GH2 Deficiencies - A list of findings

Status
Not open for further replies.
...In the computer world, AMD and Intel design and produce the same CPU that they sell at different price points depending on how the CPU has been frequency "locked" ( or "crippled" as some might say ), and this has been a normal part of the CPU business for several decades now.

If you are not happy at how Panasonic has "locked" / "crippled" their GH-2 camera design you are free to buy a different camera. ( right now I don't see any real competitors to either the Panasonic GH-2 or AF-100 cameras )

From a purely technical point of view, Panasonic might have been able to fit more AF-100 features in to the GH-2 design, but from a marketing / survival of the company perspective this would be a bad idea.
 
ok, then go buy cheap chinese sockets or chisels and don't complain when they keep breaking or need sharpening after 5 minutes of usage.. :)

There is a bell curve with tools, as there is with everything in life, that below which, the tools cannot possibly support your work. They are cheap but are very poor quality. As you move up the curve, the cost goes up, but the quality goes up faster until you reach the apex of the bell. It's at this point where you get the best possible cost/performance ratio. If you keep going, you are going to get more features but the cost will increase drastically.

It's my opinion that you are looking at two sides of the bell curve with the GH2 and the AF100. Neither of which are at the bottom of the curve at the high end or low end, but neither are at the apex either. They both lack features or quality to raise them to the apex but they perform well enough that they aren't a poor performer for the cost either.

It's no secret that I think they are closer to each other than panny's marketing wants you to believe. They have very similar problems and perform close enough with the same similarities that there isn't much left to the imagination. The devil is in the details though and you are paying for a few more creature comforts with the AF100, but things like audio inputs and such aren't that big of a cost for a company to put into the mix to warrant a 5x increase in price.

However, where panny placed the AF100 in price versus other cameras that would be considered it's peers is interesting. It's much closer in price to the gh2 than say the RED, etc. I think this says more about how panny felt the AF100 performed when compared to others..
 
I think you need to go out and use the AF100 and GH2 in conjunction with each other before you keep these threads going. The GH2 is nowhere near a software crippled AF100 as suggested, these are much much different beasts, capable of differing burdens. There are many situations where the GH2 is all that is needed, there are also just as many where the AF100 is clearly the best tool for the job. The GH2 is still the best DSLR for professional video work, if it doesn't cut it, its time to "man up" for your job, not bad mouth the company who manufactured the best tool in its class.

The AF100 has a lot more than audio inputs to justify its larger price tag, this is getting old. Go shoot with one, I guarantee you'll have a better understanding of how these cameras are priced and how they relate to each other.
 
TheDingo said:
From a purely technical point of view, Panasonic might have been able to fit more AF-100 features in to the GH2 design, but from a marketing / survival of the company perspective this would be a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Then why didn't they just make the AF-100 better? Why didn't they include internal 4:2:2 10-bit color space to start? And don't say the price... because that's not it.

I think people are missing the real point I was trying to make here... If you have to cripple a $1000 product because it's too close to the performance of a $5000 product from the same company, then it's not the $1000 product that should be crippled, it's the $5000 product that should be performing better.
 
cinemandude said:
If you have to cripple a $1000 product because it's too close to the performance of a $5000 product from the same company
Click to expand...

Repeat after me as many times as it needs to be repeated to sink in.

They are the same company IN NAME ONLY.

Jeez, why is this small fact so hard to comprehend by all the conspiracy folks out there?
 
cinemandude said:
Then why didn't they just make the AF-100 better? Why didn't they include internal 4:2:2 10-bit color space to start? And don't say the price... because that's not it.
Click to expand...

Ummm... Price is exactly it. Way back when the AF-100 was first announced, Jan Crittenden Livingston from Panasonic mentioned that 4:2:2 10-bit internal recording ( i.e. an AVC-Intra 100 Mbit P2 version of the AF-100 ) would have pushed the camera price close to the $10,000 mark.

Right now nobody makes a 10-bit 4:2:2 internal recording large sensor video camera under $10K, even Sony's new F3 does not record 10-bit 4:2:2 internally and it's a $13K+ camera.

So the cheapest route to 10-bit 4:2:2 large sensor shooting is a Sony F3 + lens + external recorder, all this could easily push your budget to $20K. ( also the RED Scarlet has now morphed into a $12K camera according to a post by Jim Jannard himself in January, so the Scarlet won't get the price under $10K either )

...Keeping all things in perspective, an AF-100 looks like a pretty good buy at $5K.
 
