GH2 So what's the skinny on the real GH2 resolution?

Adamsenoj;1986196634Comparison with the EX1 would also work as they produce basically the same image.[/QUOTE said:
I use an EX-1 at work and own a GH2 for personal use. The image between the EX-1 and GH2 is comparable for resolution. Technically the EX resolves more but most people would never notice. The area where you will notice a big difference is low light shooting. When the EX falls apart due to gain and image noise the GH2 is stilll going strong (with a fast lens of course) same goes for the AF100 we use at work. Sure it doesn't have the same low light level as the C300 or 5DIII but it is also a fraction of the price and miles ahead of the EX in low light.

I honestly have not intercut footage between these cameras so I can't comment about that.
Click to expand...
 
RatLabProductions said:
I use an EX-1 at work and own a GH2 for personal use. The image between the EX-1 and GH2 is comparable for resolution. Technically the EX resolves more but most people would never notice. The area where you will notice a big difference is low light shooting. When the EX falls apart due to gain and image noise the GH2 is stilll going strong (with a fast lens of course) same goes for the AF100 we use at work. Sure it doesn't have the same low light level as the C300 or 5DIII but it is also a fraction of the price and miles ahead of the EX in low light.

I honestly have not intercut footage between these cameras so I can't comment about that.
Click to expand...

I'm glad to hear that the ex-1 and gh2 is similar in resolution. I've always wanted an ex-1 for the resolution, but never had the funds. Now I can stop thinking about it.
 
I've used both the EX1 and GH2 quite a lot, and while the EX1 is a great camera in many ways, the colors, the lowlight performance, the shallow depth of field, and more make me prefer the GH2 for most of what I do. Of course, when you need a very long, fast zoom lens for documentary style shooting and deeper DoF isn't a concern, the EX1 can do things you'd be hard-pressed to make the GH2 do, without constantly changing lenses and screwing and unscrewing ND filters. And the zebras and peaking are awfully nice...
 
RatLabProductions said:
I use an EX-1 at work and own a GH2 for personal use. The image between the EX-1 and GH2 is comparable for resolution. Technically the EX resolves more but most people would never notice. The area where you will notice a big difference is low light shooting. When the EX falls apart due to gain and image noise the GH2 is stilll going strong (with a fast lens of course) same goes for the AF100 we use at work. Sure it doesn't have the same low light level as the C300 or 5DIII but it is also a fraction of the price and miles ahead of the EX in low light.

I honestly have not intercut footage between these cameras so I can't comment about that.
Click to expand...

Yes I can see how the GH2 much larger sensor would be better in low light and I also agree the EX1 most likely resolves more, at least it should. But there's something about the image of the GH2. I think it just has more pop because it is a consumer product. EX1 footage looks nice but you almost have to grade if you want to get the best out of it, at least that's my experience with the EX3.

I have looked on vimeo to see if I could find any GH2 footage intercut or compared to EX1 or EX3 but couldn't find any. I guess these 2 cameras are not very popular together.
 
Gerson said:
I've used both the EX1 and GH2 quite a lot, and while the EX1 is a great camera in many ways, the colors, the lowlight performance, the shallow depth of field, and more make me prefer the GH2 for most of what I do. Of course, when you need a very long, fast zoom lens for documentary style shooting and deeper DoF isn't a concern, the EX1 can do things you'd be hard-pressed to make the GH2 do, without constantly changing lenses and screwing and unscrewing ND filters. And the zebras and peaking are awfully nice...
Click to expand...

I think the EX1 has basically the same advantages over the GH2 as the AF100. Basically it's a more professional camera with more features. But the GH2 makes very nice images that because of all you said, if under the right conditions looks nicer. If the GH2 had built in ND filters, zebras, a better signal for external recording and was slightly more flexible in the image adjustment department, I think many of these more expensive cameras would be stuck at the warehouse, even if the GH2 cost $1000 more.

I have pretty much decided to get me a GH2. I have seen enough to convince me that even if I can't use it all the time and in all situations because of it's limitations, it would at least be a nice toy to have which I may be able to use professionally more often than I may expect. So I'm getting one. The thing is, should I wait a little bit till or if used GH2 cameras start dropping like dead flies on ebay because of the new blackmagic camera? I'm thinking it's already starting to happen. I have the feeling there are more on ebay already this week. How many here thinking about jumping ship?
 
The main issues with the image of the GH2 (as opposed to the handling) are dynamic range and jello. I anticipate both will improved in the GH3, if you can afford the higher price and can wait a while.T
 
Yes, jello. But I wouldn't be getting it to shoot handheld stuff though. But is the DR really that bad? How many stops?
 
Adamsenoj said:
What's ETC equivalent to, a 2/3" chip, S16?
Click to expand...

I believe it would be similar to 2/3", considering that ENG lenses work perfectly when in ETC mode. In case you didn't know, some people regularly fit B4-mount servo-zoom ENG lenses to the GH1/GH2, with an adapter of course. If you throw in a 2x extender, you don't even need to use ETC mode.
 
Adamsenoj said:
Yes, jello. But I wouldn't be getting it to shoot handheld stuff though. But is the DR really that bad? How many stops?
Click to expand...

No, it's not bad at all, and the great gamma curves make it very useable. It isn't useful to throw around numbers since they don't mean much alone since many people measure differently. For example, the GH2 seems to have similar DR to the AF100 but the GH2 is far better since if the AF100 blows out it looks absolutely horrible with all scene files so you have to underexpose at all costs and the top 1-2 stops are basically useless, whereas the GH2 with the smooth film mode looks great at various exposure levels and scene contrasts. Frankly I like the gamma and color of the GH2 better than many more expensive cameras, and certainly more than Canon DSLRs which are much softer and can blow out quite harshly with picture style contrast turned down but look too high contrast with it at default and often have issues with reddish skintones especially at higher isos and higher contrast/saturation.
 
nyvz said:
For example, the GH2 seems to have similar DR to the AF100 but the GH2 is far better since if the AF100 blows out it looks absolutely horrible with all scene files so you have to underexpose at all costs and the top 1-2 stops are basically useless,
Click to expand...

How is it useless? If you expose so the highlights are not blowing you are not losing any stops, they are just used in the bottom of the scale, meaning your shadows will be brighter. I also think the GH2 is a great little camera and I'm buying one. But there's no reason to fool ourselves or try to put better cameras down. 10 stops is 10 stops.
 
Adamsenoj said:
How is it useless? If you expose so the highlights are not blowing you are not losing any stops, they are just used in the bottom of the scale, meaning your shadows will be brighter. I also think the GH2 is a great little camera and I'm buying one. But there's no reason to fool ourselves or try to put better cameras down. 10 stops is 10 stops.
Click to expand...

I suspect he was refering to the Ansel Admas Technique or "Zone" System when he made that comment. But I could be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top