GH2 How good is the GH2's Photo Side?

If you're scaling all your images for web like examples posted here, GH2 is fine.

But the stills do suck compared to a 60D type Canon body once you're not scaling them down to only 1000 pixels across. Don't let web scaled images fool you into thinking otherwise. Scaled images always look better than the original.
 
Ryan, so you're implying that if you use the same glass on the GH2 as your Canon, use the same exact settings that you do on your Canon body, the Canon image will always be superior? In every condition or some? I know low-light is a whole different issue here. If you would like to clarify your last comment I'd like to hear it.
 
Snazzy Flapper said:
if you use the same glass on the GH2 as your Canon, use the same exact settings that you do on your Canon body, the Canon image will always be superior?
Click to expand...

In the past Canon and Nikon sensors have been better at capturing still photos ( less noise, more accurate color rendition, greater dynamic range ) than any of the M4/3 sensors.

All this changes with the new Olympus OM-D EM-5, whose sensor performs as well or better than the Canon / Nikon equivaltents. I am hoping that the GH3 sensor does the same when it arrives this Fall.
 
Snazzy Flapper said:
Ryan, so you're implying that if you use the same glass on the GH2 as your Canon, use the same exact settings that you do on your Canon body, the Canon image will always be superior? In every condition or some? I know low-light is a whole different issue here. If you would like to clarify your last comment I'd like to hear it.
Click to expand...

The OP who was asking about how the stills on the GH2 held up agains the 60D. I've used the T3i. My experience is anecdotal, not scientific, but the difference, having shot several times with both cameras, is that the GH2 is significantly inferior to the Canon.

I have no idea if some random scenario would make the GH2 superior, but I doubt it.

If the OP is going to shoot weddings or other events for stills, I'm just making him aware that some people find the stills lacking compared to the Canon line he is comparing to. But as you can see from several posted stills, the GH2 images look just as good as anything else when scaled down.
 
Ryan Farnes said:
If you're scaling all your images for web like examples posted here, GH2 is fine.

But the stills do suck compared to a 60D type Canon body once you're not scaling them down to only 1000 pixels across. Don't let web scaled images fool you into thinking otherwise. Scaled images always look better than the original.
Click to expand...

So everytime you take a picture, it has to be compared to a different camera to determine whether or not the picture sucks? A picture taken by the GH2 can never stand alone? Well maybe it can if you don't tell anyone it was a non Canon/Nikon.
 
85mm f/1.8 Canon lens (at f/5.6), 320 ISO, 250 shutter, Neutral/Standard picture profiles, RAW format, AWB, JPEG Maximum Quality at full resolution. GH2/60D.

Photo One

Photo Two
 
Last edited:
b_k said:
So everytime you take a picture, it has to be compared to a different camera to determine whether or not the picture sucks? A picture taken by the GH2 can never stand alone? Well maybe it can if you don't tell anyone it was a non Canon/Nikon.
Click to expand...

The thread is about comparing the GH2 with the 60D. No need to derail it.

If the GH2 works for your stills needs, dude, totally use it. Maybe I'm doing something wrong. I've used Canons like the 60D and it seemed way better on the stills side. Not sure who would argue otherwise.

Is it on par with the 60D as the OP is asking? Maybe. My experience has been lousy with the GH2 and stills when I compare it to the 7D and T3i. Still usable images, just way more grain and stuff than the Canons. It seemed to need twice as much scaling to look as good.

I'm one person. Perhaps others here have shot a lot more.
 
Last edited:
Gary Huff said:
85mm f/1.8 Canon lens (at f/5.6), 320 ISO, 250 shutter, Neutral/Standard picture profiles, RAW format, AWB, JPEG Maximum Quality at full resolution. GH2/60D.

Photo One

Photo Two
Click to expand...



Thanks for the uploads Gary. In comparing the two, I'm not so sure I'd jump right to the word "sucks" or "blows monkey balls" I would say there are differences, you need to know your skills and know your camera. Otherwise you can get garbage out of any camera.
 
OP asked about the GH2's stills and used a canon as an example. Inevitably, someone would have introduced a comparison of some sort, whether it be a Nikon/Canon/Olympus/Polaroid/etc. Saying the GH2's stills sucks reminds me of an article about Microsoft's management on evaluating engineers. No matter how smart or productive their engineers were, they were always split up into 3 groups: good, average and bad. By themselves, all the engineers were very good at what they do, but since they had to be compared, someone always ended up with the crap end. Looks like the GH2 is that "bad" engineer.

If the GH2's stills suck compared to the 60D, I suppose you'd argue that the 60D's video sucks to the GH2?
 
Kevin Lee said:
Thanks for the uploads Gary. In comparing the two, I'm not so sure I'd jump right to the word "sucks" or "blows monkey balls" I would say there are differences, you need to know your skills and know your camera. Otherwise you can get garbage out of any camera.
Click to expand...

Most of the differences can be even further removed by the controls for importing RAW images in Photoshop as well.
 
b_k said:
OP asked about the GH2's stills and used a canon as an example. Inevitably, someone would have introduced a comparison of some sort, whether it be a Nikon/Canon/Olympus/Polaroid/etc. Saying the GH2's stills sucks reminds me of an article about Microsoft's management on evaluating engineers. No matter how smart or productive their engineers were, they were always split up into 3 groups: good, average and bad. By themselves, all the engineers were very good at what they do, but since they had to be compared, someone always ended up with the crap end. Looks like the GH2 is that "bad" engineer.

