dpreview - GH2 Full Review Posted
- Thread starter PJF
- Start date
Great review. But I burst out laughing when they wrote toward the end:
"Comparing the GH2 to consumer camcorders at a similar price point is problematic, since the Four Thirds sensor is so large - a fact that has huge implications for image quality and depth of field control. On the other hand, the fact that the GH2 (like all interchangeable lens still cameras) does not feature a motorized zoom or built-in ND filters is relevant, and both omissions might limit its usefulness to serious videographers.
Ultimately, as well as built-in ND filters, we would like the GH3 to feature a swivel EVF with larger magnification, and some better tools (such as a waveform monitor) for controlling exposure. Also, although the GH2's video codec improves on the GH1, there is still room for improvement: 10 bit color depth, higher bit rates and 4:2:2 color compression would be nice, as well as improved continuous AF. Overall though, the GH2 is a big improvement over the GH1, and a major step into the right direction. Putting specification to one side for a moment, it is also a pleasure to use, both as a video and stills camera."
I mean, why not ask for a pony while they're at it, LOL! Am I going to object to the GH3 featuring built in ND filters, better codec with 10 bit color depth and 4:2:2 compression, swivel EVF with greater magnification, improved continuous AF etc.? Ha, ha, ha, I would think I died and went to heaven, especially if they don't bump up the price. But do I think it will happen on the GH3 - NOT A CHANCE! Down the road, somewhere around GH7, maybe.
"Comparing the GH2 to consumer camcorders at a similar price point is problematic, since the Four Thirds sensor is so large - a fact that has huge implications for image quality and depth of field control. On the other hand, the fact that the GH2 (like all interchangeable lens still cameras) does not feature a motorized zoom or built-in ND filters is relevant, and both omissions might limit its usefulness to serious videographers.
Ultimately, as well as built-in ND filters, we would like the GH3 to feature a swivel EVF with larger magnification, and some better tools (such as a waveform monitor) for controlling exposure. Also, although the GH2's video codec improves on the GH1, there is still room for improvement: 10 bit color depth, higher bit rates and 4:2:2 color compression would be nice, as well as improved continuous AF. Overall though, the GH2 is a big improvement over the GH1, and a major step into the right direction. Putting specification to one side for a moment, it is also a pleasure to use, both as a video and stills camera."
I mean, why not ask for a pony while they're at it, LOL! Am I going to object to the GH3 featuring built in ND filters, better codec with 10 bit color depth and 4:2:2 compression, swivel EVF with greater magnification, improved continuous AF etc.? Ha, ha, ha, I would think I died and went to heaven, especially if they don't bump up the price. But do I think it will happen on the GH3 - NOT A CHANCE! Down the road, somewhere around GH7, maybe.
I was thinking the same thing when I read it. I'm not buying one because it doesn't come with a free subscription to Playboy magazine. Then again, I guess they DID use the term "videographer" and not "filmmaker"...so I guess something like a built-in ND would be handy. But, some amazing new fangled cameras have that...they're called camcorders.
And how is Uncle Charlie supposed to transition from his 20 year old HI-8 Sony Handycam over to the GH2 without a swivel EVF to shoot his niece's wedding????
And boy, after reading that, you'll know that the low light capabilities of the GH2 are just terrible!!
Otherwise, despite my joshing, great article!
Danielvilliers
Veteran
This tell you how people judgment are bias and not objective at all. How many time have you heard people say how the photo quality of the gh2 was ... crap, etc. etc. compared to the Canon etc.. They just spout things that they do not know at all. To todays standard in terms of photography, it is the user that is crap and not the camera. They (DSLR) have all reached a level that they very good unless the operator is bad. I hope the day is close that the video camera world becomes the same, where you can buy at an affordable price a tool where the limiting factor is the operator. I guess the gh2 is one giant step in this dream.
Yup. That was a shocker--edged out Olympus in sharpness and noise. Only some quibbles with JPEG color.
JamesBenet
Active member
I own both the Gh2 and 7D and I can tell you the stills on the GH2 are good but I really can't use them for professional work consistently. The dynamic range is lower and the detail suffers due to the NR needed to get the luma noise out which is all over the shadows even on low ISOs.
It is still the best still IQ you can get in compact and mirror-less land "Except the M9" and probably better than most 4/3s Oly bodies out there but when you get to compare in the end, the quality is just a level below what the 7D can do. I wanted a complete solution on the GH2 but I simply can't get rid of the 7D just yet, the still images are in my view loads better.
The studio sample shots on dpreview are controlled setups with constant light and hardly tax the sensors. A real world test, side by side could easily show the real IQ differences.
Video quality and usefulness the GH2 is the best right now no question and has set the bar high. The EX mode is superb.
It is still the best still IQ you can get in compact and mirror-less land "Except the M9" and probably better than most 4/3s Oly bodies out there but when you get to compare in the end, the quality is just a level below what the 7D can do. I wanted a complete solution on the GH2 but I simply can't get rid of the 7D just yet, the still images are in my view loads better.
The studio sample shots on dpreview are controlled setups with constant light and hardly tax the sensors. A real world test, side by side could easily show the real IQ differences.
Video quality and usefulness the GH2 is the best right now no question and has set the bar high. The EX mode is superb.
iHartVideo
Well-known member
100% correct.
I've defended the GH2's photo capabilities but my voice is just a drop compared to the waterfall of "OMG CANON SO GOOD AT STILLS" replies.
