GH13 far superior to GH2

Coming from Canons, the GH2 is king of the hill. Best bang for buck for sure, but best video quality of all the DSLR form factor cams.
 
I would agree. If you are specifically looking at 1080p @ 24 FPS or 720p @ 60 FPS output the GH13 is going to produce a better image because the bit rate is so high. Now somewhere down the line you have to reencode that video so you will probably loose all of the benefit of the GH13. However, strictly speaking the 1080p @ 24 FPS and 720p @ 60 FPS video quality of the GH13 is definitely superior.

Now the GH2 has so many other features and formats that make it a much more versatile camera. I wouldn't trade my GH2 for a GH13. However, I really would like to have both at my disposal.
 
I have the GH13 and soon i will buy the GH2, but for me the pluses from the GH2 are:
-HDMI monitoring.
-Higher clean ISO.
-ETC Mode.

I will keep both.
 
I have found that my GH2 is better in most everything than my gh1 hacked with "C" settings, and that includes highly detailed scenes. Yes, it shocked me but I setup my cameras side by side and compared images. The GH1's image is softer and still had slightly more blocking/mud than the gh2.

The single thing I like about the gh1 more than the GH2 is the motion blur.
 
Ian, i am interested to know some of your conclusions with the new 'toy', now that you examine it first hand.
 
GH2 is better just not night and day better.

I get more detail and a little extra dynamic range but its not that much of a improvement. I get a extra stop of clean ISO footage @1250 vs the 800 on the GH13 which is why I got it.

The one thing that I think GH13 dose better is 720 60p. Slow mo is not as clean on the GH2.

If you do not need the better low light capabilities of a GH2 I would stick with a GH13. I hope we get to do a GH13 vs GH23 thread soon!
 
Svart said:
I have found that my GH2 is better in most everything than my gh1 hacked with "C" settings, and that includes highly detailed scenes. Yes, it shocked me but I setup my cameras side by side and compared images. The GH1's image is softer and still had slightly more blocking/mud than the gh2.

The single thing I like about the gh1 more than the GH2 is the motion blur.
Click to expand...


Can you post some samples from those tests?
 
roei z said:
Ian, i am interested to know some of your conclusions with the new 'toy', now that you examine it first hand.
Click to expand...
As bitcrusher says it's better but not "night and day" better...at least in terms of image quality. I think it's noticibly sharper though (sharper as in more detailed....not in video-like harshness).. But in terms of features (like low light and EX tele)...it's much better. Gone are the issues of FPN when using high ISOs. I was in denial when I had my GH-1(3)...but when someone pointed it out to me the first time....I got real anal about it....and it bothered me ever since.

Of course now that we have the potential of HDMI capture....then I see it as no contest. I know there are few folks who don't think that it's worth it...but that's for them. Most of them have an AF100. At this pricepoint with this sized sensor....you can't beat that. The only real problem I have with the GH-2's image (so far) is fast movement compared to the GH-1(3). I've only seen it with other folks footage not mine...but when you pixel peep you'll see it start to break up (not nearly as bad as the stock 17Mbps GH-1) but it's there very faintly. I think however those images I sampled were probably from the lower bit rate "FSH" mode in the camera. Like I've said....I have not noticed it in my shooting (maybe because I'm always in the highest 24p bit rate mode) but I still have some pixel peeping to do. That's where the high bit rate of the GH-1(3) comes in stronger though. I'm sure there's a hack around the corner...and when that happens...this camera would be untouchable (at this price point).

Also... I really like the way the GH-2 resolves skin tones better than the GH-1. It's more real to life for me.

I like Nostalgic mode also and have my own way of removing most of the yellow tint through custom setting of the white balance. The same can be done on the GH-1. I just leave it on auto white balance and then set the color square more towards the blue. Doing this also helps to desaturate the image...and I like it. Looks like some of my old desaturated flat-like 7D footage when I do this.

Other than the touch screen functionality (which I have seldomly used so far other than to play my footage) I think this cam is a lot like the GH-1.
 
Both have their benefits and weakness (GH1 will lose its benefit if the GH2 is hacked)...but GH2 here in u.k is £600 and I saw a hackable GH1 sell for £58 few days back....was a 99p starting bid but still...shocking. I think on average you can get a GH13 for £200 so how I look at it GH2 is £400 too much for the minor improvements (to me).
Happy as I am right now.

Saying that I do actually love shooting with my GF13 more over GH13....does that make me sick?
 
Of course overall GH2 is better in my view especially regarding colour at high ISOs... But it does underexpose at the same ISO compared to the GH1, so actually ISO 1600 on the GH2 is more like 800 on the GH1 and so it's lower noise isn't as low as it seems! The GH1 has a nice cinematic image... The GH2 is a technical improvement but contains very little improvement in 'feel', it still has quite an electronic look and the much higher sharpness and detail doesn't help in that regard. Best to use low-fi lenses if you can, put the life back into the image.

Apart from that, absolutely love mine. Makes the Canon video image look like mud half the time. In stills mode however, opposite is true!!
 
With the time and energies we spent on GH13, it has become more than a camera and became a spirit to control technology rather than vice versa.Thats different from what is just being given as oppose to what we ourselves want to be given.Thats the 'manitou' that we have all created together thanks to geniuses of Ipowell and Vitaly Kiselev.It that sense we create better videographers since they relate to the tools that they had helped developed and that affects creativity at its core.
 
Last edited:
Andrew Reid said:
Of course overall GH2 is better in my view especially regarding colour at high ISOs... But it does underexpose at the same ISO compared to the GH1, so actually ISO 1600 on the GH2 is more like 800 on the GH1 and so it's lower noise isn't as low as it seems! The GH1 has a nice cinematic image... The GH2 is a technical improvement but contains very little improvement in 'feel', it still has quite an electronic look and the much higher sharpness and detail doesn't help in that regard. Best to use low-fi lenses if you can, put the life back into the image.

Apart from that, absolutely love mine. Makes the Canon video image look like mud half the time. In stills mode however, opposite is true!!
Click to expand...

Actually it is 2/3s of a stop difference. ISO 100 on the GH1 is ISO 160 on the GH2. And ISO 160 on the GH2 is an accurate ISO 160. Check dpreview for the tests that show this.
 
I tested the two cams with a sharp lens and I preferred the results of the resolution chart of the GH1 by a tiny margin.
The GH2 has a lot of fake info and some haloing in there.
The GH13 has better motion and cadence, the GH2 takes better photos and has easy 24p. ETC, etc.
So I'm selling the GH13 (listed in for sale) Why? Because I need the peaking and the monitoring. It's convenient. Hey, the GH13 is a great cam. And the anamorphic possibilities are very cool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top