If the GH2's stills suck compared to the 60D, I suppose you'd argue that the 60D's video sucks to the GH2?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would argue that. This is a good reminder to me not to use hyperbole online. :) Even though it was a comparison, and maybe I was even off, sort of gets taken the wrong way.

Gary's comparison post has me thinking I need to eat some humble pie. I may have been shooting the GH2 in less optimal lighting. I think it still is inferior, but perhaps its not as bad as I thought. I'd still personally be very hesitant to use it professionally until I put it through its paces for low light photography, since that is where I've had rather poor results.
 
Last edited:
Ryan Farnes said:
Yeah, absolutely, when comparing them, the GH2 is so much better at video. That is why we're all here, right? :)

This is a good reminder to me not to use hyperbole online.

My experience with photos on the GH2 was so poor, but I'm extrapolating from my limited experience and stills. I don't really shoot stills, and its possible I wasn't fully working around some issues that limit the GH2. Not sure.
Click to expand...


I'm in the same boat with the stills side of things. I was wondering if my eye wasn't catching the major differences or what.

Just took these two Jpegs with the 60D and the GH2. Just happen to have a Zies Compact Prime 50 right now, so I tried it on both cameras. They both read 60D in the info cuz I layered in photoshop to crop them to similar size. The only correction I made was the levels of 60D( the one with the chair on right side) It was a hair over exposed.

Panasonic.jpgcanon.jpg
 
I'm going to use a metaphor here not to be cheap, but so I don't have to produce any evidence to make my position clear.

The still picture performance of the GH2 and the Canons are like the differences between an Formula 1 car and any Supercar you care to mention. Yes the Formula 1 car is faster at everything, so if you want the very fastest straight line and cornering speed get a F1 car. The Supercar is a road and race car, it can do everything a family can, with 90% of F1 performance. Nobody would argue a Supercar is going to win Monaco and nobody would use a F1 to get a pint of milk and a loaf of bread.

Differences can be detected by long toothed photographers. Yet in reality 99.999% of customers can't tell the difference between a 5k lens and a $50 second hand lens that is spotted with fungus unless they are told what to look for. People don't care about anything experts care about. An expert is a person that has made details their life. We've all heard kids talking about Call of Duty and we tell them to get a life, we should turn that lens on ourselves.
 
Sun said:
We've all heard kids talking about Call of Duty and we tell them to get a life, we should turn that lens on ourselves.
Click to expand...

Except, by and large, playing lots of Call of Duty doesn't bring in any income, where being on the top of your game in photography or video can, and one element of pixel-peeping is knowing what causes certain image elements to happen or not happen, which can tie into delivering consistently professional results that can lead to bringing in income. So I'm not sure of what point you're trying to make.

The technology of taking photographs is so advanced now that the differences are really miniscule between a micro 4/3s GH2 and an APS-C Canon as far as straight image quality goes. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone would pick up a Canon over a GH2 for photography reasons that has nothing to do with price or image quality. Clients may expect a Canon body, or you might like how the Canon is layed out better, or whatever. Those are all legitimate reasons. But the final result can just as easily be had with one over the other, with any edge being very slight.
 
b_k said:
If the GH2's stills suck compared to the 60D, I suppose you'd argue that the 60D's video sucks to the GH2?
Click to expand...
Excellent point.

Fact is...in the right hands the 60D/7D etc. can make beautiful videos on their own (without comparing them to technically better cameras). That was one of the points Zacuto's Steve Weiss was trying to make in another thread. When we start pitting cameras againts one another then technically someone is bound to be a loser.
 
Different tools for different jobs.

If David Lean shot "Lawrence of Arabia" on an iphone, I'd say the movie would lose much of its impact. Shooting a soap opera, where detail isn't important, with an iphone probably would be ok.

Similarly, given an assignment to shoot say a Maybeline Eyelash commercial, high resolution equipment are neccessary to bring those lashes in sharp focus. While I love my Gh2, I might want something better.

So yes, I like to see cameras pitted against each other. It helps me shape my future purchase. Just finished watching a shootout between the Canon 5d Mark 3 and the Nikon d800. The Nikon just had more detail and resolution.

Currently my tools are:

Video: hacked Gh2 - mucchhhh better than my Canon t2i
Stills : Canon t2i (sold) - looking at the Nikon d800 - muccch better than my Gh2.

Yeah... for video, my Canon t21 sucked.... but only in comparison with my Gh2.
 
I had Canon 60D and i dont like it as much as Panasonic GH2. I have some A1 prints of my GH2 photos and they look pretty good without noise. It´s not great camera for documentary stills, but for portraits with old lenses its great. :)
 
Let's all stay clear about one big factor - the GH2's JPEG encoder is remarkably bad. I've never seen anyone dispute that.
But RAW is becoming a format of choice now anyway, and the GH2's RAW performance is amazing. Once you switch to RAW - then it's up to your lens choice and your own skill...but the look is there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top