GH2 Why do we need a GH3? Isn't the GH2 enough? What should Panasonic do for GH3?
- Thread starter OldCorpse
- Start date
plasmid
Member
You are absolutely right that in the right hands any tool can make beautiful art.
Once that point is reached by the artist however getting a better tool does indeed make for better art, that's why better tools are created.
That must be why Nolan chooses certain tools for all his films for example.
I'm a tech guy so I apologize for getting too caught up in the gear
As for the original post question: I dont have a GH2 but would love to own one so my experience is more than a little uninformed.
But I do read/watch alot of stuff via vimeo (455 likes and counting) and honestly the GH2 has all I could ever want in a DSLR/ILC.
Probably adding 1080 60P support via AVCHD 2.0 would be a good start.
Adding a headphone jack and full manual audio controls would be even better.
Also, Panasonic could offer an aoptional battery grip for those of us with big hands.
That way you have the m4/3 size advantage while also having an option for big fat finger people like me
In my mind the current competitor would possibly be the Olympus E-M5 which might have similar GH2 level video but better ergonomics.
Also the Sony A77 looks great on paper and since Im not invested in glass I could go either way.
Right now the sharper image, the uber hack, better native lenses and great prices are what are keeping me in the GH2 camp at the moment.
Just because something is beautiful or ugly doesn't mean it is art.
Just because something is technically 'better' doesn't mean that it is better suited for you.
You cannot measure measure art, nor can you measure which camera is more suitable for you.
Boncrek
Well-known member
By better I mean from the artist's point of view so of course there will be many tools to choose from.
What can be beautiful but is not art?
I can't think of anything. People, nature etc are God's art to me so...I don't understand your point my friend.
Of course you can! Why wouldn't I be able to judge for myself what I want in a camera?
DanielRutter
Active member
Jester2138
Well-known member
I agreed with everything you said until "nor can you measure which camera is more suitable for you." Why, of course I can! I know exactly what I want in a camera. The problem is that no camera today has it all, so it's only a question of what compromise do I want to make.
* Well I don't think the preamps in that little camera will ever be up tp professional recording, so I don't need any audio embelishments.
* They will probably stick with the same sensor, so I would hope they could improve the circuitry to use it more efficiently and address the main concern that I have, which is the noise issue at even low ISO (160).
* Please drastically improve the noise in ETC Mode! Many GH2 users have C-Mount lens gear specifically for the GH series cameras and the noise in ETC makes it horrid.
* Hopefully they will have a beter sensor and supporting technology.
* Focus assist would be great!
* Seeing that there are very few viewfinder (both for the swing-out LCD & the eyepiece) provide those accessories... or better yet include them with the camera.
* They could improve the codec, but where many people want higher bitrates, I just want better quality at low (space saving) bitrates.
* Dual card slots and the same technology as in their AF100.
That's it for me, after all what do you really want from a tiny camera like this? Just get it to do what it does better... better image control and far less noise in every mode!
AM
Per Lichtman
Well-known member
@questech Have you tried the lower bitrate hack settings with PTool? They run the gamut from ultra-low Sanity 5, Cake 2.3, Cluster 2e to Flowmotion 2.02. People often talk about bkmwcd having written a good low bitrate setting as well, but since they rarely mention which one, I am unsure of which to reccomend.
Also, mpgxsvcd wrote a setting called "No Adverse Effects" that is often suggested as a good low bitrate and high stability setting.
Also, mpgxsvcd wrote a setting called "No Adverse Effects" that is often suggested as a good low bitrate and high stability setting.
Hello,
Yes I tried every one of them I believe and a couple of my own.
I found that every patch made the noise worst (only tested in ETC Mode because that's where my concerns were), although Flow Motion performed the best.
Of course if you are just removing ISO or Language limitations (or other benign settings - maybe even slightly tweaking the GOP settings a little bit) that isn't going to affect the noise or quality of your clips.
I feel no need to patch the current firmware because a) the noise is visibly worst under every patch tested (from moderately to horrifically) b) the camera just doesn't work as well with most of the patches - no spanning - freeze up - stop recording, etc. c) takes up way more card space, needs faster more expensive cards, and I don't see any real improvement in picture quality.
Seriously, I've watched hundreds of videos over the past 2 weeks and I can see picture imperfections in every one of the patched videos I have watched... the same videos that others praise as being wonderful... and that is after downloading the best files they have had to offer. I'm an artist as well, so maybe I just have a more critical eye??
If there is any gain in grading or keying in post then OK you got me, but as far as presentation... not worth the hassle. Now that's my opinion based on my tests, if anyone can show me different I would love to see it and would keep an open mind.
If your an indie filmmaker and think you need a higher bitrate to "make a real film", then get a real film camera OR just use the GH2 out of the box and instead of millions of tests and all of the hassles these hacks can cause... you can actually get down to the business of making your film. And as far as commercial projects go, forget about it, just pickup the camera and make some money.
BTW here is a more detailed report as to my tests: http://philipbloom.net/forum/threads/gh2-hacks-noise.1814/
So as far as what I'd like to see in the GH3... just fix the noise and I would be much happier (to be honest I won't spend money for this class of camera again so I won't be getting a GH3. We use AF100s, which are still saddled with a version of the codec used by the GH2, and other higher end cameras in the course of our work, but My next purchase would be the Black Magic camera or the FS700).
I think the GH2 a great little inexpensive camera that's good for what it's good for, just a little noisy
Last edited:
John Caballero
Veteran
If you don't want to hack your camera, for reasons real or imagined, it is your God given right to choose not to do it. I hacked mine and the image quality is superb. Then again I know what is real and what is imagined. Noise? Not a problem at all.
Per Lichtman
Well-known member
Ah, okay. Those are some very specific criteria, Anthony - I was not aware the scope of your search was focused on that particular area.
The GH2 can be noisy, but it is a big step up from many DSLRs - except when it is doing annoying things like the difficult to replicate occasional flickering shadows issues, etc. When used in the sort of workflow many of the filmmakers use on personal-view, the image quality that can be achieved with the GH2 is superior to that of the AF100. The AF100 has a lot, lot, lot of workflow advantages though (as I am sure you know from your own experience).
The Black Magic Cinema camera is a very post-oriented offering so I am slightly puzzled by your leanings towards it, given that you seem to be aiming for a ready-made look given your comments about noise. When I was looking at RED footage vs GH2 footage, I was not typically noticing a noise difference unless I got into grading (and then it tended to be quite apparent) but rather a dynamic range difference. Based on what has been said about the Black Magic Cinema camera, and the fact that is using a smaller sensor size, there is no reason to assume that it will have superior noise performance.
If low-noise at high ISOs is a big concern, then the cameras to look at would be the 1DX/Cinema 1D or the Nikon D4. The latter has the best high ISO performance of any currently available camera - the former may compete (or defeat) it up to ISO 25,600 but in video mode cannot exceed that (while the D4 can go to 204,800). I got a short bit of hands-on time with the C500 and I enjoyed the dynamic range and ISO performance at reasonable ISOs - but it also cannot go to the D4 level high ISOs.
Back to the hack - few people have said the noise was reduced with the hacked settings - a reduction in macroblocking can often lead to an increase in the amount of perceived noise more often than the reverse. I have been quoted as saying (many times) that my favorite GOP1 settings make the noise finer and more detailed - not at all less visible. Many are using the settings in conjunction with noise reduction after the fact and finding that the noise reduction they achieve in that fashion is far superior to what they get using the factory settings.
Critiquing the noise level in the hacked footage is akin to looking at still images and critiquing the more detailed output of a RAW converter as having more noise than the JPEG. The JPEG will have had more processing applied already - the point of using the RAW file in the first place was to give yourself greater control of the process. If you were to apply noise reduction to the RAW file, it would often be able to achieve a result that is similarly smooth to the JPEG but with a much higher level of detail preserved.
I am not invested in any particular setting or workflow - I alternate between many of them. But the idea that there is no difference or that the only difference is that the noise is worse shows that the testing was limited to a rather small gamut of tests.
Even when using EX24H mode, you can see a lot more detail preserved under the most adverse conditions with settings like Canis Majoris Night or Sedna than with the stock settings for FW 1.1.
Unfortunately, none of the tests I have done seem to fit the testing criteria you would prefer.
I have tests that show the difference between stock 1.1 and other settings (especially Canis Majoris Night) but use some post-processing. I have tests that do not use post-processing, but they generally compared settings that did not include stock 1.1. I have tests that were unprocessed and included EX mode, but they were in SH and were unfortunately outdoors.
