PDA

View Full Version : What do you GH-1 owners think about the CNet review?



e-steve
05-17-2009, 11:46 AM
Listen to podcast here...

http://podcast-files.cnet.com/podcast/IE051509.mp3

Would like to hear your thoughts on what she says...

ryansheffer
05-17-2009, 01:45 PM
That woman is not worth listening to. Wow.

Zacatac
05-17-2009, 02:00 PM
Its four thirds, isn't that an EVF?

she says shes pissed cause you can't look through the viewfinder whilst filming

codeloss
05-17-2009, 03:00 PM
she says shes pissed cause you can't look through the viewfinder whilst filming

Actually, she complimented it for being able to use the EVF while filming, and pointed out this is something that you can't do with other movie-mode SLRs.

It's a somewhat positive review. She says 1080p is visibly sharper than 720p, and 24fps is probably too jerky for consumers. It's pricey, and there's lot of competition coming down the pipeline, so don't buy it unless you need it now. Nothing much you haven't heard before.

commanderspike
05-18-2009, 02:17 AM
It was a rubbish review, she doesn't know her digital SLRs from her compacts!!

e-steve
05-18-2009, 03:13 AM
I don't get why she's so critical of 24p - I was watching Survivor last night thinking, they shot it in 24p...and the Office is shot in 24p also. So maybe she just has a really weird eye for what looks good video wise?

cowpunk52
05-18-2009, 08:07 AM
Hey, guys - long time reader, first time poster here. Just wanted to throw in my 2 pennies about that CNET review: While I strongly disagree with a lot of what Lori said regarding the GH1, I disagree because my intended uses of the GH1 (and probably everyone on this forum) are staggeringly different from the average consumer.

CNET reviews are for consumers, people looking to get fun tech toys to for reunions, kid's soccer games, etc. And to be perfectly honest, for those people, her review was spot on. We (filmakers/dvxuser types) are the type of people that understand limitations in video performance because we've been dealing with it for years, and know how to use x, y & z tools with a, b & c limitations. Average Joe Consumer probably won't have that same knowledge and patience for a, b & c limitations, especially for something they just shelled out $1500 for, which could potentially make for some very disappointed Panny customers.

Isaac_Brody
05-18-2009, 08:08 AM
Good points cowpunk.

anthonybsd
05-18-2009, 10:13 AM
She seems to be the main reviewer of consumer camcorders in a number of publications. Which is why it's somewhat puzzling to me that she'd say something like this:

"The 30fps 720p 17Mbps video is quite good in both bright and dim light--comparable with any of the decent $600 HD camcorder".

I'm confused. Are the sub-$600 camcorders really that good nowadays that she couldn't tell the difference?

Final Design Studios
05-18-2009, 10:42 AM
She didn't sound like she really knew all that much cameras to be honest. Maybe it was the allergies she said she was battling but she seemed rather unsure of herself while reviewing the camera.

Some of it was helpful information, but I agree with cowpunk, she's looking at it from a consumer point of view.

commanderspike
05-18-2009, 11:19 PM
Even from a consumer view, she didn't get her basic facts right.

The video output isn't comparable to a sub $600 camcorder at all. Maybe she had issues with playback on her toy computer.

Being a 'consumer friendly' publication is no excuse for shoddy journalism and poor fact checking which I see so often in these types of magazines.

These members of the press are one of the reasons the digital camera industry is obsessed with megapixel counts, gimmicks and marketing, whilst truly innovative technology like the GH1 is left on the shelves unsold and misunderstood.

It's just as well the newer generation of consumers are better informed and more enthusiastic. I can't see many mums buying a GH1 to film their kid's sports day. That's not a criticism against those, but the point is - the mass market has different needs to the enthusiast market, and unfortunately misinformation runs rife in the mass market, blocking some decent products from commercial success.

