GH2 Why do we need a GH3? Isn't the GH2 enough? What should Panasonic do for GH3?
- Thread starter OldCorpse
- Start date
No, honestly - the last time I mentioned the camera That Dare Not Speak Its Name, I got sent off to the chilly wilderness of 'general DSLR talk' -
However, since the topic of (glances furtively around) the Sony Nex-7 has been raised, I would venture to suggest that here is a camera that surpasses the GH2 in terms of resolution, dynamic range, colour fidelity - and (unquestionably) build quality.
'Wot cha got' is a trifle irrelevant at the moment, as Panasonic have had a merciful reprieve due to the disruption in Nex-7 availability. If that was not the case, I would almost certainly be a Nex-7 owner by now.
However, a look at video samples should be enough to tell us what we need to know - and even the Nex-VG20 camcorder appears to handsomely beat the GH2.
The Panasonic sensor is, imo, a disaster. what's more, Panasonic must have been aware of its problems prior to the GH2 launch - yet they pressed ahead regardless.
Their rationale would (probably) be that's it's a relatively cheap consumer camera, and that sensor imperfections are (i) to be expected, and (ii) unlikely to be noticed by the average purchaser.
It's probably their bad luck that those who take things seriously enough to post here are most certainly *not* the average purchaser, and are quick to notice the defects -
Perhaps the greatest condemnation lies in the fact that they have had well over a year to fix things - and yet have not done so.
Hitherto, they have had the DSLR video game largely to themselves - mainly because other brands didn't really take video implementation seriously. That seems to be changing - and not just with the Sony.
The forthcoming Olympus seems very promising - it would be wonderfully ironic if a company that was virtually dead in the water sensationally revived its fortunes by producing a truly wonderful M4/3 video tool.
In summary, I can understand why people buy the GH2 - because there is nothing better currently available. What I *don't* understand is the mentality that virtually worships the camera - and extols it as the pinnacle of VDSLR perfection, instead of a stop-gap solution until something better comes along.
As for 'The Hack', well, I'm willing to bet my house, my car, and my testicles that, if a really good 'non-hackable' camera comes along (whether from Olympus, Sony, or the Happy Sunshine Foto Company in Nanking) many of those currently engaging wholeheartedly in the GH2 Spirit Dance would abruptly cease their cavorting, pack up their wigwam, and head off for the better camera as fast as they possibly can! -
That's fine, I'm glad you've found something to amuse yourself with. However, I think the rest of us are more interested in video cameras.
Hardly an armchair engineer, Gary.
Just a poor schmuck who has owned three GH1's and two GH2's.
I know of what I speak.
Interestingly, my conversation with Mr Powell caused me to look at some old footage taken with the Canon HG10 - a budget camcorder, with a minuscule sensor.
Outdoors, as one might expect, there was no visible difference to the GH1/2 (allowing for the DOF, etc)
What came as something of a shock was to see the indoor low light footage!
I can tell you in complete honesty that the HG10 was every bit as good as the GH1/2 with a comparable fast lens (I think the HG10 defaulted to about f/1.4?)
With a slower lens on the Panasonic (say, the 14-140) there was no contest - the HG10 simply blows it away, higher bit rate notwithstanding.
At the moment I am sizing up 'decent' camcorders (the JVC 150E is the front runner) and my concern has been low light performance.
Having reviewed the HG10 footage I can see that I'm worrying for nothing - one can reasonably suppose that the JVC will be better than the HG10, and the HG10 certainly beats the GH1/2
Add to that the ease of operation, and the fact that a camcorder is doing what it is *supposed* to do - rather than being a square peg being ruthlessly hammered into a round hole with rigs and jigs, and follow focus, and all the other nonsensical apparatus required to shoot DSLR video - and my choice has suddenly become crystal clear.
If anything, I regret selling my HG10, and being seduced by the silly hysteria that accompanies the GH series.
My own mistake, of course - but one I will correct in the very near future.
Last edited:
Perhaps if you took more interest in footage than in verbiage?
Cosimo Bullo
Veteran
There is an old saying in the motorbike world when someone asks why you'd want to ride a leaky, loud old Triumph for example. Answer: If I have to explain it to you, then you could never understand.
Framerate: If he has to explain it to you...
stoneinapond
Veteran
Then your eyes are not giving you the full story. Hence you should give it a rest, as for most of us that is quite remarkable. Albeit short, but the detail man.....
Come on......if you don't get it, fair enough. But you really aren't going to get much traction here with your argument.
...But the Sony NEX-7 has absolutely horrible moire and horrible aliasing when shooting video. I had high hopes for the NEX-7 until I saw full resolution video footage with unbelievably bad moire and aliasing. ( I would consider this camera pretty much unusable for video work )
I was very keen on both the VG-10 and the VG-20 until I finally saw camera footage and realized that it was only marginally better than the Canon DSLRs.
Compared to the GH-2 the Sony VG-20 has lower resolution and rainbow moire and aliasing with fine details. I don't know who Sony is making this camera for, because I don't even think it's a good consumer camera. Why spend all this money for such bad results ?
No, honestly - the last time I mentioned the camera That Dare Not Speak Its Name, I got sent off to the chilly wilderness of 'general DSLR talk' -
I put it there because you started talking about something you have no idea about, offering it as fact. Also, if you have an issue with V.K., take it to him: don't use DVXuser as your sound board and refer to others as 'foreigners'. I suspect that you may not have meant it in a rude way, if you did... you know what to do.
To everyone: keep the topic civil, or it goes away.
Sense has been made.
They'll combine their video and stills divisions, just like Canon did. That could be happening right now.
