GH2 vs Sony Alpha 55

Started Mar 24, 2011 | Discussions thread
Adventsam Veteran Member • Posts: 4,983
Re: GH2 vs Sony Alpha 55

mpgxsvcd wrote:

If you don't shoot video at all then the GH2 does not make economical sense. Remember, as much as some people don't like it the dpreview ratings are based on still and video performance and not just still performance like they used to be.

Well actually the GH2 makes a lot of sense, what else has a walkaround 100-300mm lense that with body weighs in at less than 1kg? at the other extreme, a body and lense with f1.7 that almost pocketable and a perfect 35mm focal length. As a stills camera unless these people are blind its a powerhouse. In my quick tests over a week the a55 was poor in all respects, especially detail and I found the raw files very poor. As a stills machine it missed focus a lot, you couldnt shoot in af and on turning of the mf ring tweak focus, at 10x auto maginfier. There are no iso intermediates that I found, the evf is crude on an evening, noisey, there are no custom buttons of functions settings, bracketing is basic, I could go on, its a low end featured dslr, it was awkward to hold and output was continually soft.

The GH2 is close to the DSLRs for still performance but not quite as good as the D7000. What makes it get rated as high as some other DSLRs is the fact that it also shoots the best video on the planet. Stills cameras are also expected to shoot video now whether you use it or not.

Video aside GH2 is function and feature rich and with LR3.4 awesome in detail and DR.

Alexsfo wrote:

I agree if you buy GH2 for video but how about those who are interested in photo only?

mpgxsvcd wrote:

Video Quality was enough for me.

E-PL2+20mm 1.7

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow