GH2 Worth buying a GH2?

[M. Gilden]

wgzn - this was true in late 2010 and early 2011, but isn't really true today.

I wish I could agree with you.
Its nothing to do with lenses, really. While a good lens will be easier to get a solid shot than a bad one, it doesn't change the fact that the SAME lenses used on a Canon or GH2 don't produce as pleasing an image on the GH2. Yes, this can be changed in post, but it definitely appears to be more work to make it look good versus what Canon gets out of the box. Maybe they have improved over the last year, I don't know- I only have the GH2 to use as reference.

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).

I understand why you wouldn't recommend the moire-ridden issues for a new video shooter, but a new still shooter? Shooting stills on a Canon is a joy, and far easier to nail it the first time in my experience. None of your complaints apply to stills.
Meanwhile, for video, the viewfinder isn't an issue compared to using a loupe on a Canon. I've found the EVF very hard to look at for extended periods of time. The colors seem to refresh slowly (bleeding reds as the pixel fades?), and the resolution appears to be lower than a Canon LCD. With the Canon's LCD being so sharp and the lack of color shifting that the GH2 has, I have to wonder if the moire that occasionally occurs is really that bad for a first time shooter.
I honestly shot with Canons for almost a year before any serious moire became a problem in one of my shots. Meanwhile, the display and color issues of the GH2 are always present. They both have pros and cons, and both have reasons they would be better than the other, but I think for a first time shooter one could really argue towards a Canon.

 

[flinty]

Owned a Canon 550D and now GH2 and at the risk of becoming a repeating riffle no contest,GH2s are far easier to film video with,far more clean resolution,a different colour look which i find more natural on the GH2 compared to what i find the rather false Canon DSLR video look ,and its not a question GHs having a video look and Canons a film look that is pure poo.

 

[wgzn]

no contest,GH2s are far easier to film video with,far more clean resolution,a different colour look which i find more natural on the GH2 compared to what i find the rather false Canon DSLR video look ,and its not a question GHs having a video look and Canons a film look that is pure poo.

never have i seen a better example than this thread to illustrate that a lot of this is a matter of taste, expectation and experience.
what works for one guy is a complete non-starter for another...

id suggest to anyone - RENT each for a week before you plop down all your lunch money on something you may or may not like.

 

[AdventMediaProductions]

Hmm I find everyone's perspectives to be very interesting. Without having received the camera myself I too think that it all comes down to a matter of taste. I was a little underwhelmed with the lens selection for the GH2. This isn't to say that I particularly know what kind of lenses I want (though the 20mm pancake looks awesome) or what would work for my needs but in comparison to all the lenses out there for the mainstream DSLR's it certainly feels limiting. But then again that is why we have adapters.

 

[brunerww]

I wish I could agree with you...

M. - We may agree more than you think - my riff on lenses was only intended as a comment on the assertion that there were no"fast modern" lenses for the GH2. I agree with you - whether one can get a "solid shot" with one camera or another has nothing to do with lenses.

On my second riff - I agree - the list of T3i 'cons' that I listed is for video only. Perhaps I should have said "hybrid" shooter (which I consider myself to be). I carry only one camera for both video and stills, so limits in one area make a hybrid camera less useful for me overall.

On loupes, I do have to differ with you. Looking at a 3.5" LCD through a loupe is certainly better than looking through the GH2 EVF, but I don't like to be forced to buy extra stuff and stick it on my camera just to be able to see video through a viewfinder

Cheers,

Bill

 

[M. Gilden]

On my second riff - I agree - the list of T3i 'cons' that I listed is for video only. Perhaps I should have said "hybrid" shooter (which I consider myself to be). I carry only one camera for both video and stills, so limits in one area make a hybrid camera less useful for me overall.

Indeed, however I'm trying to point out that this can really be argued both ways. The Canons take noticeably better stills, and decent video (contrary to popular belief, not every single shot is ruined with poor resolution sampling and moire). The GH2 can take noticeably better video, but mediocre stills. So if looking for a hybrid, an excellent still shooter that can take nice looking video most of the time might be a better "starter camera" than a higher-resolution video camera that can take decent stills with a lot of effort. In fact, the amount of frustration, extra work and careful planning it takes to get around the Canon's moire problems might be equal to the amount of frustration, extra work and careful planning to get a really nice still on the GH2.

