GH4 GH Stills Quality

G

ggrantly

Veteran
With the introduction of the GH4, I'll have to give it a glance given the backpack that makes it more like a video cam. I shoot still photography also (Canon with L-glass) and am wondering how well the GH series performs in comparison in IQ, responsiveness or any other parameter that matters.

I find it hard to believe I would like a mirror-less cam, but would like to hear from anyone that switch hits with the GH series.

TIA
Grant
 
To be honest I felt the same way as you until I got a chance to shoot with one. I started shooting on a Panasonic GH1 that was my first digital removable lens camera and I loved it! The quality was great for the price and it gave me a chance to dive head first into photography. From there I upgraded to the GH2 and it was a MASSIVE upgrade in quality from the GH1 as far as colour reproduction and IQ.

I then decided to dive into the Canon world and bought a 60d with a few lenses and the quality was great as well but not noticeably better than my gh2 in good light. In lower light it definitely excelled due to the larger sensor.

I ended up selling that due to the crappy ass video quality it had and bought a GH3 and I LOVE IT!

The photo quality out of that camera is mind boggling and is on par to most crop sensor dslr cameras! I LOVE LOVE LOVE my gh3 for photography
 
Thanks for the response.

Any comparison to full frame, which I prefer to shoot? How about a viewfinder comparison? Any lag issues?

Grant
 
As far as IQ there isn't as much as a full frame camera of course. Comparing viewfinder is like night and day unfortunately. It is very hard to get used to shooting with an EVF but once you do it's like a walk through the park. It's not great a nighttime as you get motion blur, but otherwise it's great. I havent noticed any sort of lag except in extreme lowlight.

If you are looking for the best photography camera then Mirrorless is NOT the way to go. They take amazing photos don't get me wrong, but they are designed to be lightweight, easy to use, and just to be good cameras. NOT the best.
 
i dont know much about quality comparison but if you need to shoot stealth the new panasonic lenses will be amazing. the new 35-100mm 2.8 (70-200 equivalent) is only about 4 inches long. A lot more new lenses coming out soon just havent been announced yet
 
I've owned a GH1 and GH2 and now shoot with a 60D. While I shot some great photos with the GH cameras, I don't feel the photo quality was as strong compared to DSLRs overall. I always felt like the photographs were just stills pulled from a video stream rather than dedicated photographs. In the same way my old TRV900 used to shoot stills but wasn't a still camera. If that makes any sense.

I also overall prefer the color of the Canon images and the video quality on the Canon is better in terms of aesthetic quality over the GH line. That's just my personal preference. By the numbers the GH line is sharper and higher resolution than what Canon has onboard for video, but technical qualities aren't all there is. The video quality was superior to the stills quality on the GH line in my opinion.

From an ergonomics perspective the GH line is superior when used as a video camera and even sometimes as a stills camera. I would take the EVF over a OVF and severly miss it on the 60D. I've never shot with the GH3 but I assume I would like it even more than the 1 and 2 because I prefer a bigger meaty body. About the only redeeming quality of the 60D in terms of ergonomics aside from a better menu system.

Basically in a nutshell from my perspective, shooting stills on a GH is like shooting stills on a video camera. Shooting video on a Canon is like shooting video on a stills camera.
 
I'd 2nd roxic's point. I use the GH3 mostly for video and sometimes for stills, but the 5d2 and 3 turn out better, much more detailed shots most of the time.
 
I've owned and used a bunch of cameras in the past - Nikon D90, Canon 550D, Canon 5DII. But my favourite, hands down, is the Lumix GX7.

It's always with me (with the 20mm F1.7 kit lens) - fast, compact, and fun. I don't feel like crop factor of dof is a problem especially as the size of the lenses are so small and discrete. I don't shoot billboard prints or architecture, and I generally like the image quality and skin tones without too much faffing around in post. I also love the mirrorless cameras silent mode, which is great for not sounding like a paparazzi or disturbing people.

