some design flaws in the gh2 (compared with Nikon d7000, eos 50d, and sony a55)

D

dustinash

Active member
After buying a d7000, a 60d and an a55, I finally thought I found the camera I could love.. the GH2 Perfect hybrid of stills and video.. Then I took it out shooting for a day at a wedding and I realized just how poorly designed this cam is from a stills point of view.

why?

The first major glaring problem is probably a firmware problem. I couldnt burst shoot the whole wedding! Now normally this cam is a real dog for burst shooting.. oh its great for about.. 5 shots then the buffer fills and its absolutely aweful for action.. yes I realize it can shoot 40 shots in a second.. at 2 mp.. how useless. But no I couldnt burst shot at all! I didnt figure it out till I got home, if you use your own custom color scheme it stops the cam from burst shooting! Nice to mention that in the fn manual.. so not only do I deal with a crap buffer I dont even get that. nice move panasonic.

Then.. there is the autofocus light... ok its orange. quirky.. whatever but what NON PHOTOGRAPHER put it on the left side of the camera. You cannot possibly hold this camera without your hand completely blocking that light.. try and hold it under sure you can mutate traditional hand holding technique that way but youll lose stability and it will feel like crap.. look at a mature still camera manufacturer like nikon and the light goes, appropriately on the right side. Even the sony a55 with its pre flash is more desirable then this. it completely renders using this cam in low light a nightmare of ergonomics.

Then there is the wheels... the wheel on the right has got really way to many things going on that no one will ever use.. I mean if your gonna use the flower setting or the mountain setting or whatever.. if your THERE, then your just gonna put it on auto anyway. so get rid of that. and with a designated video button why do I have to switch the wheel to video first? lame.

Then there is the dials on the left.. were these made for the worlds smallest fingers? I like the function there but trying to turn that mini wheel is annoying and I have good dexterity. Just because the cam is small (which is a good thing imo) does not mean that those switches need to be so emaciated or diminuative. the right one isnt but the left one is.. poor ergonomics.

And for a hybrid video cam I have some gripes there.. why no headphone jack? Like huh? And the noise in low light.. granted i guess oen just needs a low light lense, though realizing that there is currently no low light/shallow DOF lens with stabalization but hey PANSSONIC HAS 1000$ zoom fisheyes just what you always needed! whatever.. retarded.. Anyways.. back to shooting without flash in low light on the kit lens... video or stills.. the noise is totally chromiatic!!!!! like couldnt it be programed to err on the luminescent side in terms of noise?? instead my blacks are all sparkly with blue and red and it looks like the worlds darkest rainbow. Then there is the banding issue which IS an issue. wont even go there.. if you dont know about it dont torment yourself and just accept that you may have to deal with ets space ship showing up in some of your low light video.

That said the video mode is very nice in good light.. af focus in good light is solid... but ya.. they throw two or three processors in this thing and then a buffer that can only shoot 7 raw deep? If the sony a55 could adjust exposure and had frame rate options while shooting it would be a WAY WAY better all around cam then the panasonic. The buffer is crisp acheiving up to 10fps, it focuses like lightning, dials are simple and sweet without a bunch of useless garbage. Photos are nice even in low light, deeper dof because of larger sensor. And if you through a lens on with stabalization you dont have the over heating during filming problem.. I tested this. And that panoramic function without tripod is actually damn awesome as is its twilight mode. beautiful cam the a55... but tragic flaws for video shooters.

Mind you the gh2 does have the best lcd even at half the resolution of the other cams the touch screen is a great idea (even if you cant use it for half the menu stuff, it is cool for rack focusing) and it swings out sideways which is great. the sony one, swings downwards which is also plain stupid.

I dont get it.. I really dont. I have been doing photography for a year and i can tell picking up these various cams what problems any human being will have when using them.. how can manufacturers screw up the basics like that?

If it weren't for the lack of AF during movie mode and the lack of 60fps, the Nikon d7000 would have been the best cam. for stills it is by far the best .. each second with it is like working with a cam that was designed to capture works of art. The sony was a close second actually. the canon was god-awful. felt like old slow junk with a primitive lens and a crappy processor and not enough af points. On all points the 60d was the worst cam.. except maybe in still where it a toss up between it and the gh2 as to which is worse.

