GH2 official discussion thread

I'm starting to doubt that these are GH2 samples.

Canon gives their cameras to Laforet to demo.
Nikon gives them to Jarvis to demo.

Panasonic gives them to Joe Shmoe who shoots one long shot of ducks? Or some dude taking random shots in China? Is this believable?
 
I realize we'll learn more about the various frame rate profiles of this camera in a few weeks ...

And I realize there's no way to know if a hack is possible - or necessary ...

But if a hack effort were to be undertaken - would including the frame rate of 29.97p - be any more difficult than adding 25p?
 
I realize we'll learn more about the various frame rate profiles of this camera in a few weeks ...

And I realize there's no way to know if a hack is possible - or necessary ...

But if a hack effort were to be undertaken - would including the frame rate of 29.97p - be any more difficult than adding 25p?
 
iHartVideo said:
I'm starting to doubt that these are GH2 samples.

Canon gives their cameras to Laforet to demo.
Nikon gives them to Jarvis to demo.

Panasonic gives them to Joe Shmoe who shoots one long shot of ducks? Or some dude taking random shots in China? Is this believable?
Click to expand...

He has a real preproduction GH2, go have a look at the original thread to see lots of comparison pictures to the GH1, and quite a bit of other information

http://www.omuser.com/viewthread.php?tid=133972
 
iHartVideo said:
I'm starting to doubt that these are GH2 samples.

Canon gives their cameras to Laforet to demo.
Nikon gives them to Jarvis to demo.

Panasonic gives them to Joe Shmoe who shoots one long shot of ducks? Or some dude taking random shots in China? Is this believable?
Click to expand...

I think this has been a big failure of Panasonic's marketing department. Sure, they did let let Bruce Dale shoot a couple of videos, but "Summer Morning," while nice, is virtually devoid of any camera movement and "Northern Michigan Shores" is largely a slide show of stills with a motion-picture element that, frankly, any half-competent tourist could have shot with a regular camcorder. Everything was shot with deep depth-of-field. Bruce Dale might be a good photographer, but sadly for Panasonic, his skills don't seem to transfer to motion as well as Laforet or Jarvis. I suspect that someone at Panasonic realized this after the fact, and that's why they didn't make a big deal about Dale's videos during the launch.

It also looks like Dale only used the 14-140 in these videos. Panasonic needed someone to shoot a really kicking demo that convincingly demonstrates the GH2's capabilities and gets everyone excited. Sure, they would have needed to confine their lenses to Panasonic kit, but they have the 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye, the 7-14 f/4, the 25 f/1.4, the 45 f/2.8 Macro, as well as the new 14 f/2.5 & 100-300 f/4-5.6. Panasonic had the resources to make a huge splash. Such a large company, yet such a major missed opportunity.
 
RobertKM said:
Panasonic needed someone to shoot a really kicking demo that convincingly demonstrates the GH2's capabilities and gets everyone excited.
Click to expand...

I honestly couldn't care less for something like this. Someone who really knows his art can make any camera look good. The only thing I care about is for Panasonic to make the best camera possible. Now if they give it to someone talented or not leaves me completely uninterested.
 
stav1606 said:
I honestly couldn't care less for something like this. Someone who really knows his art can make any camera look good. The only thing I care about is for Panasonic to make the best camera possible. Now if they give it to someone talented or not leaves me completely uninterested.
Click to expand...

Well, that's because you are well-informed and basing your equipment preferences on sound reasoning. But for a company like Panasonic to think that they can simply engineer a solid product, list its features, then sit back and watch it sell is foolish. Marketing departments exist for a reason. It's not just about creating buzz either. It's about demonstrating the camera's capabilities. We still don't know how good its crop mode is. Tan Kin Hor stated that his footage doesn't include any, and that the camera is no longer with him. There's been almost no low-light footage. There's been very little shots with motion to demonstrate lack of mud or jello. Aside from the GH2, look at Panasonic's sample photo of their new 14 f/2.5:

http://panasonic.jp/dc/lens/img/sample/lumix_g_14/P1010217.JPG

It was shot at 4 seconds at f/11, which for a micro Four Thirds lens is past its peak performance, being degraded by diffraction. It's almost as though Panasonic marketing is deliberately sabotaging the efforts of Panasonic engineers.
 
Last edited:
RobertKM said:
Well, that's because you are well-informed and basing your equipment preferences on sound reasoning. But for a company like Panasonic to think that they can simply engineer a solid product, list its features, then sit back and watch it sell is foolish. Marketing departments exist for a reason. It's not just about creating buzz either. It's about demonstrating the camera's capabilities. We still don't know how good its crop mode is. Tan Kin Hor stated that his footage doesn't include any, and that the camera is no longer with him. There's been almost no low-light footage. There's been very little shots with motion to demonstrate lack of mud or jello. Aside from the GH2, look at Panasonic's sample photo of their new 14 f/2.5:

http://panasonic.jp/dc/lens/img/sample/lumix_g_14/P1010217.JPG

It was shot at 4 seconds at f/11, which for a micro Four Thirds lens is past its peak performance, being degraded by diffraction. It's almost as though Panasonic marketing is deliberately sabotaging the efforts of Panasonic engineers.
Click to expand...
I don't know if this is the case any longer, but back in film era small apertures were a commonly used trick to achieve "star" effect.

But, yeah, I too am quite perplexed at Panasonic's marketing strategy regarding GH2. Most of the videos I have seen so far, with the exception of Dale's, could have been shot on a camcorder.
 
Since the GH2 is more a consumer camera, maybe they are letting regular users use it to get feedback from a non-professional standpoint? I see that AF-100 ending up in professional hands for a few hours at a time for testing. Both cases, Panasonic has allowed some footage to be shown. Given the consumer market is probably MUCH BIGGER than the professional market in terms of selling GH2s.
 
Olly Knights said:
very recent Phil Bloom tweet;

"absolutely blown away by low light of the GH2 compared to GH1. I can shoot at 1600/3200. Impossible on gh1.
Click to expand...

The GH1 can do reasonable ISO 1600. Not so much with ISO 3200. Every report I have seen has said that ISO 3200 works well on the GH2. I hope that is true as it will make the zoom lenses much more useful.
 
mpgxsvcd said:
The GH1 can do reasonable ISO 1600. Not so much with ISO 3200. Every report I have seen has said that ISO 3200 works well on the GH2. I hope that is true as it will make the zoom lenses much more useful.
Click to expand...


In my experience ISO 800 is the maximum with the GH1/13 after that it's really hairy even with a 1.2 lens....
 
- Is there a superflat mode, and does it reduce aliasing?

- The jello on some of these clips is terrible. Anyone tried the various plugins to eliminated it?

- Low light looks very good. Can ISO go to 6400, and can we see something with Neatvideo cleaning it up?

- This may not be the camera to use when camera movement is necessary, unless you have a real Steadicam or dolly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top