Sure there may be a few things I would like to be different or added to the GH2 but honestly, the GH2 at the price of $899, it's nuts as far as how well it can shoot, how good the footage looks, how compact, how capable, how fun and invigorating this little thing is. I have a case full of Zeiss, EOS, FD lenses that all can mount to the GH2 with dirt cheap adapters. My SmallHD monitor works flawlessly in concert with the GH2 filling the full screen space, no Canon crop/crap (I do own and use a 5DII and 7D). I personally like the tonality and color on the GH2 more the Canons. Smooth setting is far better for post grading than the Cinema setting.

Thank you Panasonic for giving us one helluva camera for so little cost, a third the cost of my 5DII. The camera is not my limitation, just my creativity and imagination are.
 
stoneinapond said:
Repeat after me as many times as it needs to be repeated to sink in.

They are the same company IN NAME ONLY.

Jeez, why is this small fact so hard to comprehend by all the conspiracy folks out there?
Click to expand...


And just as I said before, I work in the industry. I know the marketing white lies and the engineering secrets that most people just don't know about nor care to understand. People want to hear that their money is well spent. For the GH2 crowd, they want more for their money and thus the push for hacks. For the AF100 crowd, they want to believe that they didn't waste money and thus the resistance to believing that their camera isn't as simple as it probably is inside.

Trust me, they use other division's work no matter how much someone says they are different. They utilize each other's designs, they use the same parts stocks, the same factories, even the same part libraries for the same design softwares, etc. They WILL NOT duplicate work if they don't absolutely have to. Duplicating work costs MONEY and they like their money. Remember, cash is KING in the consumer design world and they will wring every cent out of their structure. How hard is that to understand?

EVERY single company I've worked for designing consumer and commercial gear maintains different departments for each class of product. They do that simply to keep engineers on task, to leverage regional specialties or some companies keep divisions separate for tax and anti-trust reasons. It doesn't matter, the designs are Intellectual Property(IP) of the company, not of the division. Each division is free to use any design for any reason. Again, I do it all the time and I'm directed time and time again to re-use as much IP as possible to keep design costs(time, parts stock, etc) down as low as possible. I have meetings upon meetings just so the corporate types can make sure we are saving as much money as possible. They hammer us and hammer us and hammer us to re-use as much design as possible. They do this so much, it's hard to innovate at all. Many times we have multiple products that do completely different things but are running on the EXACT same hardware. This isn't some conspiracy theory folks, this is business. Not sure which is worse though..

I just don't understand the resistance to understanding corporate culture and business practices in these threads as people run around with their virtual pitch-forks trying to chase out those who believe differently or have a deeper understanding that shapes their beliefs.

In fact, I'd wager a bet that if we could somehow get around hardware ID's and load the AF100 firmware on the GH2(or vice versa) you'd get most of the functionality of the AF100 on the GH2(or vice-versa). This won't happen, of course, but I'll stand by that statement any day.

Fanboy as much as you like but c'mon, get real.
 
stoneinapond said:
Repeat after me as many times as it needs to be repeated to sink in.

They are the same company IN NAME ONLY.

Jeez, why is this small fact so hard to comprehend by all the conspiracy folks out there?
Click to expand...

Well for one....it's not a conspiracy to realize these companies share technologies across divisions...far from being similar in name only. If they can use parts, software, processors, menu structures, etc. in multiple cameras, company wide - they'll do it. It would be silly not to.
Case in point....The consumer TM300 and the broadcast HMC40 share the same sensors, with identical resolution, the same LCD screen, etc.
That being said I definitely see the numerous advantages of the AF100 over the GH2 and the numerous advantages of the HMC40 over the TM300. I don't think any of it's unfair...but it's a myth that two divisions within one company are totally different entities. All you have to do is check over the specs/parts/similarities of many cameras to see that they share more than a name.
 
Svart said:
I just don't understand the resistance to understanding corporate culture and business practices in these threads as people run around with their virtual pitch-forks trying to chase out those who believe differently or have a deeper understanding that shapes their beliefs.

In fact, I'd wager a bet that if we could somehow get around hardware ID's and load the AF100 firmware on the GH2(or vice versa) you'd get most of the functionality of the AF100 on the GH2(or vice-versa). This won't happen, of course, but I'll stand by that statement any day.