Anyway, I will see if I can drum up some of the old footage I use to perform these tests (and the ones on the page after it). Note the big difference between Stock 1.1 and Canis Majoris Night, especially in the upper left corner or the left side of the desk in the middle.
http://www.personal-view.com/talks/...ight-day-pm-skin-tone-soft...-more-to-come/p2
But to recap - the settings are designed to preserve more detail and reduce macroblocking and make noise finer. They are not designed to reduce noise overall and I rarely find that they do. The biggest advantage of the hacked settings is typically seen in situations that really push the standard codec - high motion or exceedingly high detail or very adverse lighting conditions. If you are shooting shallow DOF, low motion, well lit material and do not intend to grade your footage, then there is usually not much advantage to the hacked settings in regards to image quality.
Here was the (VERY, VERY, VERY) flawed EXSH 50P test I did back a while ago (where both the lighting and the framing changed A LOT during filming) in case it is of any use to you.
https://vimeo.com/38051201
Password: driftwood
The GH2 can be noisy, but it is a big step up from many DSLRs - except when it is doing annoying things like the difficult to replicate occasional flickering shadows issues, etc.
When used in the sort of workflow many of the filmmakers use on personal-view, the image quality that can be achieved with the GH2 is superior to that of the AF100. The AF100 has a lot, lot, lot of workflow advantages though (as I am sure you know from your own experience).The Black Magic Cinema camera is a very post-oriented offering so I am slightly puzzled by your leanings towards it, given that you seem to be aiming for a ready-made look given your comments about noise. When I was looking at RED footage vs GH2 footage, I was not typically noticing a noise difference unless I got into grading (and then it tended to be quite apparent) but rather a dynamic range difference. Based on what has been said about the Black Magic Cinema camera, and the fact that is using a smaller sensor size, there is no reason to assume that it will have superior noise performance.
If low-noise at high ISOs is a big concern, then the cameras to look at would be the 1DX/Cinema 1D or the Nikon D4. The latter has the best high ISO performance of any currently available camera - the former may compete (or defeat) it up to ISO 25,600 but in video mode cannot exceed that (while the D4 can go to 204,800). I got a short bit of hands-on time with the C500 and I enjoyed the dynamic range and ISO performance at reasonable ISOs - but it also cannot go to the D4 level high ISOs.
Back to the hack - few people have said the noise was reduced with the hacked settings - a reduction in macroblocking can often lead to an increase in the amount of perceived noise more often than the reverse. I have been quoted as saying (many times) that my favorite GOP1 settings make the noise finer and more detailed - not at all less visible. Many are using the settings in conjunction with noise reduction after the fact and finding that the noise reduction they achieve in that fashion is far superior to what they get using the factory settings.
Critiquing the noise level in the hacked footage is akin to looking at still images and critiquing the more detailed output of a RAW converter as having more noise than the JPEG. The JPEG will have had more processing applied already - the point of using the RAW file in the first place was to give yourself greater control of the process. If you were to apply noise reduction to the RAW file, it would often be able to achieve a result that is similarly smooth to the JPEG but with a much higher level of detail preserved.
I am not invested in any particular setting or workflow - I alternate between many of them. But the idea that there is no difference or that the only difference is that the noise is worse shows that the testing was limited to a rather small gamut of tests.
Even when using EX24H mode, you can see a lot more detail preserved under the most adverse conditions with settings like Canis Majoris Night or Sedna than with the stock settings for FW 1.1.
Unfortunately, none of the tests I have done seem to fit the testing criteria you would prefer.
I have tests that show the difference between stock 1.1 and other settings (especially Canis Majoris Night) but use some post-processing. I have tests that do not use post-processing, but they generally compared settings that did not include stock 1.1. I have tests that were unprocessed and included EX mode, but they were in SH and were unfortunately outdoors.
Anyway, I will see if I can drum up some of the old footage I use to perform these tests (and the ones on the page after it). Note the big difference between Stock 1.1 and Canis Majoris Night, especially in the upper left corner or the left side of the desk in the middle.
http://www.personal-view.com/talks/...ight-day-pm-skin-tone-soft...-more-to-come/p2
But to recap - the settings are designed to preserve more detail and reduce macroblocking and make noise finer. They are not designed to reduce noise overall and I rarely find that they do. The biggest advantage of the hacked settings is typically seen in situations that really push the standard codec - high motion or exceedingly high detail or very adverse lighting conditions. If you are shooting shallow DOF, low motion, well lit material and do not intend to grade your footage, then there is usually not much advantage to the hacked settings in regards to image quality.
