GF2 - Welcome to the family! (It's official)
- Thread starter HHL
- Start date
Uwe Lansing
Veteran
Take an ear to this sound comparison gf1 vs gf2: http://vimeo.com/16688977 The gf2 sounds pretty well...
I hear mono cupped hands audio vs. stereo cupped hands audio. I also hear the GF1's onboard "wind cut" high-pass filter engaged, and the GF2's isn't, so there's more low end. Other than that, it just sounds like mono and stereo versions of the same mediocre electret capsule behind a slit and coupled to a lo-fi commodity audio circuit.
Don't get me wrong, I love my GF13 and some of my most cherished family videos were with just the onboard audio, outdoor wind blasts and all. But for serious work, the onboard mics of both the GF1 and GF2 just aren't acceptable. I mount a Zoom H1 audio recorder to the hotshoe (with a Redhead of course) and treat the GF1's onboard audio as the sync track in post. It's easy and you don't even need an expensive NLE, the new iMovie 11's waveform view lets you sync audio quickly and painlessly.
I hate to be That Guy and dis a new camera before I've had one in hand to examine, but everything I'm seeing, hearing, and reading about the GF2 is seriously bumming me out. I go into more detail here, and Craig Mod and I go back and forth on it here.
I hope Thom Hogan's right, and that Panasonic is launching the true successor to the GF1 next spring. The GF2 isn't it. It's what the GF1 was marketed as in Japan but wasn't at all -- a girl's camera.
Don't get me wrong, I love my GF13 and some of my most cherished family videos were with just the onboard audio, outdoor wind blasts and all. But for serious work, the onboard mics of both the GF1 and GF2 just aren't acceptable. I mount a Zoom H1 audio recorder to the hotshoe (with a Redhead of course) and treat the GF1's onboard audio as the sync track in post. It's easy and you don't even need an expensive NLE, the new iMovie 11's waveform view lets you sync audio quickly and painlessly.
I hate to be That Guy and dis a new camera before I've had one in hand to examine, but everything I'm seeing, hearing, and reading about the GF2 is seriously bumming me out. I go into more detail here, and Craig Mod and I go back and forth on it here.
I hope Thom Hogan's right, and that Panasonic is launching the true successor to the GF1 next spring. The GF2 isn't it. It's what the GF1 was marketed as in Japan but wasn't at all -- a girl's camera.
Nah, the sound is better on the new GF2. No doubt about it, atleast in that video.
It feels like I'm the only one who actually think the GF2 is pretty interesting. I think the touch screen seems to be pretty good with "touch AF" and the auto tracking AF, hopefully it'll work good. I just wish there would have been a 720p 50p/60p movie mode and 24p.
I don't think I would have upgraded a GF1 if I had one but is there any reason not to buy the GF2 instead of a GF1 exept for the exellent hack?
It feels like I'm the only one who actually think the GF2 is pretty interesting. I think the touch screen seems to be pretty good with "touch AF" and the auto tracking AF, hopefully it'll work good. I just wish there would have been a 720p 50p/60p movie mode and 24p.
I don't think I would have upgraded a GF1 if I had one but is there any reason not to buy the GF2 instead of a GF1 exept for the exellent hack?
Last edited:
Hearing two different tracks vs. a single mono track of the same mediocre audio fools the brain into perceiving higher quality sound from the stereo version. I sort of can't believe we're parsing the sonic differences here when the demo is a guy pointing the cameras at his stereo in his living room, but here we are. I submit that if you took the GF2 demo audio, used only one channel, and high-passed it like the GF1 clearly is set for, you wouldn't hear any significant difference. The GF2 doesn't have its wind cut filter engaged, and it is stereo. Beyond that it is the same sound quality. Okay for home video, not good enough for serious work.
Guys, everything depends on expectations. I am really happy with GF2, as I treat it simply as better camera than LX5 just to take with me on a bicycle. And it uses touch screen which I was lauging at initially when G2 was announced, but now really appreciate. One touch and my AF point is set - for both AF (photo, video) or manual focus (photo). No arrows press, press, press, etc.
For more serious work - I will use GHx anyway. I had GF1, I sold it. To weak for video, to close in size to Gx, GHx. No sense to me. I really like, that GF2 is smaller.
I am also going to buy X100 (mostly for photo), unless this style Lumix will appear, than I will consider it instead.
PS: I have fogotten - GF2 has something that was missed so far in all Lumixes G... You can finally set - to what you will have quick access in menu. No more useless "My menu" or however it was called. Great move!
For more serious work - I will use GHx anyway. I had GF1, I sold it. To weak for video, to close in size to Gx, GHx. No sense to me. I really like, that GF2 is smaller.
I am also going to buy X100 (mostly for photo), unless this style Lumix will appear, than I will consider it instead.
PS: I have fogotten - GF2 has something that was missed so far in all Lumixes G... You can finally set - to what you will have quick access in menu. No more useless "My menu" or however it was called. Great move!
Last edited:
Ok, if the GF1 wind cut filter is set to on it's a really bad comparison test. You're probably right since you know what a GF1 should sound like.
I think he still has that GF2, testing it out. Why don't you tell him?
Yes, it's a simple test in a living room but at the end it's your ear you use to judge the sound. I know you're dissapointed but you can't really expect a mic good enough for serious work. I wish it was just as good as the bigger cameras like the Gh2 but it will never be.
Actually, I believe the GF form factor cameras could be every bit as good as the GH Lumixes. In terms of raw internals, they're not too far apart. Panasonic, quite appropriately and traditionally so, needs to position the GF and GH series cameras so there's a clear distinction for buyers. Apple does the same thing with its computers, so everyone doesn't just buy the cheapest MacBook and call it a day.