Fanboy as much as you like but c'mon, get real.
Click to expand...

Since all this "My $900 camera won't do what a $5000 camera will." whining is not going to change the corporate world or the GH2, why don't we go shoot some video and improve our own ability to use this great camera?
 
dan.carter said:
Since all this "My $900 camera won't do what a $5000 camera will." whining is not going to change the corporate world or the GH2, why don't we go shoot some video and improve our own ability to use this great camera?
Click to expand...


I am.

I just get tired of the same old "my gh2 needs ______ !!" and the typical response of "well that's what you get when you buy a 1200$ camera, so go buy a 6000$ camera and you can do SO MUCH MORE!!!!!!1111" when it's probably not really the case at all.

Maybe it's just me. I dunno. I like the Gh2 a lot. Is it perfect? NOPE. I also like what panny is trying to do with the AF100 too. Do I think it has features that make it worth 5000$ more? NOPE. That doesn't mean I don't plan on buying their equipment, it just means I think the AF100 is about 2x the cost it *should* be based on it's features VS. the GH2. Most will probably disagree with me on this, but that's life.
 
Svart said:
And just as I said before, I work in the industry. I know the marketing white lies and the engineering secrets that most people just don't know about nor care to understand. People want to hear that their money is well spent. For the GH2 crowd, they want more for their money and thus the push for hacks. For the AF100 crowd, they want to believe that they didn't waste money and thus the resistance to believing that their camera isn't as simple as it probably is inside.

Trust me, they use other division's work no matter how much someone says they are different. They utilize each other's designs, they use the same parts stocks, the same factories, even the same part libraries for the same design softwares, etc. They WILL NOT duplicate work if they don't absolutely have to. Duplicating work costs MONEY and they like their money. Remember, cash is KING in the consumer design world and they will wring every cent out of their structure. How hard is that to understand?

EVERY single company I've worked for designing consumer and commercial gear maintains different departments for each class of product. They do that simply to keep engineers on task, to leverage regional specialties or some companies keep divisions separate for tax and anti-trust reasons. It doesn't matter, the designs are Intellectual Property(IP) of the company, not of the division. Each division is free to use any design for any reason. Again, I do it all the time and I'm directed time and time again to re-use as much IP as possible to keep design costs(time, parts stock, etc) down as low as possible. I have meetings upon meetings just so the corporate types can make sure we are saving as much money as possible. They hammer us and hammer us and hammer us to re-use as much design as possible. They do this so much, it's hard to innovate at all. Many times we have multiple products that do completely different things but are running on the EXACT same hardware. This isn't some conspiracy theory folks, this is business. Not sure which is worse though..

I just don't understand the resistance to understanding corporate culture and business practices in these threads as people run around with their virtual pitch-forks trying to chase out those who believe differently or have a deeper understanding that shapes their beliefs.

In fact, I'd wager a bet that if we could somehow get around hardware ID's and load the AF100 firmware on the GH2(or vice versa) you'd get most of the functionality of the AF100 on the GH2(or vice-versa). This won't happen, of course, but I'll stand by that statement any day.

Fanboy as much as you like but c'mon, get real.
Click to expand...


I almost fully with all points raised here.
Considering AF100, I know that some people even inside Panasonic are extremely unhappy with marketing strategy used for AF100.
Form my POV, AF100 marketing and pushing is worst thing done by Panasonic in last years.
 
lpowell said:
Don't look now... HPX-250 : projected retail price: $6,500
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm fully aware of the new HPX-250, but it's not a large sensor camera which would require a different camera head and circuitry.

I expect we might see a P2 based large sensor camera at NAB 2012, with a price tag close to the $10K mark.
 
TheDingo said:
Yes, I'm fully aware of the new HPX-250, but it's not a large sensor camera which would require a different camera head and circuitry.
Click to expand...
Right, but it's hard to see how the AF100's 4/3rds image sensor could account for a $3500 price difference. After all, the GF2 paired with a $370 Lumix 25mm f2.5 lens is being sold for only $800. In addition, the HPX-250 comes equipped with the equivalent of a Lumix 14-300mm zoom lens. Pairing the AF100 with a Lumix 14-140mm zoom would increase its total cost to around $5700, making the HPX-250's $6500 price seem like a terrific bargain for a video camera with a broadcast-ready P2-based AVC-Intra codec.
 
lpowell said:
Right, but it's hard to see how the AF100's 4/3rds image sensor could account for a $3500 price difference.
Click to expand...

