PDA

View Full Version : GH2 GH1 or GH2?



thawk21
11-28-2011, 08:08 AM
I am looking to get a new camera and I am down to these 2. I have done some researching and most of what I have saw is that the GH2 is not a huge upgrade over the GH1. Now that the GH2 can be hacked as well does that put it way over the top of the hacked GH1?

I can get the GH1 for $650 with the 14-42 lens.
I can get the GH2 for $800 with the 14-42 lens.

Is the GH2 worth the extra $150? Thanks for all your help.

Also how does the video quality compare to something like the Panasonic TM900?

stoneinapond
11-28-2011, 08:27 AM
Is the GH2 worth the extra $150?

Without question.

txcompuser
11-28-2011, 08:45 AM
Just sold my GH1 yesterday after getting the GH2 - the range of available hacks is amazing.

MR Fanny
11-28-2011, 03:47 PM
for 150 no question

berylium
11-28-2011, 03:49 PM
gh2

Lucas Adamson
11-28-2011, 06:06 PM
They are both great and I own both. I had 2x GH1s but upgraded my A cam, because of 2 things, and these are the only reasons in my opinion to go for the more expensive camera (there are others, like crazy high bitrate, but it's probably not for you) 1. HDMI monitoring (OK so maybe you won't use this but it's a biggie for serious stuff, and 2. Better low light performance. That is a biggie for everybody. This means a cleaner, less grungy look for all indoor shooting, and it is definitely worth the extra, if $150 is all that's in it.

GH1 is still a great camera though and out in the sunshine, they both look much the same. Superb :)

Essami
11-29-2011, 12:08 PM
I own both and can testify that even the unhacked GH2 out performs the hacked GH1. Definately GH2, no question.

Hutchman
11-29-2011, 12:22 PM
They are both great and I own both. I had 2x GH1s but upgraded my A cam, because of 2 things, and these are the only reasons in my opinion to go for the more expensive camera (there are others, like crazy high bitrate, but it's probably not for you) 1. HDMI monitoring (OK so maybe you won't use this but it's a biggie for serious stuff, and 2. Better low light performance. That is a biggie for everybody. This means a cleaner, less grungy look for all indoor shooting, and it is definitely worth the extra, if $150 is all that's in it.

GH1 is still a great camera though and out in the sunshine, they both look much the same. Superb :)

Lucas hit the nail on the head. HDMI plus much better ISO for only $150 extra is a no brainer.

JBoatman
11-29-2011, 03:26 PM
From what I've seen, it seems to me like it would not be worth it. After reading these replies though, it seems like that is the route I will go also!

joe1946
11-29-2011, 04:23 PM
I am looking to get a new camera and I am down to these 2. I have done some researching and most of what I have saw is that the GH2 is not a huge upgrade over the GH1. Now that the GH2 can be hacked as well does that put it way over the top of the hacked GH1?

I can get the GH1 for $650 with the 14-42 lens.
I can get the GH2 for $800 with the 14-42 lens.

Is the GH2 worth the extra $150? Thanks for all your help.

Also how does the video quality compare to something like the Panasonic TM900?
The GH2 is well worth the extra $150. I have the TM700 and 1080p60 @28mbit/sec is an advantage for action but for static shots I prefer the look of the GH2. The GH2/TM900 combo would be a great combo to have.

DrDave
11-29-2011, 06:27 PM
The GH1 has slightly lower noise and if you pair it with the Olympus 45mm you will hit the sweet spot of noise, contrast and sharpness. That is a real sweet spot. The GH2 has easy 24p, live HDMI and ETC mode, plus the promise of some improvements in the soon-to-maybe-be-released firmware. There has never been to my knowledge a double blind test on the IQ but I am reasonably sure such a test would show no difference in IQ, unless you were able to identify the GH2 because the extra noise, which would be difficult from a distance. I found the ETC mode to be pretty disappointing, ymmv.

The GH1 is silent and does not overheat. The GH2 makes some audible noise, probably from the LCD circuit or electrical wires; however, unless you have super mics it is not an issue. It is always nice to have one dead silent camcorder for positioning near the mics.
The GH2 takes better photos. They just look better. But you can take darn good photos on the GH1, the GH2 just bumps it up a notch.
Some say, and I totally see that point of view, that the GH2 noise looks filmic. And others just hate noise. Coming from film, I kinda don't like the "grain"--had too much of it. But I'm coming around (finally) to the realization that super squeaky clean vid looks plasticky. And a little filmic grain can be nice, just like a tube mic in the mix can add some really subtle audio "grain."

The GH1 comes with a continuous power supply and has a better battery.
The GH1 is better on certain rarely captured items like waving grass. If waving grass is your thing, easy choice. I myself have no videos of waving grass.
I don't recommend getting both and using them together. They are different in subtle ways and hard to blend.

Lastly, I would not recommend the kit lens. Get the 14-45 or a really nice legacy prime.
You can get a GH1 body for $300 and a Vivitar 55mm macro for $20 or any of a number of F1.4 50mm primes and have a terrific combo for under $350 including an adapter. Recently AB'd the Vivitar and the Olly 45mm and although I slightly preferred the Olly, they looked pretty much the same. And that is a big price difference. The Olly does squeeze every last drop out of the GH1 sensor, and the results are very pleasing and grade well.
The GH2 has a punchy, sharpy look. If you look really closely at fine detail, you will see some subtle haloing and artifacts. But from two feet away on a big screen these little distortions really disappear, and at four feet you say, hey, the GH2 is sharper. So that is sort of a Zen question: is it sharper, or does it look sharper? I personally don't care if it is fake, if it looks good; I mean, that is the essence of reverb. It is fake, and it sounds good.
Either way, you will get a great cam.

If you are buying "new", and the price difference is small, the convenience of the GH2 is certainly handy.
I also like the Sony 5N for a sporty little walkabout, and the Canon G10. The newer Canons have a telemacro feature that is pretty handy, if all you need is some occasional DOF, and loads of camcordery features like different levels of IS, smooth 'n silent zoom, focus tracking, etc.

Since you asked about the Panny, the one I tried had some fan noise--not sure if this was just this cam--but it produced a superb image and had an excellent lens. However, I liked the Canons because of the telemacro feature and the amazing low light rendition coupled with minimal aliasing. And so it goes.

This issue has been debated pretty extensively, and most ppl prefer the GH2. That's not really a test, but the ppl on this forum are pretty smart cookies, so if the majority prefers the GH2, that means something. There are some diehards like me who like the GH1 for controlled lighting, but I like both cams. And I have way too many cams--which is why I just bought four new ones so they will all be the same. In six months, I presume there will be something better!

pianoboy
11-30-2011, 08:34 PM
I love my GH1, but I would definitely recommend the GH2. If Vitaliy manages to hack the I.Exposure and add custom curves to the GH2... you are not going to want to miss out on having those features!