...all I'm saying is that I don't think anyone can say "I can't recommend <insert either camera here> for a first time shooter" with any kind of credibility behind it. In the end, one will have to choose between superior video and superior stills.

On loupes, I do have to differ with you. Looking at a 3.5" LCD through a loupe is certainly better than looking through the GH2 EVF, but I don't like to be forced to buy extra stuff and stick it on my camera just to be able to see video through a viewfinder

Oh come on now. A loupe isn't always necessary, and when it is- I bought mine for $20 with a magnetic frame. Hardly a major investment at all, and nothing compared to what you'd need to go through in order to get high quality stills on the GH2. Oh, and guess where that frame is right now? On my GH2, because sometimes I don't want to be pressing my face against the camera. Loupes aren't just for Canons. Its a perk that the GH2 can do EVF built in, and I love it- but hardly makes-or-breaks any of these deals.

But we're just nickel and diming each other at this point.

 

[brunerww]

..The GH2 can take noticeably better video, but mediocre stills..

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

These are full auto straight out of the camera, no cc and no heroic effort. I'm no great still photographer, but this GH2 pic:



...is as good as anything I ever took with my T2i:




...or my D50:

But we're just nickel and diming each other at this point.

This I agree with

 

[Bruce Foreman]

There's a third option (possibly) about to hit the market. Olympus OMD E-M5.

I'm a retired pro photographer, 10 years running my own portrait/wedding/commercial studio, 13 years working for the air force as a civilian staff photographer at a training base (was in on the changeover from film to total digital there). For personal "stuff" I've shot with Canon ever since the 300D (original digital Rebel) came out. Just sold off my 7D and T3i but kept a 60D (I've got some pretty fair glass including 2 L series lenses).

I was looking at the GH2 and on the verge of going for one when B&H ran out, marked it as "discontinued", and then an amazon vendor offered new Olympus Pen e-PL1's (about a 2 year old version of the "Pen") for $290. Low enough price for me to "buy to try" the M4/3 idea. I got the VF-2 finder, 73 yr. old eyes don't focus well on an LCD and that finder is SHARP! But talk about color looking "nice" right out of the camera, I rarely have to do anything to it, I now understand all the "hype" I've been seeing from Olympus Pen "fans".

The 2 "pancakes" I have, Lumix 20mm f1.7 and Lumix 14mm f2.5 are something else, whether I fall for an OMD or GH3 they'll see plenty of use on one of those, night work with both look super. And that doggone "cheapo" Zuiko 14-42 is surprisingly good.

But advance stills released from the new OMD showing higher ISO results are impressive. One at ISO 1600 looks as good, detail wise and image tonal gradation wise, as anything I got shooting on 6x7cm Vericolor and delivering 20x30" prints from. And some of the folks using pre production "loaners" for a couple days are talking "clean" ISO 6400. I saw one sample set shot at ISO 200 to 25,600 on the same night scene and I could settle for the 12,800 shot with no heartburn.

The GH3 will have to go "head to head" with that OMD, so the funds I got from selling off the 7D and T3i will sit in the bank for a bit while I wait to see how video from the OMD looks. Either way the M4/3 glass I'm accumulating will see future use, but in the meantime darned if I'm not having fun with it on the Olympus Pen!

 

[M. Gilden]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

These are full auto straight out of the camera, no cc and no heroic effort. I'm no great still photographer, but this GH2 pic:

View attachment 49295

...is as good as anything I ever took with my T2i:


View attachment 49297

...or my D50:

View attachment 49298



This I agree with

I dunno, that last picture looks better than both of the previous ones combined. To be fair, that second one is a really bad example of a shot, but there are already threads on this topic. No reason to keep going.

 

[MBPRODUCTS]

I bought my GH2 for video. I was asked by a friend to take some stills in a darkened bar one night. I had never used the Gh2 for stills before and it was so dark that with the kit 14mm - 42mm lens i had to use the flash. I put the GH2 on auto and took some realy nice pictures, i was impressed.

 

[Bill Clar]

Are there any retailers that stock the GH2? An actual store, other than B&H, that I can go and hold the GH2 in my hands?

I can't afford to blind buy a product without seeing it firsthand.

