Finally got a GH2!..... pretty good but not perfect camera

FINALLY got a GH2 after about 2 months of waiting on one.

Was it worth the wait ? Yes and no.....

I might dare say yes for the tele conversion feature for video alone, though some of the same issues such as color issues remain so its not a home run either, especially when you figure its about a $900 camera body (I got with the 14-42 kit and already have the 14-45 so probably will sell 14-42)

Likes

I like that the EVF is a bit clearer than the GH1

I like the added resolution and it is pretty noticeable

I like the dedicated function buttons I can assign

I like, no wait, love, the tele conversion for video, so cool getting that extra reach

I like the added FPS

I like the better bracketing feature

I like the new charger that doens't need a cord

I like the strap lugs feel solid

I like the AF feels faster

Impartials

I'm impartial about noise and DR, not as improved over the GH1 as I hoped

I'm impartial about the video quality. Its great but so was my hacked GH1

I'm impartial about the touch screen. Sort of gimmicky and doesnt work as well as I had hoped. Don't have to use it of course so I don't mind it, but just expected more.

Dislikes

I don't like the new battery that I can't share with my old cameras

I don't like the new SD card door and it being tough to grab the card if you've got big hands

I don't like the more plastic feeling body, feels cheaper

I don't like the changed control dial location, its awkward to use with a normal grip on the camera without nearly dropping it

I don't like that the JPEG colors still always have a weird cast to them, usually slightly magenta in the sky

I don't like that after waiting 2 months and spending $900 bucks I'm not blown away by it compared to the GH1 I've already got

I don't like that the AF still struggles in low light or using a long lens

All and all, its a pretty solid overall camera and video camera. No better hybrid on the market.

Good image quality for stills with a few issues, and fantastic videos. I think I've honestly got to agree with some of those folks that say its a video camera first and a still camera second though. Thats not a bad thing at all mind you, but it does sort of feel that they put the main focus into top video quality and features. In no way are stills compromised, I want to make that clear, but they also didn't seem to make the priority producing the best still images, jpeg especially the could of

Overall it is an improvement on the GH1, and there isn't anything the GH1 does better, but at the same time, I could pretty much be just as happy overall with the GH1 and saving $500, save for the extra crop feature in video which is pretty cool

--
http://www.millsartphotography.com

Nice honest review, I think a lot of people get hyped up from each other over next generation cameras. It usually takes a couple of versions to see any real world difference worth the added investment.

excellent honest and to the point.

thank you very much.

one small request...can you try to see how the gh2 autofocuses is in darkness.

for example....just leave it on iauto...go into a totally dark bedroom...flip the flash up..and see if it can autofocus in to pretty well near total darkness...my GH1 struggles on the non contrasty stuff like bedspread and curtains for example...

why total darkness? well i like to take night shots outdoors and most of the time the gh1 nails it....but it could be better..and i was using the dark bedroom test as an illustration of the gh1's outer limits...

thanks

I'll wait for G3. I hope G3 will be still photos centric
--
MFT in progress

As long as the assist light comes up, that lights up things pretty well. Its rather bright for a tiny LED bulb.

Problem is that range isn't that far so it wouldn't help at 30 feet or anything like that, though in all fairness, many a camera have trouble with low light focus as well.

Other issue I've noticed is that sometimes long lenses like the 45-200 or 100-300 have the focus off, even in good light. Focus beeps and it looks okay in viewfinder but then you review the shot and see its front or backfocused by a few feet, enough to make it look soft.

jimboyvr said:

excellent honest and to the point.

thank you very much.

one small request...can you try to see how the gh2 autofocuses is in darkness.

for example....just leave it on iauto...go into a totally dark bedroom...flip the flash up..and see if it can autofocus in to pretty well near total darkness...my GH1 struggles on the non contrasty stuff like bedspread and curtains for example...

why total darkness? well i like to take night shots outdoors and most of the time the gh1 nails it....but it could be better..and i was using the dark bedroom test as an illustration of the gh1's outer limits...

thanks

Click to expand...

--
http://www.millsartphotography.com

I can't see Panasonic not having video features on every model they put out from here on out.

I do like the video as well, it can be sort of fun, and its amazing to watch on my HDTV and see this footage that looks like NatGeo or Discovery Channel quality and think "I filmed this myself"

However, as cool as video is, I think more people do shoot stills, and care more about stills.

Video is fun, but how many times are you trying to make a serious film, know what I mean ??

Compared to how many times do you go out and want to produce the best still images, be they of your kids, at landscape, wildlife etc.

