GH2 How good is the GH2's Photo Side?

i have 5d mk2 and gh2, had xsi for a year, t2i for a year and t3i for two weeks

no gh2 is not as good of a photo camera as xsi
even with class 10 card it takes too long to see the result on screen... a big minus..
raw noise is higher than t2i
live view exposure preview on screen is never accurate, especially in mid to low light (with "constant preview" on)

anyway its an okay photo camera
if you have the budget get the 20 1.7 or 14-140 for better boken
 
The GH2 is quite good for stills I have to say. The reduction/elimination of the strong Fixed Pattern Noise problem on underexposed areas compared to the GH1 made a significant difference. When i got my GH1 I compared it to my 30D in a couple different conditions and found that the GH1 was nearly a wash compared to the 30D. The GH2 is considerably better than that as you would expect. I have no reason to doubt DPReview's assessment that it holds up well against the 60D. I don't think any rational person would put it against a full-frame camera but an APS-C camera I think is a fair comparison.
 
The GH2 was my first DSLR. I got it to shoot both photos and video. Video is what i do but also wanted a good still camera. Here are some photos I took with it. http://www.moonlighttowerstudios.com/photogallery.html

Keep in mind i am not a photographer and these photos were taken when I was still learning the camera. I have taken better photos since learning more about the camera.
 
GH2 is good enough for candid photo. Click click click click click... pause....

If I'm more serious about photo, I'd get D7000 and Sandisk Extreme Pro. Click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click...
 
The GH2 does stills a lot better than the T3i and the D7000 do video. All of the cameras can do both. The GH2 is the only one that does both well.
 
stonebat said:
GH2 is good enough for candid photo. Click click click click click... pause....

If I'm more serious about photo, I'd get D7000 and Sandisk Extreme Pro. Click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click...
Click to expand...

If you were serious about photography then you would click the shutter once and move on to the next shot instead of just clicking away hoping something turned out good.
 
I like mirrorless for video and mirror for photo. Nikon and Canon have good lenses for photo. Shorter shutter lag, faster flash sync speed, better noise control at high ISO, etc.

Seriously m43 is not designed to compete with high-end dslr market in photo. Pro & Prosumer DSLRs will dominate photo side for long time.

I'm all about candid photo. Nothing pro work. I like GH2 & Lumix 20mm a way more than a heavy dslr gear. I got Hexanon 40mm 1.8 pancake lens, too. I love pancakes!
 
The post about GH2 for still camera photography seems to be old but thought I'd comment anyway. I was wanting light and tried to make a go of still photography with the GH2. I gave up and purchased a 5D3 and there just isn't any comparison between the two cameras. One of the biggest problems is the dull colors in both jpeg and RAW files it just takes way too much work to get colors looking like what one sees when going from a RAW file into photoshop. If you depend on jpeg's, well that just amplifies that problem.

An even bigger problem is the lenses. The Pan-Leica lenses that are prime are wonderful. On the other hand, the workhorse or 17-140 is awful. Some think it's fine, but I found it to be soft and gave really poor results compared to a good quality lens. That was the clincher for me. I didn't want to go to Olmpus and put on an adaptor and get a lens that didn't AF well or had no stabilization.

I have used a 5D2 as well as the 5D3 that I own. On a scale of 1-10 for stills I'd give the 5D2 or 3 near a 10 and the GH2 with the 17-140 a 4. A bit higher with the Leica lenses.

I hike with the 5D3 24-105 all the time or take other lenses. I don't mind the bit of extra weight, with a good Black rapid strap it's not an issue at all.

If someone says the difference between the GH2 and a full frame Canon in stills is about pixels; well simply boggles my mind. Hope this helps someone so that they don't have to take the same route as I did.

dana
 
I think that the only place the Panasonic is at any disadvantage for stills work is in sports, the system just doesn't have the glass and flash system at the moment. In terms of IQ nobody needs FF for internet publication. Probably more importantly, it is increasingly mandatory that pro stills photographers can supply some video from a job. The new Olympus OM-D is a better stills camera than the GH2 (so the potential for m43 is there), but its video is a little hand-cuffed at the moment.
 
You can take great photos with a GH2 if you know its strengths. The big problem is, low light work is not one of those strengths. If you want to be doing wedding and event photography at night or in darker spaces, you'll probably want a proper DSLR with a larger sensor. I photographed a wedding recently with my GH1. I took better photos than the proper photographer in well exposed areas due to having more experience, but once the lights went down during the reception, my photos looked like crap, even with a fast lens. I know the GH2 handles noise better than the GH1, but unless it's giving you two stops more exposure, it will not hold up as well as a DSLR. That or I hope you're really good with a flash.
 
I've worked as a stills photographer shooting mostly headshots for a couple of years.

My workhorse ws the canon t2i, which gave very sharp stills.

Then I bought the gh2 and used it on set.

Hate to say it but the canon stomps all over the gh2. The gh2 produces noisy stills and the details are mushy.

It's not about camera technique... I've lots of experience.

Nevertheless I sold my canon and bought another gh2 body, because I loved the hacked video so much.