 

[wgzn]

Are there any retailers that stock the GH2? An actual store, other than B&H, that I can go and hold the GH2 in my hands?

many proper pro-level still camera stores have them. theyve typically been pretty easy to put hands on here in houston. may not be the same story where you are...

you can also RENT one pretty cheaply from lensrentals.com
http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/four-thirds/cameras/micro-4-3-panasonic-gh-2

 

[wgzn]

its pretty wise to take reviews from individuals with a grain of salt. as i mentioned earlier, expectations and EXPERIENCE play a major role in someone's perception of a particular tool. i came across a review of an led light a few weeks ago from a guy who said right there in the review that he didnt know what CTB/CTO meant. anyone who doesnt know what those mean, has no business writing reviews of a light! and there is a lot ofthat kinda crap afoot in the DSLR world : (

a pro, semi-pro or even a knowledgeable hobbyist photographer is going to have a radically different expectation than a newbie HDSLR jockey who's camera happens to also take stills...

with all of that said. ive taken some pretty neat looking stills with a GH2, but getting them took a good deal of futzing around with menus and settings. as a stills tool, i'd look more at the GH2 from a pure artistic standpoint rather than anything photojournalistic where you didnt have the time to craft each pic.

 

[Alán Ortiz]

I had a Canon 7D and the stills were fantastic. Certain qualities of the video were good - the DR, color - but moire and softness really killed it for me. So I traded down to a GH1, then to a GH2, and found that I was having a lot more fun being creative and not worrying about people freaking out about the camera in the room. If I was doing studio work I'd definitely pickup a separate stills camera with more RAW color info to work with. All depends what you are going to use it for.

 

[AdventMediaProductions]

Wow those pics look great are they from the GH2?

 

[brunerww]

I dunno, that last picture looks better than both of the previous ones combined. To be fair, that second one is a really bad example of a shot, but there are already threads on this topic. No reason to keep going.

Agree 100% One thing, though - you're also 100% right about the Nikon D50 shot. Going back through my old stuff, I was shocked at how good the stills were from that "old" 6MP camera.

Bill

 

[Alán Ortiz]

Wow those pics look great are they from the GH2?

Thanks! GH1 and GH2 actually - sunglasses= GH2; everything else GH1. Nikon AIS 28mm F2 and Panny 20mm (a great piece of glass).

 

[AdventMediaProductions]

Well I just got my GH2. This is the first higher end still camera that I have ever used so I am still getting the hang of everything. If you guys don't mind I am going to ask a few questions for a totally new photographer.

I am used to setting my exposure and everything manually in a film camera so I was a little shocked when I first turned on this camera and everything seemed to be in auto mode.

I skimmed through the manual (which didn't seem too helpful to me) and figured out how to use the manual mode. I feel like I will be using this most of the time simply because I do like to have complete control over everything but are there other modes that I should consider using to get good looking shots?

My other question is in regards to ISO. What would you guys say is the highest ISO setting that one can use without too much noise. I am sure I will figure it out when experimenting but do you guys have any tips or suggestions?

I also have kind of a lame question but what's the best way to prevent blurry pictures? I figure a faster shutter speed helps but it seems like a lot of the faster shutter speeds produce images that are way too dark (though they have no blur at all) should I just do trial and error to figure it out or is there a rule of thumb to abide by?

Also does anyone have any helpful books on how to use the GH2 similar to Barry Green's camera books? The manual isn't too helpful to me so I am hoping to look into something that has a little more depth.

Sorry for all of the questions and thanks!

 

[Dazza]

No offense, but I think you might want to learn about the basics of photography. There are heaps on tutorials on the internet.

Here is a youtube one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3833CgvK7MU

Answers to a few of your questions that are GH2 dependent, to switch between changing shutter speed and aperture you press the dial in. Highest ISO I would use for critical photos is 3200 in RAW mode with post noise reduction. If I'm taking in black in white I don't mind going far higher.

But to be honest to take good pictures, most of the time a fully automatic mode is all you need, even the IA mode is pretty smart most of the time.

The most important things for a good photo IMO are subject, light, framing and composition. That is where the art lies not the technical fluff

 

[AdventMediaProductions]

Thanks I appreciate the advice.

I think I was just freaked out at how everything was automated so once I found the manual mode and got the feel for the camera and all of its settings I feel much more comfortable now. The little meter at the bottom to help with exposure and shutter speed is a really helpful tool for me.

Here's a quick picture that I took on a college campus today.

Does anyone else have any helpful advice and tips?

I can't wait to get my hands on some higher end lenses as well.