GH2 Worth buying a GH2?

A

AdventMediaProductions

Active member
I've been toying around with the idea of getting a Panasonic GH2 for quite a while now. I primarily work with an HVX200 and an HPX250 for most of my filmmaking and videography needs but I like the idea of having a smaller low key camera when I have to be more mobile, when recording sound isn't too important, and when I am simply out and about trying to get some quick footage.

Since I have been using the HVX200 and the HPX250 I've never really had to worry about lenses or anything like that so I figure this camera will help get me acquainted with using different lenses. While I love the picture quality that the HPX 250 and the HVX200 produce I would also like to use this camera to get a more "cinematic" look simply due to its sensor size and ability to get a shallower depth of field if needed. I also really like the fact that this camera more of less has an unlimited recording time. I do videography quite often and while my HVX200 and HPX 250 are definitely my main cameras for those needs, I should also be theoretically able to use the GH2 if ever had to (though I doubt I ever would but I like the idea of being able to).

So in my eyes getting a GH2 is a pretty good deal but I have a few quick questions.

1) How easy is this camera to control and set settings with? I was working with a cheap "professional" looking fujifilm camera the other day and it drove me crazy. The lens wouldn't focus properly, the LCD on the camera was small and felt inaccurate, and I had a hard time entering a mode that just seemed to work properly. Does the GH2 give you fairly straightforward options for setting focus, exposure, etc? How does the LCD look?

2) I will be using this camera for both video and stills. I know that the stills on this camera aren't THAT great considering that it is tailored a little more for catching video, but for somebody who has never been a stills photographer is it a good starting camera?

3) Do we have any insight on the GH3 and when it is coming out? I would hate to buy this camera and have the GH3 be released at a similar price but with better features for filmmaking and still photography.

So what do you guys think? Is the GH2 worth it?
 
At this point you can wait till NAB in April to see what panasonic announces. You can get a few lenses while you wait since they will fit either one.
I have a GH2 and I am comfortable with the controls. Everything is easy to set.
 
Hectorxd beat me to it.

I agree, easy to use and setup. I've never had a single issue with focusing, etc. It's a great camera to learn with.
 
If the $800 for the body is no big deal to you, then go ahead and buy it. If $800 on a whim is a bit much, drop to a used GH1 and go that route for the time being. Your investment is going to be in glass, and that investment is going to make the body look cheap !!! Either way you go, you are going to want the GH3 as it should be a real significant upgrade. I had the GH2 several times and didn't see enough in it FOR ME, to warrant keeping it and ditching my GH1s. But the learning curve you mention will be there, regardless of which you select. Also, the glass, that's where all your money is going to go. Glass is going to go forward with you, so don't worry about that investment. Glass also doesn't depreciate like a rock, like bodies do once they become one version old.

As far as using it for stills, go right ahead. With the glass Panny has come out with recently and what they have on the drawing board, satisfying still users is one of their main objectives. I just spent 8 months with a new D5100 trying to learn how to speak Nikon. I wanted to get into stills....and....well it's stills....and....it's Nikon..... just has to be the right way to go...right ??? Well after 8 months of trying to speak Nikon I just dumped it all and reinvested in new M4/3 glass for my GH1. I am back to capturing images and not swearing at my gear. Let me tell you, life is much better this way !!!! :)
 
I use my GH2 primarily as a stills camera and its awesome in this role - iq is as good or better than most APS-C size SLRs. You may, however, have to do some limited fine tuning to the automatic WB to get desired color, or use RAW and PP.
 
Last edited:
They are incredibly easy to learn and operate. When I first got my GH1, I only had to look through the manual once to figure out how to turn off the manual focusing assist. After that, it was intuitive enough to figure out all the functions very quickly.
 
Thanks for all of the insightful info guys. I am pretty much sold on a GH2. I might wait to see what the GH3 has but if it comes in much higher than $1000 I may not be able to buy it.

My next question is how good the stock 14-42MM lens that comes with the camera is. I know it is important to invest in some high quality lenses, but it will be hard for me after buying a camera for around $1000 so I was hoping to learn the ropes with the stock lens and then move on from there.

But from the critical eyes of photographers and filmmakers how does the stock lens look?
 
I have the 14-140 - but I hear good things about the 14-42's image quality and value for money.

Stills and video shot by Peter W. with the 14-42: http://www.peterwphoto.com/blog/tag/panasonic-gh2/

More video shot w the GH2 and the 14-42:

Backyard garden: http://vimeo.com/21447240

Underwater: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzGx8OW3m6g

Color Correction/slider test: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1Rpg7rON5g

Pretty good lens, in my view, and worth the money - especially when they're essentially giving it away for 99 cents at Amazon :-)

$899 body only at Adorama and $899.99 with the 14-42 at Amazon!

Cheers and good luck!

Bill
 
Last edited:
Gris said:
I use my GH2 primarily as a stills camera and its awesome in this role - iq as good or better than most APC size SLRs. You may, however, have to do some limited fine tuning to the automatic WB to get desired color, or use RAW and PP.
Click to expand...

Really? I had high hopes of getting a pancake lens and using it as a more pocketable stills camera when I go on trips, since lugging around my Canon DSLR is often pain.
But using the same lenses, I just don't find the pictures anywhere near as pleasing, in color contrast or clarity. Its an excellent video cameras, which is why I use it, but for anything stills-related, I just can't recommend it. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but it seems much easier to get a really nice shot on a $500 Rebel T2i than an $800 GH2.
Not that the GH2's stills are BAD... they're still very nice. But unlike my Canon mirrored-DSLRs, the images aren't that much nicer than my point-and-shoot Powershot, so I generally leave it in my video recording bag.

