GH2 How good is the GH2's Photo Side?

GH2 absolutely sucks at stills when compared to a Canon Rebel or better EOS body. The largest RAW images coming off a GH2 seriously look like the ingredients to the GH2's awesome 1080p high bit rate hacked video frame grabs. The video frame grabs look gorgeous at 1080p. If you scale those up, doubling the width, that is what a still from the GH2 looks like to me.

Images need to be scaled down a lot to look good IMO.
 
Chicago, Lumix 7-14

2nu4tn8.jpg
 
ErikTande said:
Chicago, Lumix 7-14

2nu4tn8.jpg
Click to expand...

erik, i appreciate your samples. but as a long time GH2/canon/nikon user i absolutely PROMISE you - as good as you think those images are - and they are more than decent. theyd be far better with a canon or nikon...

i take that back. "better" is a subjective term. there is something more acceptably photo-journalistic to the look of canon or nikons. its subtle, but with an equivalently equipped camera - you'd see the difference...
 
Last edited:
wgzn said:
but as a long time GH2/canon/nikon user i absolutely PROMISE you - as good as you think those images are - and they are more than decent. theyd be far better with a canon or nikon...
Click to expand...

...As a 25+ year Canon/Nikon/Olympus professional user I would agree with you, but things are starting to change in the Micro 4/3 world. The new Olympus OM-D EM-5 is the first M4/3 camera with a 13+ stop dynamic range, and from direct comparisons I've seen the images it produces hold up very well against the new Canon / Nikon cameras. Hopefully the new GH3 will be able to do the same when it arrives this Fall.
 
Hopefully the new GH3 will be able to do the same when it arrives this Fall.
Click to expand...
id like to hope so. but in my experience with both native m4/3 as well as adapted older primes. there is just a certain "quality" to the GH2 stills that although pleasing from an artistic perspective - doesnt hold up from a photojournalistic standpoint against the same from canon / nikon.
 
wgzn said:
there is just a certain "quality" to the GH2 stills that although pleasing from an artistic perspective - doesnt hold up from a photojournalistic standpoint against the same from canon / nikon.
Click to expand...

As I stated in my previous post, I think this is about to change. The new Olympus OM-D looks like it produces images that are every bit as good as the Canon / Nikon equivalent, and Olympus has another "Pro" camera coming later this year. ( the EM-5 is not their "Pro" camera )
 
Can someone define "photojournalistic standpoint" when it comes to perception of an image?
Click to expand...
i dunno, i guess its kind of intrinsic. the way what's out of focus is processed or colors / details are rendered. it could simply be a matter of what youre personally used to seeing.

i can say that from a "photojournalistic standpoint" nearly all of the native m4/3 glass ive used is pretty slow OR fully manual. so if you are a modern journalistic shooter (i.e. news, sports, events, etc) and every second counts. id go with what had the largest selection of modern featured fast glass. AND a body that had separate controls for shutter and aperture. i cant imagine shooting an event where i had to use one toggled control to manage BOTH! thats just retarded!

for the record, i never said you cant get pretty pictures out of a GH2. i like the damned thing!
 
Last edited:
I do find it kind of humorous how people are quick to take the "it's the photographer, not the camera" with GH2 stills, but immediately switch to obsessing over equally small details and advantages when it comes to it's video side. :)
 
wgzn said:
i can say that from a "photojournalistic standpoint" nearly all of the native m4/3 glass ive used is pretty slow OR fully manual
Click to expand...

Again, this is starting to change: Olympus hasn't ported any of their past 4/3 pro glass to Micro 4/3, but with the introduction of a pro Micro 4/3 body later this year, I expect to see some pro glass to go with it.

Olympus already makes some great fully electronic AF lenses: the 12mm f/2.0, Olympus 45mm f/1.8, and 75mm f/1.8 lenses. These are as good their Canon / Nikon equivalents.

Canon and Nikon make very few APS-C primes. Full Frame lenses are not optimized for the APS-C sensor, which shows when you try shooting with an APS-C lens wide open versus one of the three Olympus lenses ( I listed above ) wide open. The Olympus lenses are almost at full performance wide open.

Then there's Voightlander with 17.5mm and 25.0mm f/0.95 manual super-speed lenses. ( another area where the M4/3 format is ahead of Canon/Nikon )

And Schneider is also about to enter the M4/3 arena with high end pro electronic lenses. These will be expensive, but fast and should be top class in term of performance. ( think of Zeiss lenses designed specifically for M4/3 )

...There are definitely lots of "dogs" in the M4/3 lens market, but we are finally starting to see some world class glass, with a lot more to come in the next year.
 
DBP said:
I do find it kind of humorous how people are quick to take the "it's the photographer, not the camera" with GH2 stills, but immediately switch to obsessing over equally small details and advantages when it comes to it's video side. :)
Click to expand...

That's because the photo side is ridiculously advanced compared to the video side.
 
DBP said:
I do find it kind of humorous how people are quick to take the "it's the photographer, not the camera" with GH2 stills, but immediately switch to obsessing over equally small details and advantages when it comes to it's video side. :)
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top