Corporations don't stay major by making consumer-minded decisions. All this conjecture is from an unfounded stance of greed, not need; Panasonic consistently delivers "IT" products, even if by accident. It's funny that Sony is even a part of this conversation, the company that is pretty much known for crippling their lowest line to add value to their higehst.
Strange.
...Framerate, can you explain what you mean here ?
OK here's what I am looking for in a £150 camcorder:
- Large sensor
- Interchangeable lenses ( even if it's just one brand of SLR lenses )
- Shallow DOF when using fast lenses
- 1080 HD video with high resolving power
- 24 fps or 30 fps progressive recording
- relatively high ISO rating so I can shoot with available light
- Very very little moire in the recorded image
- Very very little aliasing in the recorded image
I am all ready to spend my £150 to purchase a camera that meets the specs listed, which would roughly be equivalent to what a GH-2 camera can do.
What camera to do I buy ?
Thanks for saving us all a bundle!
I await your answer...
Hey lpowell! I was just wondering...how did you manage to animate that still photo and get the branches to move like the wind was blowing? :shocked:
Since you insist, I'll ask you to take the trouble to download the original, unedited MTS video from Vimeo and view it on a reasonably well-balanced HD display. Make sure it's displayed at exactly 1920x1080 rather than resized to fit a different frame, and that the 24p frame rate is not being upsampled and interpolated into a higher frame rate.
This test footage was shot in natural daylight in GH2 24H mode using a Pansonic/Leica 25mm f1.4 lens at f4, ISO200, 1/60 shutter. The things I find most gratifying about this test shot is what I don't see:
* Color balance is neither artificially flat, nor blown out and crushed.
* Virtually no visible flicker when slowly panning across a complex background at 24fps.
* No evidence of over-sharpened aliasing artifacts on high-contrast edge details.
* No telltale shimmer of moire patterns during panning motion.
* No perceptible chroma smearing on fine lines and edges.
* No distracting farkling on clearly defined edges of moving objects.
* Virtually imperceptible frame-to-frame fluctuation in digitized pixel detail.
* No visible posterization or banding effects.
* No noticeable noise patterns or compression artifacts.
What I do see when I watch the video is a clean, highly detailed image that is almost completely free of distracting digital artifacts. When objects move smoothly across the frame, their edges and fine details remain clear and stable, with a high degree of continuity from one frame to the next. In short, I see no conspicuous flaws that will need to be fixed to make the footage usable.
If you'd like to try your hand at producing comparison footage on your Canon HG10 camcorder, I'd be most interested in evaluating your results. From your account, it's evidently capable of much that I have yet to appreciate.
Cosimo Bullo
Veteran
I swear I have never said this before, but I think it may be time to stop feeding the troll.
Indeed.
Trolls do not last here.
If you can't treat other members respectfully, you will be shown the door.
Posts have been deleted.
If you can't treat other members respectfully, you will be shown the door.
Posts have been deleted.
Mark Williams
Veteran
lpowell,
When I play that footage back on a 1080 24p Edius timeline I see a mild flickering in the shrub branch just to the left of rock ball. Everything else looks fine. When playing the footage thru VLC there is no flicker and the image is very stable.
When I play that footage back on a 1080 24p Edius timeline I see a mild flickering in the shrub branch just to the left of rock ball. Everything else looks fine. When playing the footage thru VLC there is no flicker and the image is very stable.
Russiana007
Active member
If there is camera that I think is sucks I won't buy five of it.
Is is just me or are all the example images from these GH2 IQ threads just massive detail and no subject? Every example is of a dark nothing where your eye darts for corner to corner looking for something to latch onto.
I'll have to agree with Framerate that all this banter has little to do with a cam that aids in the telling of stories and alot more to do with techno babble.
Nothing personal LPowell, but if you want to show moss on the wall, get in there and show the moss. If you want to show the iron gate tops go there and let us know what your on about. If it's the ball on the post, light it so it's the subject rather than leaving everyone's wandering eye all over the screen searching for a subject to latch onto. Mine actually goes to the street sign behind the ball as it's the brightest inteligable piece on the screen.
My contention is that all these posts on how great the GH2 and the hacks are is to show how detailed corner to corner an image it can capture. That never tells a good story and is a distraction more often that it's useful. My TM700 will create that exact image without much trouble. Truth be told there's nothing in it.
As this thread is about what we want to see in a GH3, for me it's more about how to get something useful out of the incredible detail the GH2 can create in the right circumstances. For me that would be sharp 1080-60p and the incredible reach the ETC gives at true HD resolution. Those would be advantages over what I can do with any other cam in the price range.
I'll have to agree with Framerate that all this banter has little to do with a cam that aids in the telling of stories and alot more to do with techno babble.
Nothing personal LPowell, but if you want to show moss on the wall, get in there and show the moss. If you want to show the iron gate tops go there and let us know what your on about. If it's the ball on the post, light it so it's the subject rather than leaving everyone's wandering eye all over the screen searching for a subject to latch onto. Mine actually goes to the street sign behind the ball as it's the brightest inteligable piece on the screen.
My contention is that all these posts on how great the GH2 and the hacks are is to show how detailed corner to corner an image it can capture. That never tells a good story and is a distraction more often that it's useful. My TM700 will create that exact image without much trouble. Truth be told there's nothing in it.
As this thread is about what we want to see in a GH3, for me it's more about how to get something useful out of the incredible detail the GH2 can create in the right circumstances. For me that would be sharp 1080-60p and the incredible reach the ETC gives at true HD resolution. Those would be advantages over what I can do with any other cam in the price range.