I am Enamored

[dvxjiro]

Well, just to bump the thread....

I've had my GH2 for about a week now and all I can say is "wow"...

I can honestly say that I haven't picked up my T2i since I got the GH2. Great things about this cam are:

Flip out LCD - Makes odd angles a breeze. I'm even working on a good way to attach either my clone LCDVF or my Hoodman Loupe.

Low Light - Everyone says the canons are superior, but I can't agree based on my experiences... I did a low light ISO test the other night down at the River Walk in San Antonio and was amazed at the performance all the way to ISO3200.

Ergonomics - It's a wee little thing! Even with my big hands it is still comfortable to use. Button placement seems to be more intuitive that the T2i to me and I am already finding that I can get around without having to "look" at the buttons. Something that I never really felt comfortable with on the T2i.

Lens - Using the 14-140 and the 20mm pancake and love both lenses. The zoom is a little slow but is still a great lens for all around video. I'm waiting on a FD to MFT adapter so that I can use a Canon 50mm 1.4 FD that I just got.

Conversely, I'm a little bummed about the availability of batteries or an AC adapter. I'd like to use the camera for some paid work, but without the availability of external power it's kind of a moot point for now.

I DO want to try the magic lantern firmware hack for the T2i to see how much of a difference it makes using that camera, but it's still not going to make up for the flip LCD and a few of the other bells and whistles that the GH2 provides...

Just my .02 cents.....

Tony

This is great. I hope to pick up the GH2 when it comes available. I do want to keep my T2i for the hack and interested in using an adaptor for the Canon lenses. I also have an LCDVF. ITs been great. Would like to hear how you are going to attach your LCDVF.

This is kind of an odd question. You know how Canon markets their cams as 5D-Pro/Semi Pro 7D: Semi-Pro 60D/550D: Consumer.....
Do you consider the GH2 to be a Pro, Semi-Pro, or Consumer Cam? Canon seems to look at mainly the body construction or weathering feature. If that is the case, then the GH2 would be 'consumer' but the image is superior. Or will the AF-100 be the Pro while GH2 is semi-pro? Patiently waiting to be enamored.

 

[tcarretti]

This is great. I hope to pick up the GH2 when it comes available. I do want to keep my T2i for the hack and interested in using an adaptor for the Canon lenses. I also have an LCDVF. ITs been great. Would like to hear how you are going to attach your LCDVF.

This is kind of an odd question. You know how Canon markets their cams as 5D-Pro/Semi Pro 7D: Semi-Pro 60D/550D: Consumer.....
Do you consider the GH2 to be a Pro, Semi-Pro, or Consumer Cam? Canon seems to look at mainly the body construction or weathering feature. If that is the case, then the GH2 would be 'consumer' but the image is superior. Or will the AF-100 be the Pro while GH2 is semi-pro? Patiently waiting to be enamored.

As much as I love the GH2, I would have to honestly say that this will still be considered a "consumer" camera. That in no way implies that professional results cannot be extracted from the camera because we've already seen just how great the footage can look. It will probably boil down to build quality, robustness in the field, ability to adapt peripherals, etc...

I'm sure that the "pro" camp will gravitate towards the AF100, simply because it addresses more of the dedicated video requirements for ease of production. I know that I'd love to have one just for the audio improvements, but unfortunately my pot o'gold is extremely depleted at this time!! All I want for now is for my FD adapter to show up and then to find a way to afford the Voigtlander 25mm .95....

 

[memphishills]

I have both a 60d and a GH2 and there are things I like about both.

On the 60d side:
Pro's
the actual focal length I get from lenses

What do you mean by this? There is still a crop factor on the 60D, you don't get 35mm when you but a 35mm lens on it. Also the crop factor on the 60D is 1.7x in video, versus 1.8x (based on true 16x9 sensor) in video on the GH2, so the difference is very small.

So I don't quite know what you were implying there.

 

[Ian-T]

... Also the crop factor on the 60D is 1.7x in video, versus 1.8x (based on true 16x9 sensor) in video on the GH2, so the difference is very small.

Which is exactly why I asked a couple of posts up about the Canon's so called stills taking superiority. If I can adapt the same lenses to the GH-1/2 as I could the Canon then what makes the difference in the image? I like Canon's colors straight out of the box....but it's not difficult to emulate that with a Panasonic.

 

[Furinox]

What do you mean by this? There is still a crop factor on the 60D, you don't get 35mm when you but a 35mm lens on it. Also the crop factor on the 60D is 1.7x in video, versus 1.8x (based on true 16x9 sensor) in video on the GH2, so the difference is very small.

So I don't quite know what you were implying there.

The difference in crop value does make a difference, especially in stills. My 28 1.8 on the 60d is 45mm, while on the GH2, it's 56. I like being able to get a bit more width out of my lenses. Being a hybrid camera, stills get considered.

 

[stoneinapond]

Which is exactly why I asked a couple of posts up about the Canon's so called stills taking superiority. If I can adapt the same lenses to the GH-1/2 as I could the Canon then what makes the difference in the image? I like Canon's colors straight out of the box....but it's not difficult to emulate that with a Panasonic.

Replied on bottom of previous page.

 

[memphishills]

The difference in crop value does make a difference, especially in stills. My 28 1.8 on the 60d is 45mm, while on the GH2, it's 56. I like being able to get a bit more width out of my lenses. Being a hybrid camera, stills get considered.

In suppose if we're talking still yeah, but still at only a 10mm difference, you could take one step back and still have the same framing. But I see your point.

I feel this only really applies to stills though.

 

[Adventsam]

The difference in crop value does make a difference, especially in stills. My 28 1.8 on the 60d is 45mm, while on the GH2, it's 56. I like being able to get a bit more width out of my lenses. Being a hybrid camera, stills get considered.

Switch the stills ratio to 16:9 or at the least 3:2 for a wider angle of view, in 16:9 you have 1.8x crop effective:thumbup:ly

 

[Ian-T]

My feeling is that it has to do with sensor size. I could be wrong, but I also don't think the adapter will have much to do with it other than the usual improvemnets you get from potentially better glass.

But does the 1.18 crop factor of the micro 4/3s vs the 7D/550 make that much of a difference in image quality? I can understand the difference between them and a full frame camera though.

 

[stoneinapond]

But does the 1.18 crop factor of the micro 4/3s vs the 7D/550 make that much of a difference in image quality? I can understand the difference between them and a full frame camera though.

I think size is only one factor. Pixel count, individual pixel size, how the sensor reads light and in what way the visible spectrum is divided, followed by the processing engine all factor into this.

I'm still amazed at how a Nikon D300 can deliver that elusive quality even though it is by today's standard, a dinasour. But then again, technicalities are only part of the picture (no pun intended). Composition, light, photographic skill all factor in and one can see pictures captured with a p&s that will rival more expensive cameras.

 

[Stephen Mick]

I see many folks say that Canons are superior in the stills area vs the GH-X's. Is it because of what Furinox mentioned, lens selection, or something else? If so, would something like the upcoming berger(sp) mount change that?

I think the GH2 is a pretty big step up in stills performance from the GH1. But it still doesn't quite measure up to the 7D. For me, it has nothing to do with the lenses or the sensor. It has everything to do with the speed and responsiveness of the GH2. I couldn't stand the GH1 because it felt so unbelievably slow compared to the Canons I was used to. The GH2 makes it a lot closer, but I still give the edge to the Canons.

 

[Homunculus]

well the biggest difference is megapixels....GH1 is 12 megapixels. there are 200$ crap cameras out there that have more megapixels than that. the canons are much more. 7d is around 18mp and 5dmkii is like 22mp

 

[memphishills]

well the biggest difference is megapixels....GH1 is 12 megapixels. there are 200$ crap cameras out there that have more megapixels than that. the canons are much more. 7d is around 18mp and 5dmkii is like 22mp

I hope you're not saying that having more megapixels is what increases the performance, because that is in fact exactly the opposite. Having more megapixels decreases low light capabilities.

 

[stoneinapond]

I hope you're not saying that having more megapixels is what increases the performance, because that is in fact exactly the opposite. Having more megapixels decreases low light capabilities.

Well that's not entirely accurate either, although you right in that more pixels does not necessarily mean better performance. Pixel ratio to sensor size, size of pixels, these are all variables that affect performance one way or another.

 

[Barry_Green]

And the generation of the technology matters too. The 5D is about three years old now. A modern chip with the latest technology could potentially outperform it, even when having the same or more megapixels.

As a general rule though, given everything being exactly equal, more pixels will mean tinier pixels, which will mean less sensitivity, dynamic range, and more noise, while offering more resolution. Bigger pixels will mean more sensitivity, more dynamic range, and less noise, while offering less resolution than the tiny-pixel version.

But again, that's only relevant if all other things are equal.

 

[rambooc1]

And the generation of the technology matters too. The 5D is about three years old now. A modern chip with the latest technology could potentially outperform it, even when having the same or more megapixels.

As a general rule though, given everything being exactly equal, more pixels will mean tinier pixels, which will mean less sensitivity, dynamic range, and more noise, while offering more resolution. Bigger pixels will mean more sensitivity, more dynamic range, and less noise, while offering less resolution than the tiny-pixel version.

But again, that's only relevant if all other things are equal.

That's why i like my old Nikon D40 for stills ...6Mp is all you really need unless doing poster work.

 

[Homunculus]

I hope you're not saying that having more megapixels is what increases the performance, because that is in fact exactly the opposite. Having more megapixels decreases low light capabilities.

well the fact that the sensor is much bigger than gh cameras more than makes up for the low light capabilities you are referring to. so it is far more megapixels, far larger sensor, etc

 

[Dan_Kanes]

Panasonic and Olympus (and Voigtlander and Tokina) need to come out with some fast constant aperture zooms, and a few more wide, fast primes to make the GH2 more successful. It's a superb camera - and I'm loving it with all of my other vintage lenses, but it would be nice to have some fast, contemporary aspherical designs!

I'm loving the look of most of the footage - here is a little something from my vacation - no editing, no color correction.
http://www.vimeo.com/18418043

 

[memphishills]

well the fact that the sensor is much bigger than gh cameras more than makes up for the low light capabilities you are referring to. so it is far more megapixels, far larger sensor, etc

Well far larger is a stretch, as its only 0.5 times larger than the current G series cameras. And FAR more megapixels is also a stretch, as the GH2 is 16, versus 18mp on the 60D. But yes, arguably the better stills performance would likely be attributed to the larger sensor (and not really tied to the larger megapixel, as it would likely perform even better if it were less megapixels, see nikons D700 vs. 5DmkII low light noise comparisons as example). But more importantly, I feel that the canon Digic processor does a better job at still processing then the venus 3 engine does. V3 is good, but the canon I think is slightly better.

 

[Barry_Green]

Panasonic and Olympus (and Voigtlander and Tokina) need to come out with some fast constant aperture zooms

They've already come out with the fastest zooms on the market. The Olympus 14-35 f/2.0 and 35-100 f/2.0 are fixed, and way faster than anything you can get for Nikon or Canon.