If the GH1 was mass market it'd be cheaper and available in plentiful numbers. It's not, and therefore we lose out. It's the price we pay for being enthusiastic and wanting Panasonic to take our money! :huh:

*Crazy world...*

ydgmdlu
05-19-2009, 03:51 AM
Well, the upside of the review (and similar ones) is that consumers might be dissuaded from creating a back-order situation a la the 5D Mark II. Those of us who are excited about this camera want one ASAP, and for at least a few of us, shortage of stock would be killer. The less people planning to buy it the better, at least at the beginning.

BrianMurphy
05-19-2009, 04:02 AM
The CNET review is typical of other reviews by the same person. Not worth the time or effort. I honestly think anyone who is going to drop 2k Cdn. on a camera would look elsewhere for "decison making advice." I wouldn't call this journalism under any circumstances it is merely "filler" for web pages much like the crap on automobiles, medicine,fitness etc.
I read Barrry Green and searched for others professional opinions when I was looking to buy an HMC150 and have done the same with GH1 following Phil BLoom's blog etc.
CNET is a waste of time!

klas
05-19-2009, 02:26 PM
Well, you'll get a HV20 for less than 600 and it has much better quality than this camera from what I've seen. Yeah, it has a smaller sensor and deeper dof but the quality is much better.

Justyn
05-19-2009, 02:37 PM
The HV20 is a dismal low-light operator and is in no way a better image. Not to mention that it has the works example of jello video and is completely useless for the action sports stuff and the kind of work that I do. I sold the cam and got the SD9 to replace it with much better results. Jello and dropouts are a thing of the past.

PappasArts
05-19-2009, 02:41 PM
Well, you'll get a HV20 for less than 600 and it has much better quality than this camera from what I've seen. Yeah, it has a smaller sensor and deeper dof but the quality is much better.

Another FUD-Man in the house!

Your 1st post to DVXuser, and it's a negative one spreading info you don't show proof of. Unless you have a straight forward example; maybe you should not make such black & white assertions until you have very good data to back it up in either direction; pro or con...



Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms


Anamorphic DSLR Lens Test Images... links:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.p...9&postcount=97
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.p...5&postcount=84

Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Pappas/573417404
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
http://www.PappasArts.com
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }

.

AdrianF
05-19-2009, 02:44 PM
So would you like to show some side by side examples to back up your claim? HV20/30 and other HDV cams can produce some great images for the money, but they are a great grandchild of the DV revolution, whereas VDSLRS ( what a shit name ) are the brothers from another planet.

Ian-T
05-19-2009, 03:16 PM
Well, you'll get a HV20 for less than 600 and it has much better quality than this camera from what I've seen. Yeah, it has a smaller sensor and deeper dof but the quality is much better.Ummm....huh? I mean I love my HV20 and all...but...huh?

Nighthawk
05-19-2009, 03:18 PM
Well, you'll get a HV20 for less than 600 and it has much better quality than this camera from what I've seen. Yeah, it has a smaller sensor and deeper dof but the quality is much better.

Oops. I think somebody just stepped in it. Just a heads up klas, a lot of time, testing and , yes, arguing have gone on for some time looking into the strengths and weaknesses of this camera by some very experienced and talented people with the hopes we'll all be able to make an informed decision when it comes available. Take the time to read as much of these threads as you can before making such a broad claim. It's at the stage now where opinions don't matter as much as "proof's in the pudding".

Kholi
05-19-2009, 03:34 PM
Don't fall into troll traps so easily, guys. It's obviously a post to get you stirred and riled.

Ian-T
05-19-2009, 03:36 PM
...psst....I new that....




...I did...







...not...

Nighthawk
05-19-2009, 03:50 PM
Don't fall into troll traps so easily, guys. It's obviously a post to get you stirred and riled.

Damn, you're right and that's hard for me to say with a hook still in my mouth.

PappasArts
05-19-2009, 04:07 PM
I knew that. It always makes me laugh when some FUD-ER drops a turd in the middle of a thread discusision, and just happens to be a coincidence; it's their very first post ever........

Just another idiot thinking we are stupid to that shite!

John Caballero
05-19-2009, 05:08 PM
The HV20 is such a thing of the past is not even worth mention it anymore. Its ok if you had some fun with it but thats it. Its a relic of the past. It is not a professional camera by any means.

