GH2 impressions

[Tesselator]

The GH1 (my primary camera ever since it was released) also soundly exceeded my expectations too when it came to high ISO. The GH2 seems to match or exceed that performance without the banding which affected some of my GH1 images. That exceeded my expectations.

Yeah, that sounds like a fair assessment. The GH1 was good enough and the GH2 came along and added a little more to it. That's where I am in the assessment circus as well. But now I want a noise free 3,200. Completely noise free - and nearly so at 6,400. Like the D700 and other FF cameras. Also on my new list is an improved dynamic range (DR). As I understand the tech the largest contributing factor for both of these is the physical size of the sensor and FF or maybe APS-H is the break-away point. The DR could actually be achieved via multiple exposures and physical buffering in order to maintain the wanted properties of the RAW file format. Also on my current list BTW is 15bit RAW instead of the GH2's 12bit ones.

 

[ptomsu]

Yeah, that sounds like a fair assessment. The GH1 was good enough and the GH2 came along and added a little more to it. That's where I am in the assessment circus as well. But now I want a noise free 3,200. Completely noise free - and nearly so at 6,400. Like the D700 and other FF cameras. Also on my new list is an improved dynamic range (DR). As I understand the tech the largest contributing factor for both of these is the physical size of the sensor and FF or maybe APS-H is the break-away point. The DR could actually be achieved via multiple exposures and physical buffering in order to maintain the wanted properties of the RAW file format. Also on my current list BTW is 15bit RAW instead of the GH2's 12bit ones.

Why 15bit? I thing that will be either 14 or 16 bit - right?

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 ...

 

[Tesselator]

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.

I think you're a victim of RDF. I mean I took a buss across the the USA and back in the 60's and spent less than $150 on fair.

TeeHeeHee...

 

[Tesselator]

Why 15bit? I thing that will be either 14 or 16 bit - right?

Well, right now there are 12bit RAW cameras and 15bit RAW cameras. So I was just taking from the currently offered products. 15bit is much better to process when edits need to be invasive at all. I really notice the difference!

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.

<shrug> OK, I just want my next camera to have the noise qualities of the FF D700 - however we wish to define that.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

Just my 5c ...

Yeah, these are all just opinions and stuff. They're fun to discuss and compare. I think so anyway.

 

[ustein]

>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.

 

[ptomsu]

>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.

Did not know that. Does that mean that MFDBs from Hassi and Phase also use only 15bit or do they use 16bit (as they say). And if they produce 16bit, are these files then cut back to 15bits when edited in PS?

 

[ptomsu]

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.

No I am not saying that! But as one who also makes many times the failure to wait and want the next thing (which sometimes is not even available) I try to set now thresholds for me. And I have found that I can live with that pretty good.

Does not mean that after some time I would not upgrade my thresholds (equipment) again if it makes sense

 

[Leigh]

>I think Photoshop 16bit files only hold 15bits of data. The other bit is used otherwise.

In the computer world there are two different ways of interpreting 16-bit data:
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.

- Leigh

 

[ptomsu]

In the computer world there are two different ways of interpreting 16-bit data:
1) All 16 bits are significant, yielding values from 0 to 65,535
2) The high-order bit is a sign bit, yielding values from -32,768 to +32,767.

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.

- Leigh

Agree, that makes sense!

Although think about what one could do with negative light maybe time for Einstein 2 ?

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I think you're a victim of RDF. I mean I took a buss across the the USA and back in the 60's and spent less than $150 on fair.

TeeHeeHee...

With an average annual inflation rate of 4.1%, $1 in 1960 would buy as much as $7.44 in 2010. $150 multiplied by 7.44 is $1,116. That takes you halfway around the world on most low price carriers, not on business class, but probably on better seats than your 1960s bus ride

 

[Tesselator]

With an average annual inflation rate of 4.1%, $1 in 1960 would buy as much as $7.44 in 2010. $150 multiplied by 7.44 is $1,116. That takes you halfway around the world on most low price carriers, not on business class, but probably on better seats than your 1960s bus ride

Hey, how come we only adjust for inflation when spending our money? That sucks! I wanna be making 7.44 times what I was in the 60's! As it is it's barely twice.

Inflation is lame!

Dang those bankers and their fractional reserve system! <shakes fist>

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Dang those bankers and their fractional reserve system! <shakes fist>

That we can agree on :cussing:
Still, I prefer to be a poor photographer rather than a bankrupt but rich banker

 

[Tesselator]

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?

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

And now that we'er completely off topic, what do you think the chances are of any M4/3 system offering 15bit RAW files?

At the moment? Zilch. But if Panasonic's aspirations are as high within photography as within video (ref. the AF100), there might be chances some time in the future. A pro body in 2013 or... in a couple of months? You never know with these guys.

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.

 

[Sapphie]

Here my impressions after using the GH2 for some days. Please note that these are my personal impressions about this camera and are by no means scientific or a real review!

As some of you might have noted I also shot a K5 for some weeks before I sent it back. This was not because of bad IQ or bad high ISO, this camera was really a great performer WRT IQ under several circumstances. But there was one main reason why I did - it was not so well and reliably working AF in some conditions, mainly of course low light, but not exclusively. I never found any AF unreliability in the GH2, only thing that can happen is that it is too dark for contrast AF, but then the GH2 will simply NOT do AF and leave you with MF, so you know about it in advance. Not like the K5 which did some focus, approved correct focus but then it was backfocused (in my case).

Which brings me to another major part of the GH2 - the EVF.

Hi

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?

Thanks

Lee

 

[Terry]

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!

 

[Sapphie]

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!

Lee

 

[Tesselator]

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.


.

 

[ptomsu]

Hi

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?

Thanks

Lee

Lee,

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.

 

[ptomsu]

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!

Lee

I mean I might have had one of the bad samples of the K5, as Jono and others are pretty happy with it - so also AF must work for them. Anyway I was not satisfied.