There's a lot more to it than just the sensor. People keep focusing on only the sensor, ignoring the fact that there is a lot of post-sensor processing taking place. The AF-100 has: much better AVCHD encoding, much less rolling-shutter image skew, professional audio with XLR ports, much better image controls, 4:2:2 SDI out, etc... This is why there is a big cost difference between these two cameras.

EDIT: I originally assumed you were referring to the GH-2 vs AF-100, when it looks like you meant HPX-250 vs AF-100, see my comment below.

lpowell said:
In addition, the HPX-250 comes equipped with the equivalent of a Lumix 14-300mm zoom lens.
Click to expand...

I totally agree that the new HPX-250 really delivers a lot of bang for $6,500, but I wouldn't use it as a measuring stick for an equivalent large-sensor model. Expect to pay a lot more for a large sensor version, unless there is significant competition from the other camera companies. ( Canon seems like the wild-card in this race )
 
Last edited:
photonashville said:
Sure there may be a few things I would like to be different or added to the GH2 but honestly, the GH2 at the price of $899, it's nuts as far as how well it can shoot, how good the footage looks, how compact, how capable, how fun and invigorating this little thing is.
Click to expand...

This is true. The price/performance ratio of the GH2 is extremely good.

The "glass half empty" way of looking at that fact is that it reveals just how bad the price/performance ratio of the AF100 is. Imagine what a $5000 camera with the GH2's price/performance ratio would be like!

The punchline for GH2 owners is that if Panasonic wasn't too lazy to develop that camera, our GH2s wouldn't need to be artificially limited and we'd all be recording 59.94i to a Ninja right now (or recording internally at a much higher bitrate, I bet).

The "glass half full" way of looking at that is that without those artificial limitations the GH2's price/performance ratio would be even better!
 
Last edited:
Svart said:
I am.

I just get tired of the same old "my gh2 needs ______ !!" and the typical response of "well that's what you get when you buy a 1200$ camera, so go buy a 6000$ camera and you can do SO MUCH MORE!!!!!!1111" when it's probably not really the case at all.

Maybe it's just me. I dunno. I like the Gh2 a lot. Is it perfect? NOPE. I also like what panny is trying to do with the AF100 too. Do I think it has features that make it worth 5000$ more? NOPE. That doesn't mean I don't plan on buying their equipment, it just means I think the AF100 is about 2x the cost it *should* be based on it's features VS. the GH2. Most will probably disagree with me on this, but that's life.
Click to expand...

I don't straight up disagree with you on this...because camera features are a very subjective thing. Meaning one customer will be willing to pay a lot for features that another could care less about. It's easy to forget just how much more the AF100 offers for video purposes than the GH2, because the GH2 does such a good job already. But here's a list of things that might make it worth the roughly $3795 more for the AF100

1. 3 position ND filters (if your read the DSLR forums a lot you know the headaches people go through finding a good all around ND filter solution
2. The LCD on the AF100 is quite a bit better and is larger...the VF is also more ergonomic.
3. HD-SDI (ability to get 4:2:2 from a very reliable output is very important to some)
4. Overcranking/undercranking (this feature is priceless for many shooters)
5. Waveform + Vectorscope
6. Detail coring/numerous gammas/ much deeper control of the image parameters, etc
7. Uncompressed 16 bit audio recording capability/xlr inputs
8. Timecode/Synchro function
9. 6 Scene files for easily recalling adjustments
10. Dual card slots
11. Max bitrate available in way more modes than the GH2
12. More shooting modes on AF100 like 1080 30P, 720 24P, etc.
13. Remote control pricelesss for certain situations
14. Longer battery life/ Better batteries available
15. PAL/NTSC switchability
16. Zebras
17. Headphone jack
18. Negative gain function
19. Ergonomic features like the handle/ tape hook, etc
20. Slow synchro/High speed shutter - can be set by degree

I think I've missed some as well...and did not go into great detail on the image adjustments, which are vast. Remember also- this is 1 of only 2 cameras in existence under $13,000 to feature a roughly 35mm sized sensor and video camera form factor/features. The other is the FS100.
(The NEX VG10 is missing more options than the GH2 and Canon DSLR's ....so that's why I wouldn't count that one)

Also the AF100 is $4795 at one of the most reliable online vendors - B and H
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top