GH2 How good is the GH2's Photo Side?

[Boncrek]

We all know that the Panasonic GH2 is great in video. Its arguably the best DSLR for video at the moment. But I want to broaden my scopes and venture into some serious photography. Does the GH2 deliver on that front as well?

I'm going to be purchasing a DSLR in the coming months and so far I've bee wanting the GH2.
Lens wise I'm planning to start with the Panny 14-42 kit lens along with the Oly 14-54 MKII. Before I considered the GH2 however I was considering the 60D just because its photo side is better.

Do I really need to worry about the GH2 photo side not being able to deliver?
I've heard others on this forum say it takes some tweaking to get it to really shine in the photo side and it is of course best when shooting RAW.

What kind of quality difference should I expect to see between GH2 photos and the 60D photos when shooting RAW?
How fast is its frames per second in actual shooting environments like as a second photographer at a wedding or when covering a nightime event?
How large is the buffer when shooting JPEGS or RAW?
What about flashes? I am planning to use a Metz 50 AF-1 made for Panasonic since its the best bang for buck and has a faster recycling time than the Lumix ones.

I dont plan to compete head to head (and win) with the likes of Nikon or Canon (or Olympus) since I'd be doing mostly video rather than photo but I dont want it to fall too far behind either (third place is good, even fourth works for me).

PS: Oh I plan to use arca QR plates and a Tekkeon battery attached to a Kirk flash bracket so I dont need to worry about battery life.

 

[pulpfiction007]

The GH1/2 are capable photo cameras....and let's be real - most people won't be able to tell the difference from Canon to Nikon to Panasonic from a photo hanging on the wall. It's only when you start to pixel peep and break down the images piece by piece that you can tell.
Yes the Canons and Nikons hold an edge...but these days the cameras are really not the limiting factor in getting a great photograph - It always was and continues to be YOUR eye that is the most important factor. It's just that todays cameras make it easier to capture what your eye sees.
Many would choose the Canon/Nikon for just photos based upon the great optical VFs, and ergonomics - but for doing both video and stills the GH2 can't be beat....and you can take wonderful stills with it.
Make sure to get some faster lenses for that night shooting though!

 

[Boncrek]

The GH1/2 are capable photo cameras....and let's be real - most people won't be able to tell the difference from Canon to Nikon to Panasonic from a photo hanging on the wall. It's only when you start to pixel peep and break down the images piece by piece that you can tell.
Yes the Canons and Nikons hold an edge...but these days the cameras are really not the limiting factor in getting a great photograph - It always was and continues to be YOUR eye that is the most important factor. It's just that todays cameras make it easier to capture what your eye sees.
Many would choose the Canon/Nikon for just photos based upon the great optical VFs, and ergonomics - but for doing both video and stills the GH2 can't be beat....and you can take wonderful stills with it.
Make sure to get some faster lenses for that night shooting though!

Thanks for that awesome reply. You've confirmed many of the things I was hoping for.
About that faster glass...what options are there that have a dependable fast autofocus?
Even the mighty Oly 14-35 and 35-100 are slow in autofocusing (on the GH2) and Lumix lenses are slow in aperture (but fast autofocus).
(I only mention zooms to minimize lens changing)
The only lens that I've seen so far that is fast enough and has fast-ish autofocus is the Oly 14-54

 

[xenogears]

The only lens that I've seen so far that is fast enough and has fast-ish autofocus is the Oly 14-54

Yes! is a nice Zoom but remember f2.8 at 14mm only at 54mm is f3.5

Cheers

 

[Boncrek]

Yes! is a nice Zoom but remember f2.8 at 14mm only at 54mm is f3.5

Cheers

Yeah I've realised that but Its still faster than the Kit zooms.
I've seen good images from it so far and the focus-by-wire is very much like the focus on my DVX so its not a big deal for me.

 

[DrDave]

The GH2 is a superb photo cam, a number of incremental improvements over the GH1

 

[NoahK]

Yeah it's a very solid stills camera. Not on the level of a 5D Mark II but surprisingly good given its size. That said- video is what gets us more excited about the GH2. Well by us I mean me of course...

Noah

 

[Boncrek]

Yeah it's a very solid stills camera. Not on the level of a 5D Mark II but surprisingly good given its size. That said- video is what gets us more excited about the GH2. Well by us I mean me of course...

Noah

Thats exactly what I wanted to hear! Thanks!

 

[DrDave]

The m f3 format improves all your lenses by using the center of the lens.

 

[M. Gilden]

The m f3 format improves all your lenses by using the center of the lens.

...or softening it. Some of my cheaper vintage lenses tend to soften the closer in you crop. I was considering a t3i because of the Crop mode, but I'd have to invest in some sharper glass as well. While the GH2's sensor size isn't as dramatic a difference as the 3x crop zoom, its still something to think about!

 

[wgzn]

Many would choose the Canon/Nikon for just photos based upon the great optical VFs, and ergonomics

absolutely positively agreed. IMO, the gh2 pretty well blows monkey balls in these two arenas.

but for doing both video and stills the GH2 can't be beat....

my advice is that if you plan to use it mainly for video, with a little still work here and there, its a very good choice.
but if your work skews nearer 50/50. then you might consider something else.

you can take wonderful stills with it.

im not sure id say wornderful. but "more than acceptable" i can agree with

Make sure to get some faster lenses for that night shooting though!

yeah, i think my biggest complaint about the gh2 as far as stills go. is that its not as easy to get your hands on good fast glass. and that has a LOT to do with the aesthetics of the image. i think as i get more time to experiment with adapters to add some different glass, my appreciation of its still ability will improve.

but yeah. if i had to narrow down my one biggest complaint about the gh2. id say its the lack of a true optical viewfinder. i hate, hate, HATE the gh2 viewfinder : (

 

[NoahK]

Yeah if you stick with M4/3 lenses only you will not get the best out of the GH2. Slap on a Nikon or Canon adapter however and you'll be sitting pretty.