But if we're talking about built-in mics, that's a whole different discussion. I believe this is an area where camera manufacturers could easily be doing so much better but they just don't get it yet. Just as most A/V receivers have lousy video switchers because the manufacturers focus on the audio side and consider video settled if a decent looking picture comes out of the 25-cent IC they tack onto the board, camera companies treat built-in mics binarily as well -- they either add sound to the image, or they don't. This attitude is why most cameras with built-in mics produce quite mediocre sound.
Ironically, Pure Digital (now owned by Cisco) is way ahead of Pana/Cano/Niko et al on this. All the way back to the original Flip, the engineers spent a considerable amount of time designing a really, really good built-in mic, and the difference is easily heard when you compare any Flip's onboard audio with any DSLR. The electret mic elements are on a par across all of these cameras, but the Flip's audio circuit has adaptive algorithms much like its video circuit that take into account things like signal level, dynamics, and frequency response, and it delivers an audio track that's surprisingly good, especially when compared to most camcorders and digital cameras. Flip audio sounds warm, present, and "finished" to a surprising degree -- when I traded up to my GF1, image quality took a quantum leap forward while sound was downgraded. Even the audio on an iPhone (3G and above) sounds better and cleaner than any of the DSLRs -- I've used my 3G as a field recorder in a pinch and the sound was leagues better than the GF1's mic, even when both were recording from the same location.
So why don't the camera companies follow PD's lead and improve their built-in mic circuits? Because seven people would notice and care. You guys are happy when some guy points his GF2 at his home stereo and puts the clip on YouTube. I honestly wish I was that easily won over. Would've saved me $99 for a Zoom and $35 for a Redhead.
But if we're talking about built-in mics, that's a whole different discussion. I believe this is an area where camera manufacturers could easily be doing so much better but they just don't get it yet. Just as most A/V receivers have lousy video switchers because the manufacturers focus on the audio side and consider video settled if a decent looking picture comes out of the 25-cent IC they tack onto the board, camera companies treat built-in mics binarily as well -- they either add sound to the image, or they don't. This attitude is why most cameras with built-in mics produce quite mediocre sound.
Ironically, Pure Digital (now owned by Cisco) is way ahead of Pana/Cano/Niko et al on this. All the way back to the original Flip, the engineers spent a considerable amount of time designing a really, really good built-in mic, and the difference is easily heard when you compare any Flip's onboard audio with any DSLR. The electret mic elements are on a par across all of these cameras, but the Flip's audio circuit has adaptive algorithms much like its video circuit that take into account things like signal level, dynamics, and frequency response, and it delivers an audio track that's surprisingly good, especially when compared to most camcorders and digital cameras. Flip audio sounds warm, present, and "finished" to a surprising degree -- when I traded up to my GF1, image quality took a quantum leap forward while sound was downgraded. Even the audio on an iPhone (3G and above) sounds better and cleaner than any of the DSLRs -- I've used my 3G as a field recorder in a pinch and the sound was leagues better than the GF1's mic, even when both were recording from the same location.
So why don't the camera companies follow PD's lead and improve their built-in mic circuits? Because seven people would notice and care. You guys are happy when some guy points his GF2 at his home stereo and puts the clip on YouTube. I honestly wish I was that easily won over. Would've saved me $99 for a Zoom and $35 for a Redhead.
Well, just because most of us think GF2 gives better audio we don't think it's awesome or good enough for serious work. I believe that Panasonic is keeping the mic and other functions more simple on this camera for a reason. All companies do it.
I mean, take TV's for example. Many times they have the same kind of panels and processors but on the cheaper versions they just disable the functions. GF2 is not meant to be as good as the GH2.
People do notice and care but most of them take it for what it is. It's a camera that also records video and sound and you can always use an external mic. Of course it means more money to spend, just the way they want it..
I mean, take TV's for example. Many times they have the same kind of panels and processors but on the cheaper versions they just disable the functions. GF2 is not meant to be as good as the GH2.
People do notice and care but most of them take it for what it is. It's a camera that also records video and sound and you can always use an external mic. Of course it means more money to spend, just the way they want it..
It is every every day camera for taking everywhere. To be taken on a party, bicycle ride...
And apart from photos - you can make short video of family or friends. It never was supposed to be serious one...
You can't connect external mic. to GFx series. Only record totally separately and sync in post.
Yes, that's exactly what I mean..
I know but we were also talking about dslr microphones in general. Shaveblog think they all are worthless and he is right. I explained why I think they are crappy.
Last edited:
paulhouston
Member
I love Panasonic's video products, but hate its audio products. As far as I can remember, Panasonic has never ever made any decent audio device, either stand alone e.g. audio recorder, or as part of a camcorder/camera.
I used to own a very decent Panasonic camcorder the AGDVC-30, as well as a simple (optional) XLR mic adapter AG-MAY30G which Panasonic claims to be "professional audio quality", and which I paid the full retail price of $375. Sorry to contradict Panasonic, it was so noisy (high noise floor) it was completely unusable. In contrast Sony makes many high quality audio devices including truly pro quality recorders.
All things considered, including the video quality, and prices, I still prefer Panasonic photo/video products though.
I used to own a very decent Panasonic camcorder the AGDVC-30, as well as a simple (optional) XLR mic adapter AG-MAY30G which Panasonic claims to be "professional audio quality", and which I paid the full retail price of $375. Sorry to contradict Panasonic, it was so noisy (high noise floor) it was completely unusable. In contrast Sony makes many high quality audio devices including truly pro quality recorders.
All things considered, including the video quality, and prices, I still prefer Panasonic photo/video products though.
stoneinapond
Veteran
The Panasonic/Ramsa DA7 was a great sounding digital mixer. The converters were particularly good. As were their professional DAT recorders. Sadly, now all gone.