So if you want the true prosumer video--stills hybrid it is the sony. the drop dead gorgeous straight still shooter is the d7000 and if you really need something that offers full manual controls during video (and a very nice silent kit lens that is great in good lighting but does not offer shallow dof even zoomed) then go panasonic. I personally regret losing the sony. sure it had some stupidity issues of its own and its tendency to open exposure to full and then hike up shutter speed to obscene levels in bright lighting (thus ruining the video) was problematic but you can tame this to a degree with ND filters which you will need on the panasonic anyway.

The next sony build should blow everything out of the water but for straight still nikon will remain gorgeous. Panny really could have used the GH2 to clean house in all the areas but poor ergonomics made a beautiful hybrid a bit warty. I bought into the hype of the triple core processor not expecting the manufactuer would use no memory to complement it whatsoever.. totally inappropriate.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm so which camera resolves more detail in video mode in your opinion?
Does the D7000 output through the HDMI while recording?
What made the 60D so awful in stills? I dont understand.
 
Lol, just take pictures dude. :) No viewer of your images is going to care that you had to move your hand out of the way of the low light focus light, or whatever.

Anyway, people may have different preferences to you regarding ergonomics, so Panasonic can't really make a camera tailored to you. I, for example, never hold the left side of the camera (which you mention would "completely" block the light) with my left hand, I hold the lens with it instead. Just sayin'. :)
 
Your focus is on photography or video?

As I worked at one of the largest wedding companies in Dubai, now my wife and I are starting our own in Budapest. I do know a thing or 2 about what works.
Usually clients dont need very high end video, at the end of the day you probably encode onto DVD and possibly the internet.
As video productions manager, I dealt with clients through the post phase. Compatibility was always an issue, so DVD was the easiest solution (family members would want video copies, and not everyone is computer savvy and/or owns a blue ray player)

We shot most with Canon 7D and 5Ds, and in the evenings we use Sony HD cams with lights.
From the video side, the Panasonic is great. You can have AF for motion shots and a lens adaptor with a nice Nikon or Canon prime for tripod and glide track shots.
The quality is some of the best for a VDSLR out there. Also for a new startup and 1 man video and 1 woman photographer, I have less things to "fiddle" with while shooting and I can use my wife's Nikon lenses when she isn't shooting photos.

From the sound of it, you have tons of play money... As tight as my budget is, I did research before buying... not suggesting you didnt, but there is very clear information out there on what each camera is good for.
The Panasonic isn't a MAIN PHOTOGRAPHER's camera, at best you use it as a second camera.
Your dealing with a more compact image sensor, limited native lenses, 12 Bit Raws, no optical viewfinder, plastic body, hybrid design, etc.... the list goes on.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicDMCGH2/page12.asp
On the other hand, your dealing with a superior VDSLR with compact high end performance at a fraction of the cost of comparable cameras. A SUPERIOR VDSLR

The Sony uses almost the same sensor as the D7000 but uses a translucent mirror to utilize full time AF. This also allows for a fast frame rate then anything at this price range.
That said, I hear the AF while shooting video is terrible! You should stick with Manuel focus.... it hunts to much. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/page14.asp
Its a good shooter and good video, but dosent excel at either.
There is also the issue of ghosting, light loss, etc...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/page18.asp (at the bottom, use the comparison tool)

The Nikon D7000 is a beast for photos. My wife shoots with a D700, so I was very interested in the Nikon.
The video SUCKS compared to the features of the GH2.
The picture quality is good, lenses amazing... however terrible are the video options - limited frame rates, built in mono mic, 20min record intervals, limited manuel control while recording. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/page18.asp
Hands down the best designed and most ergonomic photographing camera. DP even rated the D7000 higher then the a55 in video oddly!