Here's some quick snaps that I had taken on the GX7, which I would never have taken on the previous cameras (due to having to lug them around and the unplanned nature). The GH4 has the same sensor so I guess the stills quality is comparable. If you shoot sports, animals, or big studio work though may not be the most ideal cam.
 

Attachments

  • forest_brus.jpg
    forest_brus.jpg
    126.1 KB · Views: 0
  • berlinale.jpg
    berlinale.jpg
    128.1 KB · Views: 0
  • bw snap.jpg
    bw snap.jpg
    64.8 KB · Views: 0
The GH3 is not a 5DIII and comparing them for stills is just silly. It's not far off though and is far far better than the silly comment about the stills feeling like they were pulled from a video stream. Having used the 7D before the GH3 I don't miss the 7D at all. I am loving the still images from the GH3 and 12-35 2.8. Yes, the DOF is greater and it's no low light king like the 5DIII but the images it produces are fantastic and the RAWs are great to work with in LR or PS.

add the cheap Lumix 20mm 1.7 or Pana Leica 25mm 1.4 and you will not be left wanting for sharpness or shallow DOF.
 
Sorry but the comment about "like a still from the video stream" is ridiculous. In my opinion.
 
The only, niggle I find in terms of image aesthetics, is that the sensor/lens behave a little differently on highlights specks like on lights in the scene. If you peep a little more on the Berlinale photo, you'll see that around each strong light source is a discrete glowy shape out of the light source (almost like mini lens flares in that area). On bigger sensors it's more of a smooth gradation.
 
IMHO it really comes down to lenses and ergonomics on the stills side of things...this is said having shot on a GH1/2, Nikon D90, Canon 50D, and currently a Nikon D5200. I loved the hybrid aspect of the GH cameras, being able to seamlessly shoot photos and video was really cool. I also felt I could achieve good photos with the GH cams, but I very much preferred the experience of composing and shooting on the Nikon bodies and especially the Canon 50D, I loved the large body and large bright optical viewfinder, great dials, etc on that one.
 
Tyler Knight said:
It's not great a nighttime as you get motion blur, but otherwise it's great. I havent noticed any sort of lag except in extreme lowlight.
Click to expand...

There is only lag in low light if you have constant preview turned on. With it off, there is no lag but obviosly you will have a dark image. You also have a dark image in low light on a DSLR as there is no constant preview option unless shooting with the mirror up electronically and then you get the same lag anyway as it tries to simulate how you photo will look.

I have absolutely no issues with the EVF on the GH3 when taking stills.
 
the topic of this is will the GH4 compare in picture quality, not the gh3. I'm curious to see since i'm debating on getting a gh4 or a canon 6d right now.
 
Here is how I look at it. DSLR's like Canon and GH3 or now GH4 are both cameras that shoot stills and video, and so very different it's hard to say this one is better than the other. I've owned the GH2 and GH3 and the GH3 was a much improved camera for stills. I liked it a lot. I sold it and bought a 70D because I knew I wanted the GH4 when it was available and it made sense to have a Canon DSLR because I have lots of Canon glass. I didn't sell any of my Lumix lenses. After owning the 70D I have to admit it is a better camera for stills and the Dual Pixel thing is pretty amazing. video is as good as other Canon DSLR's so GH3 wins for video.

The issues I had with the GH3 was it was almost to small in my hand. I kept pushing buttons on the back on accident. Handing the camera to a novice to take a picture of me with someone else usually ended up having them do the same. On the other hand the GH3 was the best travel camera I have ever used. My kit is the Lumix 7-14, 12-35, 35-100. These are great light weight lenses that fit in a small bag. Try this same focal range kit on a full frame or APS-C camera and you wont want to walk around all day with that kit unless your getting payed! So in a nut shell understand what you need from the camera and pick that one and then it's the best. For you.
 
PegLeg Media said:
the topic of this is will the GH4 compare in picture quality, not the gh3. I'm curious to see since i'm debating on getting a gh4 or a canon 6d right now.
Click to expand...
Those are two very different cameras. If you want a full-frame body I think you will disappointed with the GH4 for stills. Very different look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top