It is absolutely a great camera and I recommend owning one (if you're a member of this forum, you should already know why), however be aware of its strengths and weaknesses. If you really want stills, I'd pick up an older model Canon or Nikon for around $300, and use lenses that are interchangeable.
 
Yeah I can understand the stills quality not being as good as the main players in the camera world, but I am still pretty happy with the stills that I saw coming from this camera. Considering that I am not primarily a stills shooter anyways, I kind of like having this as a nice hybrid. Good, looking video if I need it. Decent stills if I need it as well.
 
AdventMediaProductions said:
Decent stills if I need it as well.
Click to expand...

After much prodding from friends I decided to revisit the RAW capabilities of the GH2.

WOW.

Vintage Soviet glass + Panasonic RAW sensor output - gorgeous.

Vintage Canon glass + Panasonic RAW sensor output - equally gorgeous.

I've yet to try with Pana glass, but I think a great improvement will be found there as well.

It does require additional work and a program that supports the GH2 RAW format, but if you want outstanding stills, give it a try. I'm never going back to JPG - ever.
 
Oh yes, I've tried shooting RAW, and it was definitely an improvement.
But- maybe its just me, but it still feels inferior to images coming off my Canon body with the same glass, even with the Canon taking JPEGs.
 
M. Gilden said:
Oh yes, I've tried shooting RAW, and it was definitely an improvement.
But- maybe its just me, but it still feels inferior to images coming off my Canon body with the same glass, even with the Canon taking JPEGs.
Click to expand...

A lot of people were critical of older Pany color as it didn't have the punch or wow factor of some of its competitors but GH2, G3 and GF3 areconsiderably better. If you want real looking or natural color I think GH2 defaults are closer than most and not hard to get almost perfect (ie match reality) with some minor white balance adjustment. If you're looking for more wow turn up the contrast and saturation to more unnatural but perhaps more pleasing levels.
 
Last edited:
the gh2 is an interesting product. spec for spec it beats the 5Dll. and it does some some primary things (in video mode) like dealing with moire WAY better than any of the canons.
but the ongoing achilles heel with the GH2 is "the look." im not going to argue that it doent look nice. because it does. but i rarely see things coming off the GH2 (video or stills) that i find quite as rich or pleasing to the eye as that from canon or nikon products.

ive owned two GH2s and they were fun cameras and served me reasonably well even though i found the menu system very clunky.
my main problems with the GH2 were:
1. lack of much if any modern FAST lenses
2. to really get the best look out of it, you'll want to get an m4/3 to ________ adapter and use older fast glass. but when you do that, you lose all modern features like auto focus or image stabilization.

the thing to consider with ANY of these DSLRs is that they are just another tool for the artist. another kind of brush. and they all behave differently and produce a different result in different situations/configurations. and NONE OF THEM SUCK. the hard part as a new adopter is you wont know exactly wheat YOU like until you use it for a while and see how it suits your eye or works in your personal workflow. many people here have bought one brand, found out it didnt suit them or their kind of work, then moved to another. just to make your decision more confusing - for VIDEO ive heard of more people moving from canons to the GH2. for stills. just the opposite.

if i were going to recommend ONE camera for a new adopter, that NEEDED it to do decently for both video and stills. id probably suggest the canon t3i
 
Last edited:
wgzn said:
...my main problems with the GH2 were:
1. lack of much if any modern FAST lenses
2. to really get the best look out of it, you'll want to get an m4/3 to ________ adapter and use older fast glass. but when you do that, you lose all modern features like auto focus or image stabilization...
Click to expand...

wgzn - this was true in late 2010 and early 2011, but isn't really true today. Did you try the Oly 12mm f2, Panny 25mm f1.4, or Oly 45mm f1.8 before you disposed of your GH2s?

I would agree with you if you meant "the lack of modern fast zoom lenses", but Panasonic has recently shown a couple of constant aperture f2.8 concept lenses, and will (hopefully) fill this gap in the m4/3 lens lineup too.

wgzn said:
...if i were going to recommend ONE camera for a new adopter, that NEEDED it to do decently for both video and stills. id probably suggest the canon t3i
Click to expand...

I had a T2i, and wouldn't recommend a T2i or T3i for a new video/still shooter due to its problems with moire, inability to autofocus in video mode, the fact that the viewfinder goes black in video mode because of the mirror, and the 12 minute continuous video record time limit. Even with ML, the gap between clips is a problem (at least for me).

Cheers,

Bill
 
Last edited:
Did you try the Oly 12mm f2, Panny 25mm f1.4, or Oly 45mm f1.8 before you disposed of your GH2s?
Click to expand...
not first hand no. but i used every lumix lens available up to that point and just found none of them very tasty.
and im just not super excited about a situation where i have that few lens choices. (IF i wanted all the modern conveniences)
not saying it wont in the future. just didnt work for me at the time.

and if i were a shooter new to ANYTHING SLR, im not sure thats the direction id want to go.

I had a T2i, and wouldn't recommend a T2i or T3i for a new video/still shooter due to its problems with moire, inability to autofocus in video mode, the fact that the viewfinder goes black in video mode because of the mirror, and the 12 minute continuous video record time limit. Even with ML, the gap between clips is a problem (at least for me).
Click to expand...
all of that IS true. and like i said, it's a matter of horses for courses. what makes sense in one situation or to one workflow may not in another.

but i have heard folks mention that the "zoom mode" (or whatever its called) in the T3i can minimize moire without noticeable degradation to the image.
i tested one briefly and didnt care a lot for it relative to a 5ll or 7d (or even 60d) but to someone looking for an easy, turn-key tool. it might be a reasonable option...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top