Here was the (VERY, VERY, VERY) flawed EXSH 50P test I did back a while ago (where both the lighting and the framing changed A LOT during filming) in case it is of any use to you.
https://vimeo.com/38051201
Password: driftwood
I don't know what your getting at by stating the obvious; that we can all do what we want to with our own equipment... I agree, do whatever makes you happy.
I'm sure however that you're suggesting that you know what's real and that I don't. As well as being an aggressive statement, it is baseless.
I'm just sharing my Real opinion based on Real tests, yet you've become defensive for some reason.
And if you don't have noise with your GH2, consider yourself lucky or really tolerant, because it is a general consensus that the GH2 is noisy. Of course that is subjective and it has a lot to do with what you're use to. As mentioned in my previous post, I'm an artist (as well as owning a production company), I have a trained eye, so maybe I am more sensitive than you are to image quality.
I haven't run across anyone in all of my research that doesn't think that the GH2 in ETC mode is noisy, again it is a general consensus.
If you compare the hacked GH2 to the stock GH2 under a controlled environment, you will see a big difference in noise running in ETC mode, and the hacked versions are noisier.
I have run extensive tests, but only on one camera, not one hundred cameras. So there are naturally going to be variations, especially when you have vast numbers of users that have the "ISO bug", banding and all kinds of other complaints, yet other users don't (I don't have any of those problems). This leads me to believe that Panasonic's QC might be less than it could be.
In My Opinion, there's no reason to hack the GH2... That's My opinion. For my workflow the GH2 is fine for certain types of work, and when I need more, I use a different camera instead of trying to milk a bull.
As you pointed out earlier, it's your camera and your time, so use it as you see fit.
Per Lichtman
Well-known member
@flinty Interestingly, I have far less trouble with dirt on the GH2 than on the 50D (which has a mirror).
Bravo Per Lichtman!
You make a lot of sense.
I purchased this GH2 for a personal business/YouTube camera so that I don't have to pull a business camera out of service just so I can mess around. And just to be upfront, I was a DP a ways back but I mostly direct and produce at this point.
So I purchased this cool 1/2" C-Mount lens that doesn't cover the full GH2 sensor, so I have to run it in ETC Mode. OK... but once I started testing it in low light (F1 lens, kinda want to take advantage of it in low light) I was very disappointed with how much noise was generated. I mean if I wanted to do a job for a client in these type of lighting conditions (dramatic/high contrast) I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I used the GH2. Well lit sets, now that's a different story... no problem at all.
Then I stared looking at the non ETC footage and I noticed that at certain exposure levels I could see noise. I researched this through many of the popular forums and blogs to find out that the GH2 has this characteristic, even at low ISO, like in my case ISO 160.
That's when I stared looking into hacking the GH2 (I didn't know at the time that no hack could "eliminate" noise).
So I ran the test based on my specific needs and intended use, which you reviewed when you followed the link.
Also my tests as described on that page I referred to, were all static. I realize that moving shots would have yielded different results, but I don't "feel" that they would have necessarily yielded better results for my needs.
Here is another area that bothers me. I watched a ton of footage that people were using for examples of how well the patch they installed worked, and I could see all kinds of problems in all of them. I'm thinking that I must have a very critical eye, but I did see numerous flaws. Now the casual viewer that's watching at the proper viewing distance might not notice it, but I always think in terms of presenting footage for review with a big client and their staff in a conference room with a huge monitor and the president sitting 3 feet from the screen, man that's a lot of pressure
I downloaded the highest quality files I could for viewing, but they were probably all processed in a number of ways, so I don't know if their raw footage would have looked better or what??
I agree that for grading, keying or heavy processing the hacked footage might hold up better, but I didn't test for that because it was outside of my objective.
I have a much better idea of why people want to hack the GH2 now that you presented it to me in a new light, but I still believe that if you need better quality from this camera, record it off camera and use a better codec. And of course if you need anything better than that, you need to reach in your tool box (use a different camera).