Dingos8mybaby
05-19-2009, 05:15 PM
I gave up on the podcast in about 15s. blah...

PappasArts
05-19-2009, 05:37 PM
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d94/PappasArts/fud.gif

Nighthawk
05-19-2009, 06:03 PM
This is is the 2nd most embarrassing I've ever had to admit to but I didn't know what FUD meant. Googled it and found out. Wassup with that? Is this a hobby for some? I'm so old the only FUDd I knew was Elmer.

BrianMurphy
05-19-2009, 06:12 PM
Well, you'll get a HV20 for less than 600 and it has much better quality than this camera from what I've seen. Yeah, it has a smaller sensor and deeper dof but the quality is much better.
Whew! I am feeling so much better having read your post . Yes, I think I will follow your advice immediately. I only wish you had posted your thoughts earlier. But then that would have messed up your perfect record of 1-post. And all here I am sure as you will read, not only live and die by your deep and well researched words but they also have your track record to stand as comfort for the drastic measures they will undertake as soon as they too finish reading your sage advice.

klas
05-19-2009, 11:43 PM
Hi, I'm sorry if I offended someone. And I'm absolutely not trolling here. And why the hostility? I actually didn't knew I'd get this reaction. I mean, we can have different opinions right?

I didn't realize this would be the first post, actually I've posted here before but with an old account I've since forgotten it seems. I just tested the log in with my usual set of usernames and passwords and found this one working.

From what I've seen the compression is pretty damn heavy. But you're right about the low light capabilites.

I've read up a lot on this camera and was quite excited about it but was a bit floored when I saw the image quality. And maybe I could've been a little bit smoother as this is a dedicated forum for the camera and all. And obviously the zero posts thing offended you further.

I remember getting slammed here a long time ago, before reduser, for stating out that the RED had some heave rolling shutter wobbling. Which it did, at the time. Now it's better.

Actually I downloaded quite many videos of the GH1 and all seem to have large compression artefacts.

Hm, and BrianMurphy. What exactly was my advice? I just gave my opinion on this camera.

Had I known it would be the first post I wouldn't have been as short and direct about it for sure.

klas
05-19-2009, 11:54 PM
The HV20 is such a thing of the past is not even worth mention it anymore. Its ok if you had some fun with it but thats it. Its a relic of the past. It is not a professional camera by any means.

Yeah, sure. I just mentioned it because it's pretty cheap and to show that her argument wasn't that far fetched.

I agree with a lot of what you guys say, but not on the actualy image quality.

Sorry for double posting but I got more response on my post than I thought. Or wanted, I didn't realize it would be as controversial. Should've known though. Being on a dedicated board and all.

EDIT: And so that everyone know what I'm talking about. When I said quality I mean just the image quality. Leave every dof, wobble, lowlight or other discussion aside. Just look at the compression and average cleaness of the image.

PappasArts
05-20-2009, 12:01 AM
Attention Moderators,

Is there any chance we can get this thread closed so it will drift away, since it's just a rehash of an already beaten to dead subject matter with no constructive purpose and surly a waist of board space/bandwidth.

.

Justyn
05-20-2009, 06:36 AM
For less than 400 bucks, the SD9 is a better cam.. No jello, solidstate, uses 150 batteries and its 1/2 the size of the HV20.. but it too looks like crap in low-light.

The HV20 is rated at 80 ASA. SO unless you are outside or have tons of light on the subject, you got bubbkus.

klas
05-20-2009, 01:25 PM
You can be right. I've never used that camera. I took the HV20 as an example casue I've used it in a production. And you're absolutely right about it's poor low light capabilites. The pictures I got out of it was sweet though.

RaviSun3D
05-23-2009, 12:57 AM
Whoa Whow! Stop lady... stop!
You are Confused, you don't know the SLRs, you don't even know the consumer cams, once I saw your review of HVX200 and I was LOL...:-Laugh(DBG)-1
Sorry Guys! I too think this thread must be closed...:furious3: