GH2 Maximizing Photo Quality

H

Heartfelt

Well-known member
So I see a lot of info about the GH-2's reign on video footage and that it is usually a step behind the canons and nikons on the photo side.

With this understood, is there a blog or thread somewhere or does someone care to share on how to maximize photo quality with this unit?
Do you work in post with RAW files? Is it necessary?
Are there things to avoid or to be sure of when shooting?

I just got a tax check and am about to pull the trigger... just making sure I know as much as possible, going in.
Rob
 
apply the same rules to video as stills, ie correct exposure, correct lighting etc and you will get good results. bear in mind photos will show the true nature of your glass so if you have good optics you will see it in the pics, video is more forgiving as its resized and compressed. i shoot raw myself for post.
 
MR Fanny said:
apply the same rules to video as stills, ie correct exposure, correct lighting etc and you will get good results. bear in mind photos will show the true nature of your glass so if you have good optics you will see it in the pics, video is more forgiving as its resized and compressed. i shoot raw myself for post.
Click to expand...

What he said. Shoot raw and use nice glass. the GH2 is really sharp. I love using the little 25mm pentax cctv lens for photos.

6035519104_9781c7b69e_b.jpg
 
I absolutely hated the still photos from the GH-2, until I bought Adobe LightRoom and started shooting ONLY in RAW format. ( the Panasonic JPEG engine pales in comparison to the Olympus JPEG engine )

In RAW format, the GH-2 produces beautiful images, and gets you close to the Canon / Nikon Pro-DSLR image quality. ( Canon and Nikon are still better, but I am very happy now with the RAW output from the GH-2 )
 
i got some pretty interesting stills results from the gh2 shooting RAW. all my jpeg stills at any res were pretty crappy. many were even full of subtle artifacting...

the biggest drawback in my opinion of the gh2 (for both stills and video) is that 90% of the current native m4/3 lenses dont produce very pretty results. and if you go with an adapter and good looking older glass you wont benefit from any of the modern features like autofocus or IS.

you CAN get good stills results from a gh2. but if i made a significant amount of money shooting stills, id buy a canon or nikon and just leave my gh2 for video
 
If you need AF but not necessarily high-speed, you can look into four thirds lenses with an adapter. Olympus has some nice fast zooms. The new 45mm 1.8 is also a winner (ultra sharp). Lenstip gave it a glowing review, something they don't do often.
 
wgzn said:
the biggest drawback in my opinion of the gh2 (for both stills and video) is that 90% of the current native m4/3 lenses dont produce very pretty results. and if you go with an adapter and good looking older glass you wont benefit from any of the modern features like autofocus or IS.
Click to expand...

Most lens lineups from Canon/Nikon/etc... are filled with kit lenses that offer ok but not stellar image quality. M43 is no different. Each lens lineup offers a high-end line. With M43, that includes some very nice primes, including:

Olympus 12/2
Panasonic 14/2.5
Panasonic 20/1.7
Panasonic-Leica 25/1.4
Olympus 45/1.8

I have the 14, 20, and just got the 45. They are all very good lenses, in many ways as good as my Pentax DA Limited (21, 35, 40, 70). The differences, if any, are minor. These native M43 lenses have AF. The Panasonic bodies, unfortunately, don't have IS.

I also have the 14-140 and 100-300 Panasonic zooms. Image quality is good (very good for the 100-300) and they do have IS, but they are slow - starting at F4.0. So they aren't good for video. But for stills in good light they are very good.

you CAN get good stills results from a gh2. but if i made a significant amount of money shooting stills, id buy a canon or nikon and just leave my gh2 for video
Click to expand...

I've shot the GH2 and Pentax K-5 (regarded by many by one of the best if not the best APS-C right now) side by side. In good light, the results are nearly indistinguishable. In low light the K-5 starts to pull away. Also, the K-5 RAW files seem more malleable in post. But you're right, if still is your biz, then the GH2 is not the body, but not necessarily for IQ reasons. I'd put the lack of fast zooms and poor flash control as bigger issues.
 
Thanks for the replies.

Are there other solutions besides Adobe for handling raw files? I think my Corel package will but am simply curious. Also, what file extension is a raw file, if there is one?

Rob
 
I think my Corel package will
Click to expand...
first order of business is get rid of anything corel. ive seen corel products screw up workflows more than just about anything other than knockoff fonts. : )
 
Realistically, all cameras have different settings for JPEGs and different manufacturers have different flavours.

Some people are fine with the jpeg settings for the GH1/2 - I find it okay, but I only do travel and landscape shots with them, often in jpeg mode. When shooting wildlife, weddings etc, I use my Canon DSLRs - more a concern with handling and shorter DOF. If the new GX1 came with a builtin viewfinder like the NEX7, I would seriously consider it for weddings with the Panny 20/1.7.
 
wgzn said:
first order of business is get rid of anything corel. ive seen corel products screw up workflows more than just about anything other than knockoff fonts. : )
Click to expand...

Different strokes, I guess. I don't care for the bloated nature of Adobe. I have used CorelDraw for years, professionally, and am quite adept with art for web and print. Simply works, tools are simple and the workflow is quite fast, actually.
 
I'm curious about Lightroom as well. I haven't messed around with shooting RAW, but I want to give it a go. I like that Lightroom has organizational features. Going forward, it seems like file organization is one of the biggest hurdles we all face, especially with still images. I've had iPhoto since 2004 and never liked it at all, so Apple's Aperture doesn't appeal to me. I don't want iPhoto integration, I want something completely removed from it.
 
Photoshop uses the Adobe Camera Raw plug-in to pre-process RAW image files. If you find Photoshop to be bloated, you may want to try Lightroom and/or Adobe Bridge instead, both of which use the same Adobe Camera Raw plug-in.
 
lpowell said:
Photoshop uses the Adobe Camera Raw plug-in to pre-process RAW image files. If you find Photoshop to be bloated, you may want to try Lightroom and/or Adobe Bridge instead, both of which use the same Adobe Camera Raw plug-in.
Click to expand...

Wow... looks like a lot didn't care for my opinion. Sorry guys, no offense intended or needed. For what it is worth, PS is fine, an industry standard but not intuitive at all. Hard to be a Corel user these days :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top