If you could show me footage (not stills) that demonstrates a better image than the stock 1.1 firmware, I'll become a convert, but I haven't actually seen any as of yet that justifies all of the expensive memory cards, the reduced recording times per memory card, and the operational problems some of these hacks cause, etc.
I embarked on this journey with the hopes of seeing stunning results for my efforts, so I wasn't hoping to fail, maybe my expectations were too high??
Again, if someone could show me hacked footage that looks better than stock footage (the same exact scene, hacked vs stock 1.1 firmware) I will keep an open mind and maybe even become a cheerleader
Thank you for the time you spent, I learned a lot from you and appreciate it!
You make a lot of sense.
I purchased this GH2 for a personal business/YouTube camera so that I don't have to pull a business camera out of service just so I can mess around. And just to be upfront, I was a DP a ways back but I mostly direct and produce at this point.
So I purchased this cool 1/2" C-Mount lens that doesn't cover the full GH2 sensor, so I have to run it in ETC Mode. OK... but once I started testing it in low light (F1 lens, kinda want to take advantage of it in low light) I was very disappointed with how much noise was generated. I mean if I wanted to do a job for a client in these type of lighting conditions (dramatic/high contrast) I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I used the GH2. Well lit sets, now that's a different story... no problem at all.
Then I stared looking at the non ETC footage and I noticed that at certain exposure levels I could see noise. I researched this through many of the popular forums and blogs to find out that the GH2 has this characteristic, even at low ISO, like in my case ISO 160.
That's when I stared looking into hacking the GH2 (I didn't know at the time that no hack could "eliminate" noise).
So I ran the test based on my specific needs and intended use, which you reviewed when you followed the link.
Also my tests as described on that page I referred to, were all static. I realize that moving shots would have yielded different results, but I don't "feel" that they would have necessarily yielded better results for my needs.
Here is another area that bothers me. I watched a ton of footage that people were using for examples of how well the patch they installed worked, and I could see all kinds of problems in all of them. I'm thinking that I must have a very critical eye, but I did see numerous flaws. Now the casual viewer that's watching at the proper viewing distance might not notice it, but I always think in terms of presenting footage for review with a big client and their staff in a conference room with a huge monitor and the president sitting 3 feet from the screen, man that's a lot of pressure
I downloaded the highest quality files I could for viewing, but they were probably all processed in a number of ways, so I don't know if their raw footage would have looked better or what??
I agree that for grading, keying or heavy processing the hacked footage might hold up better, but I didn't test for that because it was outside of my objective.
I have a much better idea of why people want to hack the GH2 now that you presented it to me in a new light, but I still believe that if you need better quality from this camera, record it off camera and use a better codec. And of course if you need anything better than that, you need to reach in your tool box (use a different camera).
If you could show me footage (not stills) that demonstrates a better image than the stock 1.1 firmware, I'll become a convert, but I haven't actually seen any as of yet that justifies all of the expensive memory cards, the reduced recording times per memory card, and the operational problems some of these hacks cause, etc.
I embarked on this journey with the hopes of seeing stunning results for my efforts, so I wasn't hoping to fail, maybe my expectations were too high??
Again, if someone could show me hacked footage that looks better than stock footage (the same exact scene, hacked vs stock 1.1 firmware) I will keep an open mind and maybe even become a cheerleader
Thank you for the time you spent, I learned a lot from you and appreciate it!
Last edited:
Per Lichtman
Well-known member
Glad to help.
Yeah, the c-mount/EX mode combination has yet to make sense to me. Like you said, the noise is more obvious than in the standard modes (which offsets the light gathering advantage of a very fast lens) and you generally cannot get a very wide field of view without a lot of barrel distortion in that mount. So I generally opted for different lenses, like the Nokton 0.95 25mm or 17.5mm for fast glass or a Canon 10-22mm or Panasonic 7-14mm for wide.
But I know how if you find something cool that you like about particular glass (or if you find particularly cheap glass that has some neat potential) then you tend to want to find a way to use it. Is this one desirable mainly because of its speed or because of its field of view? Or a different X factor?
I will let you know if I come across any of the footage that helped demonstrate the advantage to me in the past. Unfortunately it does not get filed as neatly as the professional work.
Yeah, the c-mount/EX mode combination has yet to make sense to me. Like you said, the noise is more obvious than in the standard modes (which offsets the light gathering advantage of a very fast lens) and you generally cannot get a very wide field of view without a lot of barrel distortion in that mount. So I generally opted for different lenses, like the Nokton 0.95 25mm or 17.5mm for fast glass or a Canon 10-22mm or Panasonic 7-14mm for wide.
