Amin - I'm not shooting a GH2.
Amin - I'm not shooting a GH2.
Your post shows me that you do not like the GH2, which is pretty ok of course, as it might not be the perfect camera for anyone. But for me the GH2 just triggered most of my knobs and so I went for it. And I am very happy.
Finally I would not even buy one for $200.- if I do not like it - right? And I would pay even $2000.- if I liked and needed this camera.
Finally 2: there will always be improvements and better cameras. No doubt a GH3 will be another milestone ahead (at least we can hope). But one must be honest with his/her requirements. So for me the GH2 reached this level (which the GH1 did not).
The only thing I can think of in green stray pixels has to do with the technology used for exposing the green channel.....
Mmmm, no it's not that I "don't like" the GH2. But I've done my comparison homework and it's not enough of an improvement to justify the upgrade - for me. Others may justify it on the tough-screen alone. That's for them to decide. For me it's all about IQ 1st, menu options 2nd, ergonomics 3rd, and that's about it. And to those things there's so very little difference between the two that unless the upgrade is relatively painless (like < $250 painless it's not really worth it.
"But one must be honest with his/her requirements."
But to me this does not include considering only what is available at the time one stops to ponder the market. For example I bought the D2x when it first hit! About 6 months before the D700 was announced I sold it thinking that the D700 was going to be everything I hopped for. It wasn't. I then set my requirements as I saw fit and waited. My requirements were:
- 1080, 24p pristine video,
- A full time - realtime live-view mode,
- A sensor close to APS-C or larger,
- 4 or 5 FPS continuous shooting,
- Well under $1k,
- Interchangeable lenses,
- Performs well at 1600 ISO,
- Has an LCD that can be swiveled around and hopefully closed in on itself,
- Buily-in flash,
- Hopefully used Compact Flash memory cards,
- Can use Nikkor lenses - somehow,
- Has or can be rigged with either a pro EVF or a real-time external monitor,
- Could be remote controlled.
At the time there was no such thing and no one was even talking about such things. In fact most people in most forums said there would never be a serious camera that included video and that I was clearly deranged... (so shall it be for the curved FF sensor too I guess...) But those were my requirements. So I hunkered down with one of my fifty two Konica/Minolta A2 cameras I had left over from a commercial project and waited. Yup, Panasonic GH1 was the first one to answer most of the important requirements. The continuous shot buffer is way to small and it doesn't accept compact flash but all others were addressed. Being "honest" does NOT mean selecting only from what's currently available.
Just to clarify, I did not jump on the GH1 or G1 as both did not satisfy some of my requirements, the most important one I did not like the EVF. Now the GH2 fulfills all that requirements I had (and still have) so I bought it and I am happy with it. But obviously my requirements are so much different to yours .....
Maybe you would be happy with a D7000 or even a K5? Check these out. If you want to use Nikkor lenses and have the best APSC sensor available today, then the D7000 would be a no brainer. And the GH2 is just not what you want to have!
Regarding the apparently widespread green noise issue, either I have an unaffected unit, or my observational skills are weak. Either way, I'll count myself lucky .
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=37314528 At the time I read that I did a search and found 4 other sites from other uses that were saying the same things. <shrug>
Tesselator - I wasn't saying that it wasn't happening but instead pointing to a bit of different tech that Panasonic is using that might be why it doesn't seem to be corrected in RAW processors. I'm not a techie when it comes to sensors and how they function.
So the GH1 fits that - and for that specific requirement all m4/3 cameras do as well.
The K5 does look pretty nice! I used it for a day. A real pleasure to shoot. Still too short on the current list of -my- requirements tho. I've read about the D7000 but not had the opportunity to shoot with it yet.
And thanks for your added hopes, they certainly can't hurt.
Ah I see. And thanks for the link. Interesting!
People have different needs though, and wants. Some need more DR, some need better high ISO. For some reason, we lived happily without ISO 102,400 until recently, but our memories are short, or at least mine is
Complaining about the image quality of current cameras is like complaining about the food on airplanes. You are flying halfway around the globe, 10,000 meters above ground, close to the speed of sound for a price that wouldn't get you across the country by bus 50 years ago, and then you blame the stewardess because the omelet isn't warm/salty/tasty/yellow enough.
WRT noise free ISO 3200 (6400) - can tell you that we are far away from that even in FF. Also Nikon FF 6400 has noise, although it is very nicely processed already in camera even in RAW. But there is definitely much more processing compared to ISO 100 - 800 for example.
The issue again here is, if one can live with how the results look like at ISO 3200 or 6400 respectively. And for the GH2 the answer is that this reached my threshold. While better is always good, I tend to live today and shoot today and enjoy today, because maybe in a year from now I could have waited too long - understand what I mean? So if you are satisfied with something you set as your threshold, then it does not make sense to always increas expectations, because then you might miss lot of opportunities
Just my 5c ...
RDF. I mean I took a buss across the the USA and back in the 60's and spent less than $150 on fair.
