GH2 Still Photography with the GH-2 Can't Touch Canon / Nikon

T

TheDingo

Veteran
I shot natural light photos at a business retreat on Monday, and am now editing my shots...

Despite having fast lenses f/0.95 - f/1.4, the low-light photos are nowhere near as good as what I used to get with my Canon 60D. The images are sharp, but color has a consistent brown mush feel to them that is very hard to eliminate. ( I color balanced for each location, but the color is still not accurate )

I shot full resolution JPEGs for client convenience which is probably part of my problem. ( RAW would have likely produced a better result )

After this experience I am thinking of buying a Nikon body for any future stills work as Nikon lenses are easier to adapt for the GH-2, and I already own two great Zeiss ZF lenses.
 
Heh- most folks are not buying the GH2 for its still camera abilities. Of course a Nikon/Canon especially with 35mm sized sensor will take better stills. But they are not as optimal for video work which is what most people *are* getting this camera for.

Noah
 
Shooting RAW will help, but yes, the GH1 and GH2 aren't the greatest still cameras. The interface is clunky and getting the right exposure can be a hassle. Still the best option for video though.
 
...I switched from a Canon 60D to the GH-2 for video work and I am very happy I did, but I now realize that I also need a Nikon / Canon body for still photo work. ( best solution for each job )
 
I own a Canon 7d for photos and use my gh1 and gf2 for video. That being said I've gotten some really cool images out of some old legacy glass that would be hard to replicate on a Canon or Nikon. Also I found myself this morning trying to find the digital focus assist in the viewfinder on my 7d with a manual lens.. a very useful feature of the gh1..
 
TheDingo said:
I shot natural light photos at a business retreat on Monday, and am now editing my shots...

Despite having fast lenses f/0.95 - f/1.4, the low-light photos are nowhere near as good as what I used to get with my Canon 60D. The images are sharp, but color has a consistent brown mush feel to them that is very hard to eliminate. ( I color balanced for each location, but the color is still not accurate )

I shot full resolution JPEGs for client convenience which is probably part of my problem. ( RAW would have likely produced a better result )

After this experience I am thinking of buying a Nikon body for any future stills work as Nikon lenses are easier to adapt for the GH-2, and I already own two great Zeiss ZF lenses.
Click to expand...

Without a doubt the GH2 for stills doesn't compare to the Canons, Nikons etc. That has a lot to do with sensor size (especially the 5D) and good glass that the semi pro cameras are able to utilise. But you are talking an increase in costs etc that comes with expensive quality glass etc.

However on the GH2 you can get very nice results with Raw. I never ever ever shoot Jpg now. You can do a lot with them in Aperture, but and here's the big but, GH2 raw import in Aperture is wonky and gives a faint red cast to the image. If you open in Adobe Camera Raw the cast isn't there so it's Apertures fault. They really need to sort this out soon.

Aside from Raw, I have some old FD lenses that are great and can give some very passable results. Just go a 200mm FD 2.8 Canon and it's impressive.

Here's a couple of sets on Flickr shot with the Voigtlander.

First set was GH1 + Voigtlander

http://www.flickr.com/photos/42933233@N07/sets/72157626239828446/

Second set was GH2 + Voigtlander

http://www.flickr.com/photos/42933233@N07/sets/72157626540803827/
 
reggietelly said:
Without a doubt the GH2 for stills doesn't compare to the Canons, Nikons etc. That has a lot to do with sensor size (especially the 5D) and good glass that the semi pro cameras are able to utilise. But you are talking an increase in costs etc that comes with expensive quality glass etc.
Click to expand...
Also, a lot of still photographers have switched from Canon/Nikon fullframe or APS-C sensors to Panasonic/Olympus micro-four-thirds cameras. I don't think any of them think that the micro-four-thirds cameras take better still pictures.

Why do some still photographers switch, then? Size and weight. A micro-four-thirds camera is much smaller and lighter than Canon/Nikon offerings. Makes a big difference if you're out and about. A kit of micro-four-thirds gear is probably half the weight of an equivalent Canon/Nikon kit. The stills are not quite as good, but good enough. Better to have a good camera with you than to have left a great camera at home because it's too big and heavy.
 