Lastly, the Canon 60D. It was an odd camera when introduced to begin with, only a few months later they came out with a cheaper clone... the T3i
Basically a more affordable 7D lacking the photo capabilities. And only 1 brain to boot.
Video side, its the same as a 7D or the cheaper T2i... but with articulating screen. Great quality, good lenses, tons of menu and customization features. But nothing game changing.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos60D/page16.asp
12min clip lengths, 5.5MB 1080p, good video customization, not great low light video, and okay AF, but a very good LCD screen on the back.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos60D/page20.asp
Its fine for photography and great for video, but nothing a cheaper T2i couldn't do. (Magic Lantern makes the T2i even more value)

The GH2 has its flaws, but its marketed as an enthusiasts photo and professional videographer. The sensor size, bit depth, and lens selection should more then be sufficient to see that.

As for the ergonomics, I cant see how you hold your camera, but being as small as it is....how do you manage to block the focus assist light? (my hand is always close to the bottom of the camera) Also, what kind of burst shooting are you doing? other then the cake cutting, kiss, and bouquet throw... There aren't to many scenarios that you would need burst (more then 5fps), try a more steady M burst if thats your thing. Also your shooting in RAW or in jpeg... if RAW, then you color correct in post?
Its 4MP in SH Burst, not 2MP. Its about 5-7fps in H depending on the lens.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicDMCGH2/page9.asp

You obviously have some play money to use all these cameras, but look into getting 1 camera for each need. Look at what you focus on the most and stick with that type fo DSLR.
You cant have your cake and eat it too... at least not until the next mass release of cameras.
From the looks of it, stick with the Sony. But dont come crying if they make a G13-like upgrade for the GH2...cuz it will DOMINATE!


Dai-Lon Weiss
http://www.dailonweiss.com/
http://www.kristinaweiss.com/Magyar/
 
Last edited:
No.. not a lot of money. I bought and shot with and returned each camera because each had problems. I was looking for a cam that could do both video and stills even though I know many people say you can only have one its 2011 and that is what the dslr revoltuion is about.

I do like the gh2, but the issues around it are valid. If the d7000 could AF during like the gh2 and had the manual controls that would have been my cam for sure.

People also claim you can shoot decent video at iso 3200. sure you can as long as you like noise. I like shooting in dark setting and seeing mostly shadows with highlights. When I attempt to do that with my gh2 and the stock lens the chromatic noise obliterates the quality..

As for the poster who suggested moving my hand out of the way before i shoot.. im not sure if you just shoot stills or catapillars but in real life subjects move and i have to trace them.. finicknig around and moving my hand from over to under is basically next to impossible, would look really weird to other photographers and is unacceptable.

In good light the cam is nice for video and it can get some good images but it falls behind the other cameras listed here.

What didnt I like about the canon 60d? Kit lens with its af linked to the mf ring. only 9 af points. single processor ala 2008. also I found that the hand grip would flexion away at a seam from the rest of the body with the rather heavy kit lens. That cam, though still a real nice camera in general would have been my last pic.

d7000 - for stills hand down.
a55 for combo still video if your ok without manual setting in video (also overheats in video and lens are noisy in video)
gh2 - trully solid for video especially in good light at this price range with the whole world of lens as possibilities. It is still a beauty of a camera, I just really got frustrated with the af light and the randomly small dials on the top left of the cam. Battery life is only a third of the d7000 as well.
 
"The Sony uses almost the same sensor as the D7000 but uses a translucent mirror to utilize full time AF. This also allows for a fast frame rate then anything at this price range.
That said, I hear the AF while shooting video is terrible! You should stick with Manuel focus.... it hunts to much. "

Having owned this camera I can say that is the exact opposite of the truth. That camera has rock solid, blisteringly fast af and could easily outfocus many career professional video people, it can even handle object moving rapidly towards the camera, which the gh2 cannot. The a55 has the best af focus in the world for a dslr in terms of video. the problem with the cam is lack of 24p and 60fps as well as it forcing exposure to wide open and cranking frame rates. Trust me. the Gh2 has sweet af in video the sonys is like a magnet and has less hunting then the gh2. as well the gh2 uses contrast based so it has to move in and out over the point of focus, the sony uses phase so .. no hunting..