Thats why I'd like to see Panny maybe add a bit more in terms of still photo features. In camera HDR, Pano's, etc all would be cool and appeal to lots of folks. I really enjoy those things on my NEX, and use them way more than I thought I would.

Above that though, simply wake up and realize their JPEG's are lacking. Olympus and Sony both produce such better color and overall files.

Panasonic has the top of the line sensor, and probably most powerful processing power as well, so there is no excuse for the GH2 to produce bad color, especially compared to older, cheaper and out of date models like the EPL1

You can tweak them in RAW, and I do often shoot RAW, but being a flagship camera it should really produce nice OOC jpeg as well. Just no excuse why it can't and eveyrone else can

s_grins said:

I'll wait for G3. I hope G3 will be still photos centric
--
MFT in progress

Click to expand...

--
http://www.millsartphotography.com

Good review. Based on experience with my GH2, I pretty much agree with your points - especially about the availability of the camera. Very poor logistics, IMO. (I think it incredibly stupid to leave money on the table because you can't meet customer demand. Profit goes down and customers get PO'd. Bad combo.)

A couple points...

millsart said:

I don't like the new SD card door and it being tough to grab the card if you've got big hands

Click to expand...

Try using a thumbnail to make the card pop up and then grasp it from the sides rather than front and back. That seems to resolve the issue for most people. I found it much easier to get it out.

millsart said:

I don't like the more plastic feeling body, feels cheaper

Click to expand...

Obviously this is personal preference and opinion...

When I played with a GH1 about 12 months ago, I didn't like the feel in my hand. It felt small and a little slippery. With the GH2, I can't really say that the quality seems better or worse, but I MUCH prefer the overall feel of the GH2. Maybe it's the new plastic surface, but it feels larger and more stable in my hand than the GH1.

Perhaps with some usage, it will feel better to you also.

Good luck with your new camera.

Regards,

Dan.

Very nice and honest review, if I were going to write a review, i'd write the same exact thing! I just returned my GH2 for these reasons unfortunately, I wanted to love this camera but just couldnt mainly due to the JPEG color issue. It was making my portraits look blue (skin tone). I also though the lens I had 14-140 is wayyyy to big, so I am now with the EPL2!

I like that others are road testing the GH2 and look forward to acquiring one during next holiday season and at a lower price!
--
2014imaging

I think the stills are much improved over the GH1. Of course I've been shooting RAW since my G1 days...Canon G1 that is. After testing the GH2 for a few days I put my GH1 on the market and sold it just before the prices plummeted. I was just looking at some ISO 2500 shots thinking how I could never get away with that on the GH1. I had some success using Nik DFine to remove the banding but it often gave a strange "look" to the noise. The GH2 noise looks like film to me.

I'm also not sure about the "feel" of the body. I guess I never thought about it. My son has a Fisher Price camera that feels cheap but I'm certain most cameras favored on this board would never survive a similar beating. In other words, I'm not sure it matters. I still remember the reviews of the Canon G1. Several commented on the flimsy rubber door protecting the usb slot. I think it was DPReview that asked "how long will that last"? Well, it's still there on my Canon G1 (which still works...but talk about a magenta cast)!

Anyway, I digress. I'm happy with my purchase.

Agree with some of the above comments such as the body feeling a bit more plasticy than the GH1.

Glad they moved the video record button.

Wish they had kept the thumb wheel on the front.

Like the custom fuction buttons like my Canons have.

Still can't figure out how to get focus pull to work in video yet.

Wish they had kept the same battery, but it looks like they moved a lot of stuff around. The tripod mount isn't in the same place so I've had to modify a quick release plate (can't use the same one as on the GH1).

Really personally like the color and noise a lot better than the GH1.

For me I have to decide to keep my GH1 until a GH3 comes out or get another GH2.

Focus hunts a lot less than the GH1. Definately better. But not as good as my SLRs.

The camera seems to do a pretty good job of white balance and correct exposure in difficult lighting situations.

I definately like the upgrade and don't feel like I should have gotten more to justify it.

Others mileage may vary.

BC

Though I don't have the camera yet, but it's the still I've seen make the GH2 so special and drives me to pay almost twice over any other m4/3 camera.

I remember the law of "diminishing returns" from building my stereo rig and learn to appreciate it.

