GH1 to GH2 Owners- Thoughts?

Currently I have a GH1 and really like it. The GH2 has some nice bells and whistles from what I am reading but is it worth the $900 to upgrade? The value of the GH1 has nose dived and only worth a fraction of what I paid for it. It would be better just to keep it instead of suffering the value loss.

Are the "bells and whistles" really worth it or should I stick with the GH1 and buy a 100-300mm lens instead.
I shoot mostly photos and very little video over time.
Really like some of the new features of the GH2 tho ...

Please just GH1 former owners.

Thanks, Gerry

I've got a hacked GH1 and the overall video quality is pretty much the same (GH2 was better than stock video though)

The overall IQ in stills also isn't that dramatic, you can see the extra resolution, but overall noise and DR are pretty much the same. Better, but not by any huge margin.

Best feature I found was the bult in tele conversion for video, which is pretty cool as you can get some crazy reach and still shoot high quality video.

Other than that feature though there wasn't anything that really felt like a revolution to me. Evolutionary upgrade yes, but as you said, it as $900 for a camera that really isn't much better in the stills dept than the current Gh1.

I ended up returning mine as it just didn't do it for me for the cost of the upgrade.
--
http://www.millsartphotography.com

I couldn't live with the high ISO GH1 banding. I'm glad I upgraded. Stills are considerably better as is low-light video (and I had the hacked GH1).

I'm with those who rate the GH2 as having about 1.5 to 2 stops better ISO performance. This difference has allowed me to use the 14-140mm lens indoors without a flash which is something I couldn't attempt with the GH1. Same story on video. With the GH1 I couldn't use the 720/60p mode indoors with anything other than the 20mm f1.7. The GH2 shoots beautiful 60p/i video indoors with the 14-140.

The 1080/60i video was another big reason for the switch. Even hacking my GH1 couldn't give that one to me, and it makes a big difference for hand shooting around the house without a tripod (vs. 1080/24p).

These have been reason enough for me to make the upgrade, aside from the feature improvements I'm sure you're aware of. You can judge for yourself the merits of the other improvements, but I like them too. I say the GH2 is worth every penny.

PS. The GH2's jpeg colors are still nothing impressive, but it's not a problem if you shoot raw and convert in Lightroom.

Ah, that's wrong, that the GH2 isn't worth the upgrade. The EVF is so much better, the control layout has been vastly improved, the IQ is much more consistent over the entire ISO range, banding is gone, AF has been improved significantly, there are no blackouts at least until 3 fps, the bracketing is now more flexible, and the touchscreen improves the operation quite a bit. What should Panasonic have done else that an update is worth?

Sorry, the GH2 is the biggest advancement in m4/3 during the last 1.5 years. It is absolutely worth the upgrade.

millsart said:

I've got a hacked GH1 and the overall video quality is pretty much the same (GH2 was better than stock video though)

The overall IQ in stills also isn't that dramatic, you can see the extra resolution, but overall noise and DR are pretty much the same. Better, but not by any huge margin.

Best feature I found was the bult in tele conversion for video, which is pretty cool as you can get some crazy reach and still shoot high quality video.

Other than that feature though there wasn't anything that really felt like a revolution to me. Evolutionary upgrade yes, but as you said, it as $900 for a camera that really isn't much better in the stills dept than the current Gh1.

I ended up returning mine as it just didn't do it for me for the cost of the upgrade.
--
http://www.millsartphotography.com

Click to expand...

--
Thomas

Thanks for the replies so far- they sure cover a broad spectrum. Can the teleconverter (?) work for stills?
Gerry

I wanted a faster birding camera with better resolution...the GH2 out resolves the GH1 in details...will post some comparision shots later and also a few I took with the FZ40 as the CCD Sensor for Birding is the Cat's Meow on the lower end of the food chain with a TC-E17ED...

How can my own personal opinion of what was and wasn't "worth it" for my own needs me wrong ?

Who knows my own needs better than me ?

I personally didn't find the EVF to be any different honestly. The GH1 EVF is great and I had no complaints with t

I actually didn't like moving the control dial to the back. I liked it in the front, like most of my other camera bodies. I find it awkward to work on the back without changing my grip on the camera

I might of been lucky, but my GH1 has never shown any banding. Not sure if it only affected a certain batch or what

I also had no issues with the AF. I use the cam for static subjects and it was always plenty fast. If I'm shooting fast action I'm using my Nikon D3

The touchscreen also really didnt do it for me. I dont dislike it, but working from a tripod I still prefer my remote release rather than tappng the screen as it still gives vibration. Flipping through photos with a finger ala a iphone is cool and all but just not something that matters to me

As I said, the only feature that really made a huge difference in what and how I shoot is the video cropping ability

Otherwise its just not worth $900 to me over my GH1. How I can be wrong in how I choose to spend my own money I don't understand.

I compared the images side by side and the handling and under most conditions couldn't tell them apart. At high ISO yes the GH2 is a little better, but again, if I need high ISO I'll use a full frame DSLR

As a travel/casual walk around camera there is nothing the GH2 brought to the table that the GH1 wasn't doing for me to spend $900

tgutgu said:

Ah, that's wrong, that the GH2 isn't worth the upgrade. The EVF is so much better, the control layout has been vastly improved, the IQ is much more consistent over the entire ISO range, banding is gone, AF has been improved significantly, there are no blackouts at least until 3 fps, the bracketing is now more flexible, and the touchscreen improves the operation quite a bit. What should Panasonic have done else that an update is worth?

Sorry, the GH2 is the biggest advancement in m4/3 during the last 1.5 years. It is absolutely worth the upgrade.

millsart said:

I've got a hacked GH1 and the overall video quality is pretty much the same (GH2 was better than stock video though)

The overall IQ in stills also isn't that dramatic, you can see the extra resolution, but overall noise and DR are pretty much the same. Better, but not by any huge margin.

Best feature I found was the bult in tele conversion for video, which is pretty cool as you can get some crazy reach and still shoot high quality video.

Other than that feature though there wasn't anything that really felt like a revolution to me. Evolutionary upgrade yes, but as you said, it as $900 for a camera that really isn't much better in the stills dept than the current Gh1.

I ended up returning mine as it just didn't do it for me for the cost of the upgrade.
--
http://www.millsartphotography.com

Click to expand...

--
Thomas

Click to expand...

--
http://www.millsartphotography.com

I have both the hacked GH1 and GH2. My GH1 has never ever shown any "banding", even is ISO 1600 video and the darkest places.

However I am still so glad I upgraded to GH2, for 3 main reasons:
1. The ETC function that is so handy, tunring a lens/zoom into two lens/zoom
2. Compatible with most, if not all, 4/3 lenses including AF (single) function
3. 1080P24 out of the camera without having to "pull down" from the 1080i60

I'm in your shoes as well - love my GH1, don't use it for video, not thrilled about the GH2 for stills. I'd say keep your GH1 until something vastly different comes along. It's still a great camera.

Can the teleconverter (?) work for stills?

ggw2000 said:

Gerry

Click to expand...

Anyone?

There is the mode where the camera performs an in camera crop to give the impression of extra reach, but its the same as cropping and your left with a very low megapixel file

The ETC in video is cool though because it uses just the center of the sensor, since HD video is still just about 2megapixels, so by using that smaller section, your getting a free 2.4x crop effect, and the 1080 footage doesn't lose any quality

Its very good, quite handy, and a feature I think we'll see in all upcoming digital cameras

ggw2000 said:

ggw2000 said:

Gerry

Click to expand...

Anyone?

Click to expand...

--
http://www.millsartphotography.com

I bought four cameras last year: GH-1, GF-1, LX-3 and 5DII, so no more budget. But even if I did, I think I'll wait it out for the GH-3. A camera should give you more than a year of service. Besides, I think Panny has a little ways to go with their sensor development and I think it will take another generation to get there.

SF Photo Gal
Canon 1DsIII & 5DII/Panasonic GH1-GF1-LX3

Arrrrrrggggghhhh. You two make it hard LOL. I'm looking almost exclusively for improvements in stills. The video in the Gf1 is enough for me so that should tell you something. I'm on the fence upgrading from the G1 whether to wait yet another generation or go for the Gh2. I am waiting until the G3 is announced but knowing how these things are going I wonder if there is a chance for getting either by May for travel, esp G3 if it would turn out to be what I want LOL

Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic
G1 gallery http://www.pbase.com/picnic/temp_g1

Maybe I should try to find a GH1 and wait out the bigger outlay for the GH3. It still has a bit better sensor than G1 (which is what I want to upgrade), right?? The even better EVF of the Gh2 would be welcomed but all the video improvements mean almost nothing to me. Hard to decide. I try not to upgrade annually or even 2 years. Still shooting with 5D and decided, since I don't shoot commercially any longer, if I felt the need for the 5DII I could rent a body. i am waiting to see what the G3 will be and even a higher end Oly maybe.

Diane
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic
G1 gallery http://www.pbase.com/picnic/temp_g1

So just out of curiosity, and this is off thread, the G2 is selling for $350. The GH1 about $500 (body only). For stills only, is the GH1 better than the G2.

Thanks

I think there are going to be some really exciting m4/3 cameras coming out this year. If you can't wait, I would buy a used GH-1 or G1 on ebay. Why pay top dollars for a GH-2 right now unless video is super important. Even still, the GH-1 gave me good results with video. I actually did the hack, but reinstalled the regular firmware. Even at 720/60 you get great results.

SF Photo Gal
Canon 1DsIII & 5DII/Panasonic GH1-GF1-LX3

I am primarily a stills photographer. I upgraded and do see higher quality in low light. The feature I love is the touch screen focus when shooting macro. My GH1 was beginning to show its age. I had used it a great deal and the finish was wearing off all four corners. The GH2 seems more solid. I think that either is a fine camera.
--
Ann Chaikin
Painting & Photography:
http://www.annchaikin.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/annchaikin/
Photo a Day
http://www.blipfoto.com/ArtistAnnie
Family Websites:
http://www.chaikinsofbellingham.com

millsart said:

There is the mode where the camera performs an in camera crop to give the impression of extra reach, but its the same as cropping and your left with a very low megapixel file.

Click to expand...

Well you can shoot with 8MP resolution,and still get extra reach (with no light loss). You get to meter on your subject better, and compose in camera,without need to crop.

No one is forced to use it, it's an option, and one I've been enjoying for years,with the FZ camera's.

ANAYV

millsart said:

The ETC in video is cool though because it uses just the center of the sensor, since HD video is still just about 2megapixels, so by using that smaller section, your getting a free 2.4x crop effect, and the 1080 footage doesn't lose any quality

Its very good, quite handy, and a feature I think we'll see in all upcoming digital cameras

ggw2000 said:

millsart said:

Gerry

Click to expand...

Anyone?

Click to expand...

--
http://www.millsartphotography.com

Click to expand...

+1 on the touch AF point and being able to move the AF Point quickly for composing and getting everything you want in the frame...for birding shots its the cat's meow...also you touch it and reduce or increase the size quickly...

I can tell you are very versed in the GH Series Ann...you could probably give us all a few good pointers...

Ann Chaikin said:

I am primarily a stills photographer. I upgraded and do see higher quality in low light. The feature I love is the touch screen focus when shooting macro. My GH1 was beginning to show its age. I had used it a great deal and the finish was wearing off all four corners. The GH2 seems more solid. I think that either is a fine camera.
--
Ann Chaikin
Painting & Photography:
http://www.annchaikin.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/annchaikin/
Photo a Day
http://www.blipfoto.com/ArtistAnnie
Family Websites:
http://www.chaikinsofbellingham.com

Click to expand...