Are there any news about the GH2-hack? Just for interest. It would be a nice christmas gift.
Don't we need a FW update from Panasonic that can be hacked first?
There a lot of things Panasonic can fix too, so may be someday!
GH2 official discussion thread
- Thread starter Vitaliy Kiselev
- Start date
Don't we need a FW update from Panasonic that can be hacked first?
There a lot of things Panasonic can fix too, so may be someday!
Thank you for the summary. I noticed in both the SLRGear and DPReview evaluation of the 14-140 and 45-200 (SLRGear only) the 14-140 had better IQ in the comparable focal ranges. At 200mm the 45-200 was no stellar performer so if a person has the 14-140 I believe they will be happier with it.
TP
With Panasonic OIS lenses, I think it depends on your priorities. I found SLRGear's interactive blur index charts very helpful in evaluating both lenses:
14-140mm: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/panasonic14-140f4-58g/tloader.htm
45-200mm: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/panasonic45-200f4-56g/tloader.htm
If you set the chart sliders to about f5.6 and 70mm, you'll see the 45-200mm is generally sharper than the 14-140mm, but falls off in the corners. What stands out for me, however, is that the 14-140mm's widest aperture is already pegged at f5.8 at 70mm, while the 45-200mm can open up to f4.3. The charts show similar results at 100mm and 140mm focal lengths as well. While the 14-140mm is clearly the sharper lens at 45mm, I think it falls short of the 45-200mm lens' sharpness and flexibility at focal lengths above 70mm.
rambooc1
Well-known member
@lpowell, Thanks for that extra info re sharpness lpowell, how is the usability of the 45-200 in video mode compared to 14-140 as per my post above #2722.
Thanks.
I no longer have the 14-140mm to do a direct comparison. The 45-200mm lens auto-focuses reliably under good lighting conditions and tracks focus reasonably quickly with slow panning in video takes. It's not a parfocal lens, however, and it will lose focus whenever you zoom during a video. I believe that is the only "HD" feature of the 14-140mm lens that I've noticed lacking in the 45-200mm. Since I don't require stepless aperture or silent lens operation while shooting video, the 45-200mm has worked just as well for me as the 14-140mm did.
Picturequest
Well-known member
I want to share some shots, both 640 iso;
I think the slow motion resolution of this camera is fantastic compared to the Canons' horrible 720p.
The gh2's worst resolution is better than the Canons' best.
Upped to 1080p (quartered for the web):
<p><p> A beautiful shot. Very Cinema film like. I can't imagine anyone complaining about quality, at least within these parameters.
Danielvilliers
Veteran
I want to share some shots, both 640 iso;
I think the slow motion resolution of this camera is fantastic compared to the Canons' horrible 720p.
The gh2's worst resolution is better than the Canons' best.
Upped to 1080p (quartered for the web):
Very very nice, started to get fed up seeing just test or run and gun 3200 iso whatever shot. Seeing a human being with a good eye for composition and lighting (even if it is only natural one) give me some hope again in this camera. At least with a good eye it can give a very nice image which look very filmic. Hope to see more of this project.
I made a couple of quick AF tracking tests with the GH2 the other day, and I thought some of you who have wondered how it works might like to see them.
High school basketball game, GH2, 14-140, ISO 2500. I was shooting stills at ISO6400 and f2.8, but I brought the GH2 along and took a few minutes of video to see how the camera worked in these conditions. I used 24P, 50th sec and ISO2500. I think the 30 fps, or 720/60P would be better for this much motion, but the AF seemed to do a good job, and the video is amazingly clean at ISO 2500.
http://www.vimeo.com/18138884
Running dogs tax an AF system more than any subject I know. I have not tried birds in flight, so that may be a rival, but no human sports even come close to presenting the AF tracking challenge that fast moving dogs present. That said, the greatest difficultly comes when they are running straight at the camera, because their heads are moving all over the frame, and if their eyes are not in focus, the image is unusable. Here there is more lateral movement, but they are still moving toward and away from the camera.
Dogs playing, 720/60P, 14-140 mm, ISO 800,
http://www.vimeo.com/18137872
High school basketball game, GH2, 14-140, ISO 2500. I was shooting stills at ISO6400 and f2.8, but I brought the GH2 along and took a few minutes of video to see how the camera worked in these conditions. I used 24P, 50th sec and ISO2500. I think the 30 fps, or 720/60P would be better for this much motion, but the AF seemed to do a good job, and the video is amazingly clean at ISO 2500.
http://www.vimeo.com/18138884
Running dogs tax an AF system more than any subject I know. I have not tried birds in flight, so that may be a rival, but no human sports even come close to presenting the AF tracking challenge that fast moving dogs present. That said, the greatest difficultly comes when they are running straight at the camera, because their heads are moving all over the frame, and if their eyes are not in focus, the image is unusable. Here there is more lateral movement, but they are still moving toward and away from the camera.
Dogs playing, 720/60P, 14-140 mm, ISO 800,
http://www.vimeo.com/18137872
Ian-T
Veteran
I think that silent focus, silent zoom, autofocus alone are worth it. F isn´t everything
I migth be wrong thou
No.....you are absolutely correct. To add to that the OIS and the fact that it's a sharp lens are two other things. Let's face it....i don't think a lot of the folks who complain about the kit lens know anything other than what others like to say.....and that is... it's "slow and expensive." So they equate that with "it's a home video lens." What does that even mean? When I compare it to other manufacturers kit lens....it offers a bit more....meaning "both" OIS and AF...and it's wide, long and sharp. It's an outdoor lens. For cinema f 4.0 is where it should be. My only complaint is that it does not give you the option of keeping it at that aperture when you zoom.
I'd add the focus ring is a pain. some markings. Not necesarily cine precision, but just some mark.
Not being aware of how you use the zoom, I find if f 4.0 is what I need, then using the ETZ within the f 4.0 setting range and swithching between 1080 (for about 2X zoom) and 720 (for about 4+ zoom) somewhat overcomes the limitation.
TP
Ian-T
Veteran
Ha....I didn't even thiink of that. Good call.
Good points which I did not miss reviewing the charts. Clearly, either lens performs acceptably within their respective comparable ranges with a slight edge to the 45-200 if that is the primary shooting range. Knowing the sweet spot of each lens at respective focal lengths is the real value of the SLRG/DPR lens reviews. The extra range above 140 available with the 45-200 is a bonus to be sure even if it is not particularly sharp at any of the aperture settings at 200mm. My Olympus 70-300 is definately sharper at 200mm than the 45-200 and does very well from 70-200 but falls short at 300mm as many will attest to. When shooting video at 200mm or above, I personally need to use a tripod no matter which lens used to control wobble etc. which otherwise spoils the video. Using Extended Tele at the long end of the zooms for video really requires use of a tripod in my view.
TP
Mark Williams
Veteran
Anyone used the Olympus 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 ED SWD or Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 SWD with the GH2 yet? If so, what was your experience. I assume that using the Olympus MMF-1 adaptor would retain the autofocus and exposure features.
Mark,
Can't remember if it was in this forum or the DPReview Micro Four Thirds forum but someone had comments about using both these lenses on either the GH1 or GH2!?
TP