Noah

 

[Dazza]

but yeah. if i had to narrow down my one biggest complaint about the gh2. id say its the lack of a true optical viewfinder. i hate, hate, HATE the gh2 viewfinder : (

But you get to use it in video mode, I'm not the biggest fan of it either but there are advantages to having an EVF, you get a lot more information about how your end shot is going to look.

Ergonomics I think it depends on the size of your hands, I have girly hands so it fits me down to a T. Only thing missing would be the lack of a vertical grip for easier continuous portrait orientation shooting. There is a third party grip out there, not sure what it is like.

Flash photography isn't quite as easy to use on the Panasonics, some remote flashes or handheld lighting help a lot in making wedding photos look nicer

 

[stonebat]

I think composition is the most important thing in photography. Then color. Unlike video, photo gotta capture moment in one frame. Super shallow DOF and super sharpness and super DR mean nothing if bad composition. Good composition makes good photos even if deep DOF, blurred motion, and limited DR.

"I" can take better pictures with GH2 than 5D mark ii. 5D2 is a great camera, but I can't carry it everywhere. Any picture is better than no picture, right?

It generally requires post-processing on m43 photos from GH1/2... color adjustment. Also get used to longer shutter legs and more noise at high ISO. Definitely not for pro photos, but more than enough for candid photos.

 

[DrDave]

I will take the sweet spot of the lens and the cool over a few extra megapixels. But the Canons and Nikons and Pentaxians and Olympians have all made good cames.
What I really want is an Olly M4/3 with built in IS, small size, 16 bit stereo and real 24p video.

 

[brunerww]

We all know that the Panasonic GH2 is great in video. Its arguably the best DSLR for video at the moment. But I want to broaden my scopes and venture into some serious photography. Does the GH2 deliver on that front as well?

I'd say that the most exhaustive still photography review of the GH2 to date has been this one at dpreview. Their conclusion:

The GH2 might not be a revolutionary development (in all essential points it is very closely related to its predecessor, the GH1) but we're confident in saying that it is the best mirrorless system camera that we've ever tested, bar none. With the GH2 Panasonic has finally demonstrated that it is able to compete with the APS-C format competition when it comes both to resolution and critical image quality. Although the GH2's Micro Four Thirds sensor is smaller than those found in cameras like the Canon EOS 60D and Nikon D7000, it runs them both pretty close. Up to ISO 3200 in fact, we'd stick our necks out and say that the GH2 can hold its own against any of the current crop of APS-C format cameras on the market, which is high praise indeed.

As a former Canon T2i owner, I can attest to the fact that GH2 still photos (JPEG and RAW) can more than "hold their own" against DSLRs. If you want the best hybrid still/video camera on the market today, get the GH2. As dpreview says:

All things considered - the impressive depth of its feature set, effective touch-screen ergonomics and its excellent still and video image quality - we think it represents very good value for money.

 

[Boncrek]

I'd say that the most exhaustive still photography review of the GH2 to date was at dpreview. Their conclusion (which I agree with, as a former Canon T2i owner):

Thanks for the link.
I had read that review but I guess I wasnt thinking 'photo' at the time.

My concern with using non-electronic adapters is the lack of fast autofocus.
Im sure manual focusing is great and can work but I dont want to miss a shot because I was getting the bride in focus...

 

[Sun]

The Auto focus on the GH2 is very good. It does depend on the tracking mode.

Just yesterday I was taking family portraits and between shots I was filming the set up on the GH2, moving the family around and goofing around just to make everyone at relax. I intent to add the video to the package so they have something to remember the day. On my next job I will use both the 5D and the GH2 and mix the images and ask the customers what ones they like.

 

[Ian-T]

On my next job I will use both the 5D and the GH2 and mix the images and ask the customers what ones they like.

Interesting. Let us know how that goes. That would actually be something cool for a lot of us to sample here on the boards...a series of comparison shots by both cameras. And then we would guess which is which.

 

[hsitz]

Im sure manual focusing is great and can work but I dont want to miss a shot because I was getting the bride in focus...

I love the GH2, and quality-wise I don't see any reason to prefer a different photo camera. Many Nikon and Canon DSLR users have switched to m43 cameras because of their much more manageable size. GH1/2 are largest of m43 cameras but still very small. Also, m43 lenses are much smaller than their counterparts on non-m43 cameras. The bag of kit for a m43 outing can be half as heavy as that for another DSLR.

I would say the two big 'buts' are low light and depth of field. A full frame DSLR like 5D MkII is at least a stop or two better in low light. Possibly more important, the ability to narrow depth of field on a full frame camera is hugely important for lots of stills, especially something like a portrait. The depth of field limitation is not as important for video, since the 35mm film cams (that make the movies we see) have roughly same DOF limitation as GH2. This is not true for photos; many of the best photos ever taken have used the 35mm frame to narrow depth of field more than you'd be able to with a GH2. In other words, the narrowest 35mm depth of field is what we are used to seeing in many of the best stills, especially portrait stills.

So while I'm perfectly happy with GH2 as a stills cam, I can see why someone who needs as much low light and narrow DOF capability as possible would prefer a full frame DSLR. I would think this applies especially to anyone who wants to take available-light indoor portraits at a professional level. GH2 gets you close, but never going to match a full-frame DSLR at that game.