If ever my interest goes back to stills photography i would consider another camera.... Possibly the Olympus omd.
 
GH2 with the 14-140 does ok. It can be a little noisy in the higher ISO's but it's not horrible:

178045_10101060297342454_1011531483_o.jpg


470065_10101030784251924_1752264852_o.jpg
 
Okay, im sorry if i didnt "digest" everyone else's comments on the matter. But ill give a clean comparison, basied on the cameras I own.
D700
D7000
GH2
5DMII
D3s

Far and away, the best photo camera is the D3s then the D700. Next would be the 5D and then the D7000... for photos.
Look, your getting RAW with 14bits, verse the GH2 at only 12bits. There is some serious latitude you can grab with 14bit over 12bit.
Also consider ergonomics and duel controls, verse the GH2 push control.
Higher ISO, the GH2 really struggles... id never push the GH2 above 1600 for anything professional.
This should really be a balance discussion. I can capture amazing photos with my Gopro Hero2 or LX5, but as soon as i step into lowlight, or fast moments...these cameras aren't the tool, the GH2 offers RAW, but not at the level of the 60D, D7000 and higher.
Video is constant, once you hit that record button its kinda left up to the camera.
But photo, you constantly have to adjust settings...fast! And the GH2 just doesn't offer that side of the coin to do so.
Bottom line, if your taking the "occasional photo" thats slightly above your average point and shoots that offer RAW (G12, S95, LX5, etc...) then the GH2 is fine.
But once you really try a high end photo camera, the GH2 really does fall short...That said, I can edit the hell outta my shots and even make my low end GoPro Hero2 - jpeg shots look amazing. (could be up to your editing skills at the end of the day)
If you want to focus on video and want an okay "B-photo camera", invest in the GH2... its AMAZING...video side! But dont expect to match a D3s or a 5D with regards to photo.
Some examples of a D700 for events:
http://www.kristinaweiss.com/Magyar/index.html (Just focus on the photos, the English version isn't up and running yet.)
 
I have two gripes regarding the GH2 as a stills camera, one of them link to video. The EVF doesn't do it for me for stills - it annoys me downright including that silly eye-cup. The sensor size since I like wide angles is just too small. Wide angle lenses are already expensive, but with the crop factor you need ridiculous wide angle lenses to get the same effect as a full frame.

HOWEVER! I still love my GH2 since the entire package was exactly what I was looking for - a DSLR capable of good stills (with post work) but optimised for video. Besides, photography and video is two different mind sets, and if I am gonna spend the day taking stills, I want a dedicated stills camera (which helps me personally, reason I then go out with a 35mm Film SLR which I also enjoy more than a DSLR) stay in the frame of mind of taking stills.

I am considering a older Canon or Nikon (new or used) specifically for these situations as a secondary camera - most likely a Canon as I have read somewhere that by engineered design Canon's are better at Astrophotography than the rest - that and the fact I can use Magic Lantern or the CHDK toolkit, I'm a control freak :)
 
I'm a retired professional photographer, worked with medium format gear in my own business, worked with everything from 4x5, medium format, and 35mm (Nikon F3) as a civilian staff photographer at an air force training base. So I still have a very critical eye.

I recently sold off most of my Canon DSLR gear and L lenses but hung onto a 60D and the EF primes I preferred for video. At 73 the GH2 and m4/3 lenses offered more compact size and lower weight. While my primary focus is motion picture I still do a lot of still photography and while there may be a small technical difference between Canon and Nikon APS-C sensors compared to the GH2, like one poster above said, I see no difference in prints hanging on the wall or images projected to an 80" screen.
 
The LensRentals.com blog has an interesting post where they directly compare the new Olympus OM-D EM-5 with Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 lens against the Canon 5D Mk III with 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. The photos they shot speak volumes about the performance of this new M4/3 camera from Olympus. Hopefully the Panasonic GH3 ( coming this Fall ) will be able to produce results like this new Olympus, otherwise I will be adding an Olympus OM-D to my kit as soon as I can afford to.

LensRentals.com Blog Post : A Weekend with the Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8
 
I'll add my $.02

I bought the GH2 thinking it would be great to have around for an all purpose video/stills camera to capture those little moments with my new daughter. Coming over from a D90, I just don't like how it handles as a stills camera to the point where I never use it for photos, it just doesn't feel right to me and I can't get use to it. For whatever reason I simply hate the thing as a stills camera.

The wholly unexpected offshoot of buying the GH2; it retired all my previous video cameras and it's now the only thing I shoot with, even on professional jobs. I adore it as a video camera.
 
I love it as a stills camera. It's small so I can travel with it easily.

GH2
45mm 1.8
1/40 exposure
1600 iso
handheld

2rng037.jpg
 
Last edited:
Gary Huff said:
b_k, thanks for providing examples. Great work.
Click to expand...

Thank you. A professional photographer helped aid the second shot. The 14-140's a pretty good lens for most situations, sometimes in low light :) I had plans on selling it when I got the camera, now I probably won't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top