Indeed all and having to shoot with a 5D and it's overheating and limited record times are a major PITA. I want a workhorse of a camera and the 5D and 7D aren't that at all. In the types of shooting situations I do, I have to crank out content and the canons will always find a way to slow things down.... and or shut down and then poof I'm waiting for a camera and that's unacceptable. So, given the quality of the GH2, I"m so happy and content....
 
I worked hours by hours with my 5D and have never had overheating problems.
But I took very good low noise pictures that you cant compare with GH2 pictures.
When I bought the GH2, I thougt it could be a good compromise concerning to size, picture quality and Video, but nothing came true, except the video quality. I have to content oneself with that.
Benn
 
Well, thats why I have not sold my D700, though I do like GH2 still quality and much lighter weight, its in my bag everyday.
 
I find I am taking better photos with the Gh2/gf1 that I own. I think it is because I am slowing down and using manual everything. I do use my nikon for more sports type stuff just because I am used to it. I think the nikon/gh2 combo is what I am settling on. Nikon for action stills and Gh2 for everything else. I am buying mostly glass I can share between the nikon and gh2. I do have some old FD glass and I love the pentax 25mm cctv lens for stills. But the nice thing is that with nikon glass it can go to the gh2 to the nikon and to a canon with cheap adapters.

Gh2 with way off brand 35 2.8. Unprocessed small jpeg that comes with the raw. Well flickr processed it a bit for sure.

5808900213_9e6a52fb28_z.jpg
 
...I shot a bunch of on the spot video interviews with my GH-2 kit today at a government conference. To keep things simple I had the interviewer use a Sennheiser G3 835 UHF hand-held mic, which I recorded directly in to my GH-2.
Sennheiser SKM100- 835 Cardioid Dynamic Handheld Transmitter ( Mic was set to -6 dB sensitivity, Receiver was set to -18 dB AF output, and my GH-2 was set to the lowest audio level setting which is 1 )

At the end of the day I did a quick check of all the footage I shot today and it was absolutely perfect, the color was almost bang on ( with mixed lighting ) and the audio sounded very full and natural. ( audio peaking at -6 dB with a noise floor of -54 dB )

It's days like this that remind me why I switched to the GH-2 for video work. ( and I'm wondering if maybe an Olympus Micro 4/3 body might be better for still photos )
 
A few weeks ago I had the chance to shoot some test still. Both RAW using the GH2 with 14-45 lens and the 5d mkII with 24-70 f2.8. The stills were all outdoor tests in good light in Seville. I was actually shocked at how well the GH2 performed. At it's lowest iso of 160 it showed some noise which isn't there on the 5d mkII. In lightroom about 25% movement up on the noise slider gets rid of this and leaves virtually no visual trace. As far as sharpness goes, the GH2 with 14-42 is impossible to differentiate from the much more expensive 5d mkII and 24-70 combo.

Obviously the test is not totally fair as the issues really show up in low light at higher ISO. What it did prove to me is that the GH2 with 14-45 is a fantastic combo that costs a mere £750.

I'd agree, for stills it's not quite up there with the Canon but I'm taking better pictures than I ever did with my 7d. Mainly because my setup is so light now that I spend more time with my camera and have developed my technique.
 
JPEG mode on the GH2 sucks. Shoot in RAW and it is just as good as my 7D. I actually now prefer to just shoot with the GH2 for everything. JPEG processing is nowhere as good as Canon however.
 
plasmasmp said:
JPEG mode on the GH2 sucks. Shoot in RAW and it is just as good as my 7D. I actually now prefer to just shoot with the GH2 for everything. JPEG processing is nowhere as good as Canon however.
Click to expand...

Another reason I avoided RAW until now is that I don't own LightRoom, and did not want to get stuck processing a few hundred shots with SilkyPix. ( I really should give GH-2 Raw a second chance )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top