I know you posted a review but .. check out some other ones around the net. the a55 rocks with vid af.

on your other points. I would be FINE with 5fps IF the gh2 maintained it. It shoots 7 photos and then it drops down to about 1 fps. This is in raw, in jpeg its fine but if I ever met a professional shooting jpeg I know I would be dead because pros do not shoot jpeg. When do you use burst? When they are walking down the isle. Its a moving target and there is no time for compose. You pick your spot and start firing.

As for my hanf placement, my hand is always on the left side of the cam, especially when i am operating the zoom.. maybe its cause im left handed? Not sure... Its a nice cam, but in terms of professional stills it simply cant keep up. In terms of video... ya its pretty sweet in that realm FOR the price
 
I never said it sucked. I kept the camera and I actually love it. It is a beautiful peice of kit and my complaints are 99% to do with ergonomics.. the only one that really bothers me is the af light placement but i am hoping i can compensate for that with af lighting off an external flash though some people have stated that does not work with m4/3.. ill let you guys know..

As for the iso 3200 video I whined about... its iso 3200.. I mean.. I admit really I can't expect much from that. It needs light to operate.. its a camera.. no biggie.. bleeds in some blue channel chromatic noise.. its still only a 1500$ cam not 100000$ so.. all in all I am pleased with it and it can take very nice stills., with a few design changes it would be close to a perfect camera.
 
Boy, somebody either has a lot of free time on their hands or likes to type a lot! The time would be better spent just taking videos or pictures, really.
 
One year of photography is not much to base things on. I have done stills for 12 years professionally, magazine, marketing, ads, and so on. 2-3 years of video now. There is no perfect camera. Good luck finding it. The key is getting a tool and learning how to use it, get the shots you want within the limits of the gear. Creativity trumps technical hurdles. Pixel peeping and fighting the gear gets you nowhere. The GH2 video is superb. Even 3200 is quite usable. I find it better than my 5DII and 7D. Believe it or not, experienced shooters don't use AF for video very often. And in the end here we are talking about sub $1000 cameras which are what they are, made in mass.

Go spend time with more experienced shooters and you will pick up a lot of helpful knowledge. Everyday I see new work from creatives who easily overcome all the shortfalls of equipment and produce brilliant work. That's the goal.
 
photonashville said:
One year of photography is not much to base things on. I have done stills for 12 years professionally, magazine, marketing, ads, and so on. 2-3 years of video now. There is no perfect camera. Good luck finding it. The key is getting a tool and learning how to use it, get the shots you want within the limits of the gear. Creativity trumps technical hurdles. Pixel peeping and fighting the gear gets you nowhere. The GH2 video is superb. Even 3200 is quite usable. I find it better than my 5DII and 7D. Believe it or not, experienced shooters don't use AF for video very often. And in the end here we are talking about sub $1000 cameras which are what they are, made in mass.

Go spend time with more experienced shooters and you will pick up a lot of helpful knowledge. Everyday I see new work from creatives who easily overcome all the shortfalls of equipment and produce brilliant work. That's the goal.
Click to expand...

Great post.
 
photonashville said:
One year of photography is not much to base things on. I have done stills for 12 years professionally, magazine, marketing, ads, and so on. 2-3 years of video now. There is no perfect camera. Good luck finding it. The key is getting a tool and learning how to use it, get the shots you want within the limits of the gear. Creativity trumps technical hurdles. Pixel peeping and fighting the gear gets you nowhere. The GH2 video is superb. Even 3200 is quite usable. I find it better than my 5DII and 7D. Believe it or not, experienced shooters don't use AF for video very often. And in the end here we are talking about sub $1000 cameras which are what they are, made in mass.

Go spend time with more experienced shooters and you will pick up a lot of helpful knowledge. Everyday I see new work from creatives who easily overcome all the shortfalls of equipment and produce brilliant work. That's the goal.
Click to expand...

Second everything!

If you work "professionally" you must know any kits lens sucks miles under low light, so forget 3200iso with the kit lens on the GH series, for your kind of work i´m sure will be enough with the Nikon, is the king of the hills in Photo and for Weedings i don´t think you need too much manual video controls much less 24p, the video will die in a DVD anyways.. you know a copy for Mom and my Auntie.. ;)

Invest in lenses and learn to work with the limit of your equipment, there is no the perfect camera, we make perfect, we are what we make it perfect.

Peace.
 
I stopped reading after the crack about $1,000 zoom fisheyes. The 7-14mm is one of the best lenses ever made for anything period. Great lens.
 
Who cares what he says. 7-14 price dropped to $900 then jumped back to $1000... Arrrrrr!!! I'm hoping new 7-14 drops the price of current 7-14.

Have you tried ETC on 7-14 during daylight?
 
Hmmm...can't think of a time I really used the ETC on it. I managed to get it for under $800 new...basically bought at the lowest it got.
 
To the dude that has the 1000$ to spend on the zoom fisheye.. fine its a clear lens. if you think that is the most useful lens though and that somehow its existence somehow makes up for a shallow dof video optimized lens with some zoom then thats your artistic choice. personally i feel there is a GLARING hole in the m4/3 lens line up. What they should do about this is keep the m4/3 bodies but throw a full fram sensor in it, but since that is not happening they need such a lens. It is really integral to video , much more so then a zoom fisheye. If you choose not to read what i write because of this position. sure. ok. i write to help, if reading it is of no value to you then ya of course dont read.. im here to understand not win popularity contests.

As for the person who thinks they should not buy a gh2... u shouldnt be heart broken. The people who commented on this thread are some of the top shooters in this forum and they are giving it (the gh2) glowing reviews. Remember when we are comparing the video from these cameras, its against standards set by 100,000$ plus cams and the gh2 is actualy competing. Its good.. and photonashvile hit it right on the head - learn your gear. I was suckered in by the "usable at 3200" line. either there is different quality sensors and some can handel 3200... (a possibility) or the person who is using that 3200 footage is accepting a fairly grainy and blury image. cause in post you would have to denoise it (blur) potentially adjust for the banding and crush the already noisy shadows... oh ya.. gh2 loses detail in shadow big time but with a bit of light it is glorious.. Its a bit like an angel... one thing to watch for though.. in low light shots with high contrast expect banding.

.. in good light this camera owns. its like a 100,000$ news cam. As for the kit lens, light etc. here is what i learned. first of all the kit lens is very very nice if you dont want to worry about focusing. it silent and smooth and hold focus like a 10 year plus experienced videographer. The non video opitimized lens do not function very well for video or at least the 20 mm did not. it hunted even after it attained and held focus. The kit lens does not hunt once it attains focus. The kit lens o this cam, unlike other cams, is superb. its one of panasonics finest lens, especially for video. its downfall is its slow.

My suggestion is if you shoot with this cam below 2000 iso it pulls pretty strong. It loses colors in certain feilds.. i found certain scenes it does not like but introduce light and its righ back performing lke a champ. introduce proper lighting like a real stage and shoot at iso 160 then prepare to feel like a million bucks. This cam really comes into its own in good light at low iso.

It does have engineering issues but they are largely ergonomic and mostly related to stills (except the lack of headphone jack and the forced audio AGC.. which nonetheless works well). The camera itself makes me happy that i elected to keep it out of the 4 and I did try the flagship vieo cam for every company so that says a lot. I still would not trade back up and I am EVEN using the gh2 as my main cam for wedding photography and it doubles for video. The buffer size really really bums me out tho... I have a class 10 card but sometimes i wonder.. maybe an even faster card would help? anyone try and get that 7 raw deep buffer to move a littel quicker?

And how this. I can literally shoot on raw in automode with this cam at weddings at 8/10 it gets a great take on the lighting. I usually only have to work my flash and change to manual if I want a particular effect. Some may think this is lazy but it allows me to focus on other things.. I love this cam for that. I quite often find it out shoots the main photographers d3 fpr lighting quality.
 
Last edited:
as for the suggestion i shoot instead of write why dont u go shoot instead of reading? I am writing because I want meta knowledge on this cam and I want to engage discussion. I was a writer far before I was a filmmaker and writing a page takes me minutes but the knowlede it garners saves me hours to days of internet searching.. so ... no this discussion is meritted. Ive already learned a lot from it including a philosophical attitude that will help me be a better filmmaker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top