Reading mode: Light Dark

GH2 vs Canon EOS 60D

Go to last post
ET2 said:
that website has no credibility whatsoever. Remember his Nex-7 in Septmember claim? The author is a troll anyway, as his posts to Sony forum showed a few month ago.He is usually ignorant and clueless too. Any idiot can start a web site. That does not make them an authority on future products.

There won't be any adapter that would allow full time AF with Canon lenses on M4/3 bodies. Want to bet?
Click to expand...
No, but don't take bets yet :), there's a chance he could be right:

http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-birger-to-make-eos-lens-to-m43-adpater-with-aperture-control/

If Birger found the way to control aperture electronically, why can't they dig the focus signal codes as well? They've done it before for other mounts, according to 43rumors.
 
Adapter is expected to cost $700. Seems quite expenses considering the slow AF.
 
GH2 is better than the hacked GH1 in video quality terms, especially at high ISOs. I have both side by side on my desk and it is 100% the case.
 
There is already a similar adapter on the market for RED cinema cameras. That they're bringing on to the M4/3rds market is NOT beyond doubt, but the exact details are a bit thin on the ground right now and not final.
 
Incorrect, the GH2 is far better. I have both the hacked GH1 and GH2. I'm rather familiar with this, trust me.

The two are sat side by side on my desk!

The high ISO performance is a big step froward. The image processing allows it's video mode to surpass the Canon 60D.

But the 60D is still better for stills at high ISOs.
Porkins Wingman said:
As far as I can establish at this stage (just from reading on internet) the current GH2 video performance is no better than what is possible with the GH13, but the GH13 is certainly preferred to any dslr for video.

(GH13 = hacked GH1)
Click to expand...
 
for recording? I would love to understand this in more detail, if you could post and example on vimeo of the raw hdmi o/p being recorded you will get a lot of hits on your site? we are all waiting with baited breath to see this ;-)
 
The GH2 has great noise control because of it's 3 core image processing CPU, that is definitely a strength.

But I have more noise in my 3200 and 6400 RAW comparison shots which I just took with my GH2 compared to the same shots with 60D.

Weird that DPReview shots are much closer! But then they're not shooting a shadowy dim lit subject, which is where CMOS noise predominantly lives.

You can get clean well exposed surfaces at ISO 3200 on a CMOS and the noise is half compared to in the shadows and underexposed areas of the image.

I think DPReview need to revise their testing methodology to take this into account. Their coloured squares are too bright.
 
Philip Bloom has the necessary kit for that, it's over £2000 and I don't have one yet and because I like the guy I'll let him grab the scoop :) I have got the rest, it's not good to be too greedy ;)

You should get 100Mbit ProRes 422 from the HDMI feed on a decent recorder and it will look very nice indeed. HDMI output is uncompressed on the GH2. Not RAW, but still, pretty cool.
 
I'm buying the GH2 for stills and video regardless of what comes out of the HDMI, but clean, overlay-free HDMI is a nice feature. That said, it's my understanding that the GH2's HDMI feed is 420, not 422.

Not quite as good, but still very nice.

Regards,

Dan.
CommanderSpike said:
Philip Bloom has the necessary kit for that, it's over £2000 and I don't have one yet and because I like the guy I'll let him grab the scoop :) I have got the rest, it's not good to be too greedy ;)

You should get 100Mbit ProRes 422 from the HDMI feed on a decent recorder and it will look very nice indeed. HDMI output is uncompressed on the GH2. Not RAW, but still, pretty cool.
Click to expand...
 
It is now generally accepted that dxomark is flawed and just measures the imager and not overall quality of the image or video produced. The fact that you keep hyping dxomark (and Sony and Pentax) does not do you service.

Your consistent bashing of u4/3's cameras, Panasonic and Olympus is well known and understood by DPReview members. You've been reported as a troll many times.
ET2 said:
Adventsam said:
CommanderSpike said:
Correct
Click to expand...
But not in raw, I think we are seeing the GH2 as good if not better until 6400,
Click to expand...
Yes, in RAW, and even DPR review says GH2 is behind for noise, and it's definitely behind according to dxomark.
Click to expand...
 
GH2 is very impressive up to ISO 6400. It clearly looks better than the A55 which is faded and lacks detail (maybe due to lens?).

It just goes to show that the GH2 can look as good and even better than some of the newer cameras at high ISO.

Now add to that it's amazing video with full manual controls and lenses made for video, and you have something with which the others cannot compete.
 
from the standpoint of still images is the GH1 that much worse then the GH2?
 
Everdog said:
GH2 is very impressive up to ISO 6400. It clearly looks better than the A55 which is faded and lacks detail (maybe due to lens?).
Click to expand...
GH2 is worse than A55 at high ISO, both according to DPR review and Dxomark. That's a fact that anyone we can verify. We will wait for IR and DPR studio samples, and I am 100% sure both DPR and dxomark will turn out to be right and fanboys wrong
 
Dan Clark said:
It is now generally accepted that dxomark is flawed
Click to expand...
This is just hilarious. GH1 fans used to cite dxomark when they used to claim how GH1 is close and even better than some APSC models, but now, after GH2 score, they have declared dxomark flawed. Dxomark noise graph is pretty accurate -- there is nothing flawed about it.
 
Absolutely hilarious! You never quit hyping, do you?!?
ET2 said:
Everdog said:
GH2 is very impressive up to ISO 6400. It clearly looks better than the A55 which is faded and lacks detail (maybe due to lens?).
Click to expand...
GH2 is worse than A55 at high ISO, both according to DPR review and Dxomark. That's a fact that anyone we can verify. We will wait for IR and DPR studio samples, and I am 100% sure both DPR and dxomark will turn out to be right and fanboys wrong
Click to expand...
 
ET2 said:
Dan Clark said:
It is now generally accepted that dxomark is flawed
Click to expand...
This is just hilarious. GH1 fans used to cite dxomark when they used to claim how GH1 is close and even better than some APSC models, but now, after GH2 score, they have declared dxomark flawed. Dxomark noise graph is pretty accurate -- there is nothing flawed about it.
Click to expand...
No matter how I look at it, but these pictures show that the GH2 sensor does perform very well at high ISOs. It is slightly ahead of the Sony SLT-A55 and slightly behind the EOS 60D. ISO3200 is usable with a little noise reduction in post processing. At ISO 6400 and above the GH2 verges on the unusable and the EOS 60D and Nikon 7000D take the lead. This is true for both the JPEG- and Raw-output data.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos60D/page11.asp

I don't know about the Dxomark data, but the data does not reflect the visual noise performance. Visual noise is what matters to me. I don't know whether this is a clear contradiction, it could have to do with correctly interpreting the results from Dxomark.
 
ET2 said:
Everdog said:
GH2 is very impressive up to ISO 6400. It clearly looks better than the A55 which is faded and lacks detail (maybe due to lens?).
Click to expand...
GH2 is worse than A55 at high ISO, both according to DPR review...
Click to expand...
Where is that DPR GH2 review you keep bringing up?

I would much rather rely on my own eyes and from what I can see the GH2 is better. I know you don't use a camera and only rely on DxO, but some of us live in the real world.

To everyone else, look at the DPR comparison and decide for yourself.
 
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