GH2 Some Photography with the GH2!

J

Jester2138

Well-known member
Don't see much photography posted on these forums, so I thought I'd post a little I did today. Who says the GH2 isn't a real photo camera? Lens was a Canon FD 50 1.4. Just switched to it from the Nikon equivalent and I prefer the Canon.

P1210760.jpgP1210772.jpgP1210773.jpgP1210775.jpgP1210790.jpg
 
Last edited:
the more i've played with my GH2 for stills, the more i appreciate it. i would never think to use it as a photojournalism tool. i find myself thinking of it more like a paintbrush.
 
Jester2138 said:
Who says the GH2 isn't a real photo camera?

View attachment 40109View attachment 40111View attachment 40112View attachment 40113View attachment 40114
Click to expand...

Nobody said the GH2 wasn't a real photo camera. It's just not built at the same level Nikon or Canon DSLRs are when you need to nail that money shot first time. Someone above mentioned that they see it more like "a paintbrush." I can see what she/he means. If you slap on an old FD lens, have a moment to really compose your shot, use a wide aperature, you can really get some nice stuff. But I never found the Lumix lenses and its AF capable of comparing anywhere near the Nikon or Canon AF lenses. I can't see how the 14-140 can be used for serious photography, just too slow. Don't get me wrong, I've gotten a few great images, it just isn't as reliable.

Paris.jpg This is one I took in Paris about two years ago with the 14-140. I was happy with it, but it took quite a few times to get it right.

Using FD lenses though, you can't go wrong with the GH1/2
 
The 14-140 is fine for what it is, a 10x zoom, a great travel lens or landscape and I would say that it's better than any 10x from Canon or Nikon, and that's considering that Canon makes a 28-280L, and it's not much faster than the Panny.

The 14-45 or 14-42 is a fine lens, the Oly 12/2, Panny 20/1.7 & 14/2.5 are very good as well.

ps, I also have the Canon 7D, 1Ds, 1Dm2 and f2.8 zooms from 11mm to 300mm, so I do have lots to choose from.
 
6136800460_9d4c5fd9b2_b.jpg


It's amazing that in still mode I can use the GH2 at ISO 1250 no problem! Super clean. I even did some tests at ISO 5000 and they are quite clean for how high that is.

With the GH1 I only went above ISO 500 if absolutely needed.
 
To each their own when it comes to the tools we use. I was on a gig a few weeks ago with a canon guy who was asking if I seriously used my GH2 for pro work as he was completely convinced it was impossible. Well after about 40 minutes of continual shooting in which I hadn't stopped once, I leaned over and asked how his client liked to have broken up 12 minute segments and how he enjoyed his overheating and only then did he realize that I was ready to roll the entire 2 hours...... So for stills and videos a tool is just that, and sometimes the person operating the camera is a tool too....
 
bronxjragon said:
It's just not built at the same level Nikon or Canon DSLRs are when you need to nail that money shot first time. Don't get me wrong, I've gotten a few great images, it just isn't as reliable.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. My $1,000 GH2 is every bit as capable a photo camera as my old D90. Does it compete with $3000 full-frame DSLR's? No. Does it easily compete with the sub-$1500 DSLRs? Yes yes yes!
 
Photos! Is that a new feature? ;) :P

Looks great. I really want a GH2 and a PL adapter so I can take stills with Cine lenses.
 
Those are all with the 20mm?, he must be really close with those portrait shots, no wonder ppl are looking at the camera a lot :)

edit: oh I see he uses a 50mm with a nikon too
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top