But I know how if you find something cool that you like about particular glass (or if you find particularly cheap glass that has some neat potential) then you tend to want to find a way to use it.
Is this one desirable mainly because of its speed or because of its field of view? Or a different X factor?I will let you know if I come across any of the footage that helped demonstrate the advantage to me in the past. Unfortunately it does not get filed as neatly as the professional work.
It is a really cool lens. It wasn't expensive, but it feels of quality. The focus is smooth as silk without any snaggy spots. And it looks really good for certain scenes, even though it does have a slight vignette. I would consider it an effects lens, but it can be used as an all around zoom. Unlike some of the new lenses that have a plasticy feel, or fly-by-wire controls, this feels great.
It is a rainbow 8mm - 48mm zoom lens made for security cameras... go figure.
I have some prime lenses that work great too.
I hear ya on the files, I didn't think much about it so I cleared my tests thinking that I would never think about it again
Thanks Again!!
Anthony
It is a rainbow 8mm - 48mm zoom lens made for security cameras... go figure.
I have some prime lenses that work great too.
I hear ya on the files, I didn't think much about it so I cleared my tests thinking that I would never think about it again
Thanks Again!!
Anthony
John Caballero
Veteran
One thing I've learned is that if a piece of equipment doesn't work for me that's it, don't use it. There is no sense on complaining about a camera. Just go out and get one that will work for you.
I know that you are using a C-mount lens and have to use ETC mode to get proper coverage of the sensor, but I think this is HUGE mistake, as ETC mode cripples the low-light and low-noise ability of the GH2 sensor. This is why I have never bothered with ETC mode and also why I won't go near C-mount lenses.
My experience has been the exact the opposite of what you are describing.
I've been using the Driftwood Quantum 100 ( 100 Mbps I-Frame ) patch for a few months now ( I've shot 2 Indie films, a dozen 10-30 minute interviews, a classical concert, a sports infomercial, and another Indie film is in the pipe to shoot in about 6 days ), and I am as happy as can be with my GH2. I get beautiful, sharp, low noise images ( 160 - 800 ISO ) using SanDisk 64 GB SDXC UHS-I 95 MB/sec memory cards that enable me to shoot up to 84 minute takes. Using the Quantum 100 patch and these memory cards my GH2 works flawlessly. First time, every time.
I do agree that image noise becomes a problem once you go past 800 ISO ( I will use 1600 ISO if I have absolutely no other options ), which can be cleaned up with NeatVideo to some degree, but if it's a paying job and I need affordable low-light performance then I would rent a Sony HS-100/HS-700 camera. ( if the GH3 doesn't pan out this year, then I will look at buying a HS-700 body )
Yes, the SanDisk cards are expensive, but with just two 64 GB cards, I can continuously shoot and dump to a laptop all day.
I also want to try the new Partriot EP 64 GB SDXC UHS-I cards ( Patriot EP 64GB SDXC UHS-I Card : $60 at NewEgg.com ) to see if they can span at high bitrates like the SanDisk cards can.
...I'm sorry Questech, but you are going to have to illustrate this opinion with some direct examples, as I really have no idea what you are talking about. ( I'm a professional studio photographer with 20+ years experience, and have been shooting video for 10+ years, so I have a pretty good eye too )
I've seen some fantastic work shot using the high bit-rate patched GH2 camera, and can't wait to check out the new Zacuto Camera Shootout 2012 ( part 1 to be released on the web June 15th ) where the GH2 camera footage was the overall audience favorite at live theater screenings when the camera type was not known, and was rated 3rd best camera behind the Sony F65 and Arri Alexa, beating out the Canon C300, RED Epic, and Sony F3 in terms of overall image quality for the shootout. ( Zacuto Revenge of the Great Camera Shootout 2012 )
I agree, and I own a production company and we do have high end cameras, but that's not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is to highlight why you think you need a GH3, and that would include what you don't like about the GH2.
So what you have incorrectly characterized as complaining, is my opinion as to where the GH2 needs help.
I'm not saying the GH2 is a bad camera, I purchased one and I like it's overall performance, with the exception of the noise issue... that's all.
You're actually the one doing the complaining :huh: