GH4 GH4 Users: How does your GH4 compare to your GH2/GH3 for stills?

M

mustangranch99

Active member
For those who have owned both (Or even all 3), what's your experience upgrading when it comes to stills?

Is there a huge jump between the two? I would imagine the GH2 to GH4 difference would be massive, but what's your experience been?
 
Well, it's only a couple of megapixels more in total image size - and the color science does not seem to be changed from the GH3, so I would guess almost no difference.
 
GH2 has bigger sensor and more megapixels than GH3/GH4 (18Mpix vs 16Mpix). With RAW photo you may get more resolution out of lenses and also wider image.
 
Compared to the GH2, I always had to shoot in raw, but with the GH4 I as often as not use jpegs.

I think there is a big improvement.
 
Never had a GH3, only 2 and 4...

I'll concur that the '4 has better in camera JPEG processing than the '2 ever did. Jpegs from my '2 always looked 'off,' while jpegs from the '4 rarely 'need' processing. For single studio-type shots, raw quality is near enough (ie, both are better than me). The '4 knocks the crap out of the '2 in other usability features such as autofocus, AWB, AF tracking, burst rate, all that stuff. I can dial in a look manually or set it to full auto and my 7 year old can take a good picture. Its much much better in that sense.
 
GH4 is a faster camera, faster focusing, more accurate. I think higher ISO is possible. Focus peaking, Zebras to see blown highlights, and on and on. Then you also have 4K Photo mode... Al
 
4 is way better then 3 IMO. I have owned the GH1, 3 2's, 2 3's and now 2 4's. I primarily shoot video but the shoots I have done with the 4's I am really happy with the raw quality.
 
Having owned and used all three cameras professionally, in my opinion the GH4 is absolutely way better for still photos than the GH2 and GH3 in pretty much every way. The burst mode of the GH4 is fantastic. And, yes, shooting in raw is always better than jpeg.
 
mustangranch99 said:
So wait, the JPEGS are better than the GH2's RAWs?
Click to expand...

That's not exactly what I said. What I meant was that whereas I always had to shoot raw stills in the GH2 to get a decent image, I can now happily share the jpegs from the GH4 (with some light processing). Obviously shooting raw give you more latitude in post but since I don't do studio photography, I don't need to shoot raw stills.
 
Studio photography is the ONE place where you can get away without shooting raw. You control the dynamic range, the colour temperature; with gels and filters you can even control the look.

It's those pesky time-limited on-location shoots where raw has saved my ass so many times.
 
Well, there's also family/vacation/travel snapshots, and situations where you don't need/want to muck about with post processing... you just want a simple good picture.
 
yslee said:
Studio photography is the ONE place where you can get away without shooting raw. You control the dynamic range, the colour temperature; with gels and filters you can even control the look.
Click to expand...

What you say in the second sentence is absolutely correct. But the first part....? Why would you not want to shoot raw? Perhaps capture both JPEG and raw unless you have some really compelling reasons not to do so, such as time issues. I'd do it if only for insurance (client requests or the inevitable user error).

Anyway, don't want to derail the thread. Horses for courses, etc., so people will do as they please.
 
The GH4 feels more responsive than the GH3 when taking stills. Haven't done a side-by-side but when I sent out my GH4(s) to have the audio fix I used a GH3 for stills & noted a difference.

I mostly shoot stills in Raw format, sometimes Raw+JPEG, but never just JPEG. A GH4 feature I've used when a computer wasn't handy is processing a few Raws to JPEGs in-camera & transferring the image to an iPhone/iPad for emailing.
 
stoneinapond said:
What you say in the second sentence is absolutely correct. But the first part....? Why would you not want to shoot raw? Perhaps capture both JPEG and raw unless you have some really compelling reasons not to do so, such as time issues. I'd do it if only for insurance (client requests or the inevitable user error).

Anyway, don't want to derail the thread. Horses for courses, etc., so people will do as they please.
Click to expand...

No, of course you'd always want to shoot in raw. I'm just trying to dispel the myth surrounding studio photography, like it's some pinnacle of photography. It's not.
 
Have GH2 and GH4. Other than being larger and heavier, the GH4 is remarkably better in every way. Better image quality, color fidelity & less noise at higher ISOs. (Shooting RAW... no personal experience w/ JPEGs. And while better at higher ISOs, still not not nearly as good as the latest fulframe competition.) More robust body and more discrete surface controls. Solid grip and feels right in my hand. Faster to shoot, less shutter lag, great burst rate in RAW. Lightning fast and accurate focus with pany lenses. Much sharper EVF & LCD.

Loved my Gh2. Skipped the GH3. Got the GH4 several months ago and I still continue to be impressed by how much more performance I can get from the GH4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top