It seems Nostalgic gives the best dynamic range:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicDMCGH2/page12.asp
I wonder how this is achieved and if there is some other compromise. Since it gives brighter images, it seems you could safely underexpose when a shot doesn't have bright highlights.
Thoughts?
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicDMCGH2/page12.asp
I wonder how this is achieved and if there is some other compromise. Since it gives brighter images, it seems you could safely underexpose when a shot doesn't have bright highlights.
Thoughts?
Canon still DSLR's have an inherent advantage that can be seen only in RAW image files. The Panasonic G-series sensors generate 12-bit RAW color data, which is plenty for video. However, for high-resolution still images, the Canon sensors' 14-bit RAW output makes a measurable difference. In addition, the full-frame 35mm sensor in the 5D Mark II captures a significantly broader dynamic range of illumination, particularly in low-light situations.
i really prefer smooth mode with nr -1. the nostalgic just overexposes in my eyes and what is the point? you can make it that way in pp unless you want that bright look as you connect to your plasma tv to show the friends.
I like the slightly warm look of Nostalgic with incandescent indoor lighting at night. On the GH1, I use a custom white balance setting of 2700K with M-4 to banish any greenish tinges. The dpreview charts also confirm that Nostalgic provides much smoother highlight gradients than Smooth mode. This can help reduce banding effects when shooting stage performances with hot spotlights in the frame. With this kind of high-contrast lighting, you frequently need to overexpose the highlights, and visible banding on a spotlight beam can ruin an otherwise well-exposed shot.
Thanks for this tip. I occasionally get a little greenish tinge from stage lighting, I'll have to try this. Can I ask what sharpening, NR, etc you use with these settings? TIA.
improser
Active member
Thinking in what you say, and after viewing thousands of examples about the banding problems in gradient surfaces (not flickering thing with 50/60Hz) im very suspicious about the GH2 is capturing video directly in 8bits: the better example taked for a raw archive is the sky posted in toher thread... it make me anxious... i download the original file trying to fix but no, imposible... Particulary this aspect is stoping me about buying now the GH2.
What you think?
For low-light shots, I like subdued color and crushed blacks, so my settings may look a bit extreme:
Contrast: -2
Sharpness: +2
Saturation: -2
Noise Reduction: +2
Subtle gradients are always difficult to encode, particularly dim shades that fade slowly into black. For video capture, the image sensor's 12-bit color output is averaged down to 8-bit RGB pixels. In practice, both AVCHD and MJPEG encoders tend to reduce the tonal range to even less than 8-bits, especially when dealing with dark areas of the image. And with noise and FPN lurking at low light levels as well, I prefer to crush the dim shades to black.
Ben_B
Veteran
Yeah but when a well known site like DPReview asks for the moon like that and not just some random people on forums Panasonic is more likely to notice that it's something people are asking for, and even if they can't/won't deliver it, they might start to build things more for that type of customer.
...I shot a friend's variety show at a local bar a week ago and compared the 3 main profiles that I shoot with. The stage lighting was very uneven, so I was concerned about holding detail in both the hilights ( silver sparkly and white costumes ) and shadows. For this show the Smooth profile that I use ( see below ) produced the nicest looking footage. ( I won't post screen grabs as I want to do a proper test that better demos what I am getting at )
I prefer to adjust contrast / sharpness / noise-reduction in post where I have way more control than what the camera offers, so here are my standard profile settings:
Contrast: -2
Sharpness: -2
Saturation: 0
Noise Reduction: -2
NOTE: Noise reduction can eat detail, which is why I recommend setting it to -2 and doing this in post with a good utility like the NeatVideo plug-in.
SUPER HIGH CONTRAST LIGHTING
I use the Nostalgic profile with the settings listed above. This works great for stage lighting and full on direct sunlight with very dark shadows.
HIGH CONTRAST LIGHTING
I use the Smooth profile with the settings above. This also works great for stage lighting when the lighting is mixed ( not just spotlights ), and for direct sunlight with strong shadows.
NORMAL to FLAT LIGHTING
I use the Cinema profile with the settings above. This works great for overcast skies, places over lit with fluorescent or indirect lighting. The Cinema profile will produce darker shadows, so you may have to open up the shadows with your NLE. ( I use the LEVELS / GAMMA control with Sony Vegas Pro which works like a charm )
I prefer to adjust contrast / sharpness / noise-reduction in post where I have way more control than what the camera offers, so here are my standard profile settings:
Contrast: -2
Sharpness: -2
Saturation: 0
Noise Reduction: -2
NOTE: Noise reduction can eat detail, which is why I recommend setting it to -2 and doing this in post with a good utility like the NeatVideo plug-in.
SUPER HIGH CONTRAST LIGHTING
I use the Nostalgic profile with the settings listed above. This works great for stage lighting and full on direct sunlight with very dark shadows.
HIGH CONTRAST LIGHTING
I use the Smooth profile with the settings above. This also works great for stage lighting when the lighting is mixed ( not just spotlights ), and for direct sunlight with strong shadows.
NORMAL to FLAT LIGHTING
I use the Cinema profile with the settings above. This works great for overcast skies, places over lit with fluorescent or indirect lighting. The Cinema profile will produce darker shadows, so you may have to open up the shadows with your NLE. ( I use the LEVELS / GAMMA control with Sony Vegas Pro which works like a charm )
I looked carefully at the GH2 at 160 ISO (raw) and compared it to the 7D but also the very pricey 1D Mark IV. The GH2 resolved slightly more detail (watch, coin) than the two Canons. I understand that the lighting is controlled, but that is a pretty impressive result.