<shrug> OK, I just want my next camera to have the noise qualities of the FF D700 - however we wish to define that.WRT noise free ISO 3200 (6400) - can tell you that we are far away from that even in FF. Also Nikon FF 6400 has noise, although it is very nicely processed already in camera even in RAW. But there is definitely much more processing compared to ISO 100 - 800 for example.
You have a very low threshold indeed. 3200 on the GH2 needs lots and lots of processing to look anything like what the actual scene looked like to the human eye. I can say with confidence that it looks just simply terrible! The D700 and other FF cameras do not look terrible. Colors are still rich, micro-contrast is still high, and global contrast is still very good. I can not say the same for the GH1/2.The issue again here is, if one can live with how the results look like at ISO 3200 or 6400 respectively. And for the GH2 the answer is that this reached my threshold.
Yeah, I'm understanding you. Are you getting me tho? There's just not enough difference between the GH1 and the GH2. The comparison examples I've done and seen on-line... one has to squint their eyes and /believe-in/ differences before they appear. Well, almost.While better is always good, I tend to live today and shoot today and enjoy today, because maybe in a year from now I could have waited too long - understand what I mean?
That I don't understand. Are you saying we should all be riding in horse drawn carriages still? I guess most people were very satisfied with that at the time.So if you are satisfied with something you set as your threshold, then it does not make sense to always increas expectations, because then you might miss lot of opportunities
Yeah, these are all just opinions and stuff. They're fun to discuss and compare. I think so anyway.Just my 5c ...
>Why 15bit? I thing that will be either 14 or 16 bit - right?
I think Photoshop 16bit files only hold 15bits of data. The other bit is used otherwise.
Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
Does not mean that after some time I would not upgrade my thresholds (equipment) again if it makes sense
1) All 16 bits are significant, yielding values from 0 to 65,535 (i.e. unsigned).
2) The high-order bit is a sign bit, yielding values from -32,768 to +32,767 (i.e. signed).
This is a decision made at design time for a particular piece of equipment.
In a photographic context, #1 makes more sense than #2, since you'll never have a negative light value. However, some engineers are too stupid to realize that.
If a particular MFDB used format #2 then it would be proper to show the data depth as 15 bits.
My Hasselblad CFV-39 shows a data depth of 16 bits, so I expect they're using the unsigned format.
Any processing software like PS is going to convert whatever source data it receives into its own internal format, be that signed or unsigned.
Data storage within the program is always in 16-bit words, but they'll be interpreted as signed or unsigned depending on the software design.
Last edited by Leigh; 9th January 2011 at 22:17.
Agreed! I could never be a banker of the ilk of one of the big seven. That would be like wanting to build my house in Hades. I prefer not to.
And now that we'er completely off topic, what do you think the chances are of any M4/3 system offering 15bit RAW files?
What I'm very sure about is that they will stay with this sensor format and the m43 norm. They seem to be extremely comfortable with the format. My guess is that a pro camera will be squarely directed towards the PJ market. Lightweight, compact, versatile and the lenses are apparently coming. The 7-14mm is already very impressive.
I have been browsing these forums for a while and they are a friendly, refreshing place to be compared to some of the others. I am grateful for this review too and the positive views about the GH2.
I already have a G1 and some lenses but have recently bought a K5. I love everything about it except, I can't see to get consistent focus, even in daylight. I'm not sure what it is.
I also believe the K5 sensor is showing the inadequacies of the kit lens!
I guess the problem is that, if each and every lens has to be checked for BF/FF, this makes for a lot of faffing about when life should be so much simpler. Anyhow, I will give it a go. Shots with my G1 with equivalent focal length, same ISO, aperture etc are much sharper - i don't think it is just due to the DOF differences between the sensors.
We haven't has sufficient daylight in the UK for much testing but my next step is to try dialing in some back or front focus and see if that helps. Did you try that and, if so, did it not make any difference?
Regarding the GH2, is the EVF really that much better than the one in the G1?
Lee - Please make sure you post after adjusting lenses....K-5 is on my list but as you say....I don't want to spend a lot of time faffing about.
Welcome to the forum!
I cerainly will. I suppose if I could get it *right* it would be worth it - the IQ, colours, exposure are all lovely. Indeed - I certainly don't want to appear to be 'bashing' it but was drawn to this post because I too was wondering if I might be better with the GH2.
But it has almost been like the camera hasn't been focusing where the indicator suggested. I can't believe it's camera shake either but you never know. I'll try to report back but it may be a while - it's dark when I get home!
placing you camera on a tripod and pointing it at this image displayed on your monitor or printed will allow you to dial in the focusing. The AF sensor will lock onto this pattern exceptionally well:
...and you won't even have to go outside.
yes, I tried AF adjustment for my kit lens and my DA70. For the DA70 it worked (at least in good light), while for the kit lens it did not. Could not find a reasonable adjustment.
Add to that the getting worse AF in low light and the OVF which is not really allowing for any MF fine tuning (at least for my eyes - and I see pretty sharp), then you see my issues. I could similar as you not get consistent focus, especially under low light.
I must admit that the DA70 is a great lens if focused properly - it is actually too good for what the K5 AF (at least mine) can deliver. So I do not know what the issue with the K5 AF is, but I did not want to get into fiddling around too much and end up like it did some years ago with my E3 (similar issue). And since the camera was inside the return window I sent it back.
The GH2 is new to me, as I did not have any G1, GH1 or GF1 and I must say I am overwhelmed. And YES, I consider the EVF a major step forward compared to the G1 and GH1, even better than the EP2 EVF, which I already considered as better as my acceptance threshold.
Just to mention: The system I used belonged to a camera salesman here in Japan. Good photographer too. Everything was already set up with any adjustments that were needed - if any were. The AF was flawless but I shot 1/2 the time in MF anyway because I am usually better than any AF system - for most kinds of photography. The OVF was superb. The K5's DR and colors were just simply stunning! This is a camera I could shoot all day with and at the end of the day not have to do almost anything in post. And that's probably the biggest difference between most cameras (worth considering) to those proficient in post processing - the time spent in post.
Hmn, what a spooky image ... Never thought of taking pics from my computer monitor. Anyway, initial impressions are are that my 43 ltd on my K5 is back focusing. Totally unscientific tests show (by focusing on a web page showing Steve Huff's review) that I need to dial in +5 or so for it to be right. With that, my cat's left eyeball is pretty sharp at ISO 3200 in low light tungsten environment. With 0 compensation the cushion on her favourite chair is sharper than her eyeball. I shall 'go figure'.
More to come; I will get the tripod out and test the kit kens too but at the moment the K5 looks like it might be staying - I would say that the camera is quite superb if I could be confident about the focusing. My instincts are that the kit lens is front focusing. Maybe I have a sub-par K5 body. I will report back, it may be a few days though ...
Sorry - I know this is a GH2 thread. Not meaning to be hijacking it.
Anyway, take this as a frivolous endeavour so far - as I have tunsgten lighting, no doubt, reflecting off the screen, and I was bracing myself on the back of a chair rather than using a tripod. More 'scientific', or at least 'controlled', tests to come.
So maybe 'faffing about' (as I put it earlier) is worthwhile after all ...
Try and look into the screen, about 1 foot behind it, and there is a message there!
My take on the GH-2 after owning it for 24 hours and upgrading from a GF-1.
No surprises: well built, light, good ergonomics, easy to understand controls without using the manual(!).
Improvements: EVF is amazing - my only experience to date is the add on EVF for the GF-1 but this one is like looking through an optical viewfinder. In fact, I would go so far as to say the optical viewfinder is dead. Like the additional contril buttons like the dedicated AF select and focus knob. Much better balanced in the hand than the GF-1 - possibly because of the grip.
The proof is in the pudding. If you click through to my Flickr stream then you can pixel peep at the full size images.
Processing: imported RW2 into LR3.3, cropped to get similar area, adjusted white balance to clock face, then transferred to CS3 to be changed to 8-bit jpeg. Resized by Flickr. No additional sharpening or other post processing.
The GH-2 capture was taken today but the other two were taken some time in 2008 and 2009.
GF-1 Lumix 20 f2 iso200 1/40
GH-2 Lumix 20 f2 iso400 1/100
Leica M7 Fuji Pro400H lux-35-asph - probably f1.4
Great proof of the advancements and improvements! Nothing to add!
I am still VERY happy with the GH2!
Glad your enjoying the GH2
So is the GH2 EVF a big improvement over the G1. I thought the VF2 on the EP2 was superb
Here some more shots from Nanjing using the GH2 with 14-140. I have set the iISO instead of AutoISO and this works that way that the camera tries to keep ISO as low as possible (in a somehow intelligent way). I was pretty happy with the results again and had actually NEVER failing AF, although the 14-140 is a not too fast lens and sometimes light was really bad!
I meanwhile am using all the 3 Custom Modes (filled with presets I like) and almost exclusively the EVF, which tells how good it is!
The las one is Konfuzius in the Konfuzius temple and this was at almost no light, but AF and everything else just worked like a rocket!
I meanwhile cannot thing of any better alround travel camera.
The EVF of the GH2 is another big step forward, as it not only increases quality IMHO, but also produces much less nervous pictures due to its higher refresh rate compared to the older EVFs.
Thus I call the EVF in the GH2 stellar!
Is there no room for improvement? Sure there always is and a pro camera would need an even better EVF (again more MP and larger image) I would say. But for now I can live with that EVF as it is in this type of camera very comfortable and this was never before the case with any other EVF (and camera combination).
Hope that clarifies things ....
Not until people figure out that they can make money by buying kits and reselling the lens and camera as separate. That was realized and taken advantage of early on here in Japan with the GH1. The Western country peoples still aren't doing it. If they /get it/ on the GH2 there will be body only buy-now auctions like in Japan. Others may know more.
Those comparison images are absolutely 100% meaningless in every single way. They seem to be nothing more than lighting, WB, and aperture differences. The GF1 looks like it was taken at about F/4 or F/5.6 while the GH2 image is clearly around f/16 or so. The focus point for the GF1 image seems to be in front of the clock while the GH2 was focused on the clock. Camera sensors do not exhibit differences like that. Please don't take this in any kind of personal way tho.. it's just a comment on the images.
Very cool images! Nice!