--
'Life is something that happens to you while you're making other plans'.
M. Millar

What is wrong with Panny's JPG? It is for the first time I have no need to shoot in RAW just because JPGs are so good. (BTW I came from Nikon Pentax world)
--
Vlad

Man, I'm hearing SOOOOO many conflicting reports about the AF speed and precision! Some folks, like you, are saying its an improvement but not that much of one and still has trouble with the longer lenses. Other folks, including the reviewer at Camera Labs and the quantitative tests at Imaging Resources, suggest it really is a quantum leap for contrast-detect systems and holds its own with all but the fastest DSLRs. I'm just gonna have to check one out and form my own opinion. I tried the Sony A33 for a few days and was bowled over by its AF performance and the Camera Labs folks thought the GH2 was snappier - the Imaging Resources tests showed it right in the same category with the A33 and the Canon 60D, within a few one-hundredths of a second.

Maybe its just a matter of expectations? If you have a really high end DSLR, I'm sure it doesn't compare, but if you're just coming up from other m43 or from low/mid level DSLRs, it seems to be pretty impressive. I'm in the latter camp, but I'm going to have to see for myself. This isn't a huge issue for me on the vast majority of what I shoot, but I'd love to be able to take my longer lenses out with a bit more confidence that my hit rate with them will be better than its been (some great shots, but way too many with focus on something in the background and not the target...)

-Ray

There's two sides to it, accuracy and speed.

Where the GH2 has become spectacular, is speed. Accuracy is better, but not a quantum leap - as that would put it in d3x territory. It's as good as mid-range DSLR, and it's better than my old Canon 5D.

I tend not to continuous focus though, which may yield different results depending on the direction of motion. In terms of sniping one shot, one kill, as that's the way I shoot, it's brilliant.

timiano said:

There's two sides to it, accuracy and speed.

Where the GH2 has become spectacular, is speed. Accuracy is better, but not a quantum leap - as that would put it in d3x territory. It's as good as mid-range DSLR, and it's better than my old Canon 5D.

I tend not to continuous focus though, which may yield different results depending on the direction of motion. In terms of sniping one shot, one kill, as that's the way I shoot, it's brilliant.

Click to expand...

That's the way I generally shoot too, so I'm intrigued. I'd assumed that to a certain extent, more speed would result in better accuracy, particularly at the long end. The number of misses I get out around 150 on my 14-150 and out at the long end of the 45-200 I've always figured were partially attributable to the AF taking long enough to lock that any little camera movement could bring the background into the AF target box (even at its smallest) and a lot of shots had the background in focus rather than the intended target. A lot of folks seem to be reporting much better results with the 45-200 and the 100-300 with the GH2 than with earlier m43 cams. So, that's my hope!

Actually my greatest hope is that this level of AF and better migrates down into the Pen-form cameras from both Panasonic and Oly over the next few releases... I hope this "flagship" isn't too far out in front of the rest of the fleet for long...

-Ray

Hunting with longer lenses is much related to in-lens firmware, at least with Panny lenses. When I purchased 14-140 I was quiet unimpressed with low light AF performance especially comparing to 14-42 kit. However upgrading to latest firmware for 14-140 no complaints so far. It is really snappy - as in Camera-labs test, and lot snappier then my recent K20D which was no sluggish in good light (low light disaster...). Talking about real low light near-total darkness an undocumented feature is to add EV compensation e.g. +1-2 stops, EVF will brighten-up and focus is much much reliable and quick. Of course you have to fix focus with button and revert back EV compensation to 0 before taking a shot. It sounds bit complicated and slow in operation - but only need for me is really in situation when there is so little light where no action shot is possible. (EV values around 0 or so)

The same to be applied when manual focusing e.g. with legacy lens. Enlarged image in EVF is so dark that it is nearly impossible to focus by eye. However increasing EV compensation make it perfectly possible.

Another point to keep in mind. If camera cannot focus the small square will became a big square - if you will not notice that than you will come up probably with out of focus shot.

And the last one - small focusing square is not exactly the portion of a picture which camera takes for focusing. Actual size is slightly bigger. So this might cause some troubles as well especially if another object in a different distance is very close to the focus square in EVF.

Hope this helps
Cheers
--
Vlad

You know, color is subjective and you can be sure that many people actually like the JPEG output of the GH2, perhaps more than Oly color output.

In my opinion, Panasonic has improved the GH line significantly for stills photographers (much more than for videographers). Things like better EVF, faster operation, faster AF, faster burst rate, better control layout are more important than gimmicks like auto pano or in camera HDR or even art filters.

Panasonic is right on track regarding stills. The GH2 has currently the best and most consistent (over ISO range) IQ of all m4/3 cameras. What can we expect more?

m4/3 is still in so much innovative progress, that each model generation will have enough advantages and improvements that people will think about upgrading. The industry on the other hand needs the cash flow to develop this progress.

That's the law of economics. You can be sure that over time, Panasonic will include even more productivity and creativity features. For now (second model generation of the GH line) they have set the priorities right.

millsart said:

I can't see Panasonic not having video features on every model they put out from here on out.

I do like the video as well, it can be sort of fun, and its amazing to watch on my HDTV and see this footage that looks like NatGeo or Discovery Channel quality and think "I filmed this myself"

However, as cool as video is, I think more people do shoot stills, and care more about stills.

Video is fun, but how many times are you trying to make a serious film, know what I mean ??

Compared to how many times do you go out and want to produce the best still images, be they of your kids, at landscape, wildlife etc.

Thats why I'd like to see Panny maybe add a bit more in terms of still photo features. In camera HDR, Pano's, etc all would be cool and appeal to lots of folks. I really enjoy those things on my NEX, and use them way more than I thought I would.

Above that though, simply wake up and realize their JPEG's are lacking. Olympus and Sony both produce such better color and overall files.

Panasonic has the top of the line sensor, and probably most powerful processing power as well, so there is no excuse for the GH2 to produce bad color, especially compared to older, cheaper and out of date models like the EPL1

You can tweak them in RAW, and I do often shoot RAW, but being a flagship camera it should really produce nice OOC jpeg as well. Just no excuse why it can't and eveyrone else can

s_grins said:

I'll wait for G3. I hope G3 will be still photos centric
--
MFT in progress

Click to expand...

--
http://www.millsartphotography.com

Click to expand...

--
Thomas

Probably phase detection and contrast detection have both their strong work spaces. Phase detection can be fooled by structures, contrast detection when image contrast is too low. Then, the lenses need to be taken into account as well.

GH2 AF performance is fast - usually. Moving subject tracking can be the achilles heel and overall suitability for action photography is probably still not on par with high performance DSLRs. Foto Magazin Germany compared the Canon EOS 60D and the GH2 at a snowboard event and both cameras were not far apart.

The thing is that Panasonic always had comparably fast AF in m4/3. The G1 was already fast. So within the brand, the GH2 might not be that big leap forward (however AF speed is noticable better than the AF of the GH1), but in comparison to the competition (Olympus, Samsung) the difference is substantial.

The problem with the GH2 is that burst performance isn't as good as it should be. However, this was probably what was possible for this generation. Panasonic put a lot of addtional processing power into the GH2 to enhance the EVF refesh rate and AF performance, while keeping battery consumption, heat flow, size, and weight on the level of the predecessor. Not too bad I would say.

Ray Sachs said:

Man, I'm hearing SOOOOO many conflicting reports about the AF speed and precision! Some folks, like you, are saying its an improvement but not that much of one and still has trouble with the longer lenses. Other folks, including the reviewer at Camera Labs and the quantitative tests at Imaging Resources, suggest it really is a quantum leap for contrast-detect systems and holds its own with all but the fastest DSLRs. I'm just gonna have to check one out and form my own opinion. I tried the Sony A33 for a few days and was bowled over by its AF performance and the Camera Labs folks thought the GH2 was snappier - the Imaging Resources tests showed it right in the same category with the A33 and the Canon 60D, within a few one-hundredths of a second.

Maybe its just a matter of expectations? If you have a really high end DSLR, I'm sure it doesn't compare, but if you're just coming up from other m43 or from low/mid level DSLRs, it seems to be pretty impressive. I'm in the latter camp, but I'm going to have to see for myself. This isn't a huge issue for me on the vast majority of what I shoot, but I'd love to be able to take my longer lenses out with a bit more confidence that my hit rate with them will be better than its been (some great shots, but way too many with focus on something in the background and not the target...)

-Ray

Click to expand...

--
Thomas

Hmm, in my 2-week experience and as far as still photos go, the GH2 is superior to the GH1 in every way: excellent resolution (my FD lenses have never been happier); stunning EVF; faster and more accurate AF; even better ergonomics (the GH1 was never a slouch anyway); brilliant at 800iso and really amazing at 1600, even in low light (RAW).

The fact that people compare the GH2 to FF cameras with bodies that cost and weigh at least twice as much, tells you all you need to know about its qualities. I also cannot understand the obsession with JPEGs (who buys a £650 camera to do that) and in particular Olympus JPEGs.

But I totally agree about the body feeling cheap and I hope the battery life improves, or this will be my first 3-battery camera!