four Thirds cameras extensively, choosing the system after abandoning traditional DSLRs. So I have a pretty good idea what to expect from Panasonic and am reasonably certain that I will acquire a GH2 - barring any unforeseen issues with the camera of course.

--
Björn

http://www.bmupix.com
 
panasonic processing of iso3200 is very bad... lets hope the sensor doesnt have that kind of blotches

do you think the iso of panasonic gh2 is underrated as in gh1?

my e-pl1 takes better jpgs at that setting or almost as good

does someone knows what is the maxximum usable iso of a e-pl1in video mode compared with gh-1? the camera doesnt have banding in video it just inst 1080p but we cant have all and even iso1600 withnoise filter offhas many details
 
Good..and thanks! Even though this may be a prototype, it's nice to see actually pictures and video that are not staged. Also, these are Canon guys!...who do a good job of being unbiased.
 
Everdog said:
timiano said:
Some sample shots, not terribly scientific, but the GH2 looks like it's going to be awesome.
Click to expand...
Everdog said:
Looks like we're reasonable up to ISO 3200 and then it starts pushing its limits...all be it still usable to a fashion.
Click to expand...
Everdog said:
Nice.
Click to expand...
http://www.eoshd.com/content/354-Panasonic-GH2-Hands-on-and-sample-footage

The reviewer from a Canon site says:

"The camera resolves a lot more detail than the Canon DSLRs or the Nikon D7000, which look very soft in comparison."

I think that is high praise.
Click to expand...
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
 
Everdog said:
timiano said:
Some sample shots, not terribly scientific, but the GH2 looks like it's going to be awesome.
Click to expand...
Everdog said:
Looks like we're reasonable up to ISO 3200 and then it starts pushing its limits...all be it still usable to a fashion.
Click to expand...
Everdog said:
Nice.
Click to expand...
http://www.eoshd.com/content/354-Panasonic-GH2-Hands-on-and-sample-footage

The reviewer from a Canon site says:

"The camera resolves a lot more detail than the Canon DSLRs or the Nikon D7000, which look very soft in comparison."

I think that is high praise.
Click to expand...
--The thing I find most exciting about the GH2 is the astonishing fast contrast auto focus reported to be only 0.1 sec and by far the fastest and possibly more accurate of any DSLR, or ILS, or mirror system I know. This was the one area which mirrorless contrast auto focus cameras were said to be far behind the faster phase detection auto focus DSLRs and not likely to catch up. The GH2 auto focus
for video is second to none by a long way according to most initial reports.

If the new senor is also gaining from 1-2 stops in high ISO with less noise that is

even more good news. The better and slightly larger EPSON EVF makes it even better.

While I earlier wished that it would be in the form of the LC rangefinder style with inbody EVF I now am glad they waited so maybe the GF2 or whatever it will be called can have the same GH2 sensor and imaging engine and fast AF and 5 fps? I only hope that Pany is able to produce enough new GH2 sensors to use for both models and meet demands.

Just my two bits
 
timiano,

The operative phrase here is "minimum-level features and quality". I've never been concerned about perfect. I'm more concerned about "is it good enough".

The GH1 is a great camera, but it lacks a few things I want including manual control of the audio and a bit better image quality (noise, DR, color, etc.). Since I knew the GH2 was coming, I decided to wait.

Now that it's almost here, I have a decision to make - buy the GH2 or maybe a Sony A55 with the upcoming manual control firmware. When the reviews are in, I'll compare the two cameras and probably choose one. (I think I might like the A77, but it looks to be a year out.) Unless there's a major gotcha with the GH2, I'll probably buy it. If not and the new firmware fixes the minor issues with A55, that will be my second choice.

Like I said in my post, I need facts about these two cameras. I'm not really interested in lots of speculation from folks who have never owned either camera. That said, the feedback I've received from the GH1 community has helped me tremendously. The GH1 is a great, ground-breaking camera. Not perfect, but still great. It's existence helped me understand what I want and need.

With the GH2, I'm looking for quality evidence that the GH1's minor issues have been resolved reasonably well. I could care less about most of its new features, especially the megapixel count. The audio is now manually adjustable. Noise seems to be better. The video codec looks like its better.

The GH2's features seem to be "good enough" for me. It seems to meet my needs "good enough". That's what counts. When "seem to be" changes to "are" (based on quality evidence), then it's a done deal.

Regards,

Dan.
timiano said:
timiano said:
Dan Clark wrote:

The only issue was finding one that had all the minimum-level features and quality I > wanted. For me, it's not theoretical; it's about where I slap down my hard-earned > money.
Click to expand...
Hey Dan

Only thing I sometimes don't like about this approach, and I've been there, is the waiting for the perfect camera. Circa 3 years ago, if someone slapped a GH2 in your hand, you probably would have thought you were never going to buy a camera ever again.

But, there's always going to be something on the horizon that raises that bar that bit higher every time. If you're in the market to get a new camera, my suggesting is to buy now.

Personally, the GH1 wasn't perfect for me (coming from 5D), but very suitable. The GH2 is what I wanted really, but it didn't exist. Did I wait, no. I bought the GH1, knowing that when the next better quality revision comes around that I'd be buying that too. And you know what, I've enjoyed the GH1 immensely and don't regret the compromise.

Now the GH2 is here, and it lives up to what I think it is going to be, I'll probably settle with it and skip a generation from now on. I know it's hard earned cash, but if you're in the market and ready to buy, get it bought :-)
Click to expand...
 
safaridon said:
Everdog said:
timiano said:
Some sample shots, not terribly scientific, but the GH2 looks like it's going to be awesome.
Click to expand...
safaridon said:
Looks like we're reasonable up to ISO 3200 and then it starts pushing its limits...all be it still usable to a fashion.
Click to expand...
safaridon said:
Nice.
Click to expand...
http://www.eoshd.com/content/354-Panasonic-GH2-Hands-on-and-sample-footage

The reviewer from a Canon site says:

"The camera resolves a lot more detail than the Canon DSLRs or the Nikon D7000, which look very soft in comparison."

I think that is high praise.
Click to expand...
--The thing I find most exciting about the GH2 is the astonishing fast contrast auto focus reported to be only 0.1 sec and by far the fastest and possibly more accurate of any DSLR, or ILS, or mirror system I know. This was the one area which mirrorless contrast auto focus cameras were said to be far behind the faster phase detection auto focus DSLRs and not likely to catch up.
Click to expand...
1. They tested it at the widest end, 14 mm and at the distance from 2 m to infinty. That is an extreme short movement of the lens elements within a large DOF. A virtually meaningless figure.
2. Live view can only hold up at 3 fps.
safaridon said:
Just my two bits
Click to expand...
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
 
The distinction between processed video and RAW still shot seems to be lost on most of the enthusiasts in this thread...
 
Fair enough Dan.

One thing note about audio control, is that it is adjustable, but not while recording,...only before you hit the record button. You can monitor the levels, just not ride the pots. Also worth noting, is there isn't an audio monitor/headphone socket.

'Apparently' audio is transmitted over HDMI though.
 
timiano,

This is the kind of good information that I need. It helps me understand the gritty details of the camera. In this case, while I would like to ride the levels, it's not critical. In other words, if that's all the GH1 can offer for audio, it's still probably good enough. It's just a matter of understanding all of these subtle details.

Regards,

Dan.
timiano said:
Fair enough Dan.

One thing note about audio control, is that it is adjustable, but not while recording,...only before you hit the record button. You can monitor the levels, just not ride the pots. Also worth noting, is there isn't an audio monitor/headphone socket.

'Apparently' audio is transmitted over HDMI though.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top