Discussion in 'Panasonic Cameras' started by Armanius, Mar 23, 2011.
Panasonic DMC-GH2 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review
I only skimmed it, but it seems very close to other reviews and indeed my own experience of the camera. My only complaint is "a color response that favours accuracy over attractiveness which can be problematic in some situations (especially portraiture)"
How an accurate colour response can be a problem escapes me. I also think thats not strictly accurate. One of my (few) criticisms of the camera is that it does struggle sometimes to get the colour right.
But I would very much agee with the conclusions, that its a great little stills camera, and an even better video camera.
I totally agree with you. My GH2 seems to have problems with tungsten lighting, and whites do come out yellow for me. But I just fix it in LR3.3.
They like it a lot. OK, I guess I can keep it then!
Seriously, though, this is a pretty strong statement from the intro to the conclusion:
"we're confident in saying that it is the best mirrorless system camera that we've ever tested, bar none".
Although shooting with a mini-DSLR camera like the GH2 still feels like a decidedly unnatural act to me, I like the camera more the more I use it. It just has every possible control so easily available - I can change anything quickly and on the fly. The AF is a revelation in everything except burst mode and I'm not a burst mode kind of guy so that doesn't bother me. I don't think it'll ever be my go-to camera to just go out casually and shoot, but I've taken it on several purpose-specific shoots so far and it hasn't let me down once. I think it'll be an awesome travel camera too because it does everything so well.
Ironically, no awards for the GH2 in spite of a higher score than the A55 (which got Gold).
Ahhh, they just updated the site. GH2 has a Silver award now. I feel better. LOL!
One aspect of the review that I would take exception to, is using default settings in commenting on the out-of-camera jpegs. It sounds like the defaults in this G series camera are the same as my G1. They then conclude that the camera shoots muddy uninspiring jpegs - which I'm sure is far from true, since that is not the case with the G1, if you use the Dynamic rather than the Standard film mode, further tweak it a bit like jacking up the sharpening and add a little more saturation, and also tweak the white balance. You would certainly do no less if you were using a RAW converter.
To compare the standard, uninspired, default jpeg with a totally tweaked in ACR RAW file is rediculous. Why not compare the default jpeg with a RAW file barely limping into ACR with no adjustments done to it whatsoever.
The default jpeg from any G series camera is like an "undeveloped" RAW - unsharpened and without an ounce of TLC added.
Considering they report what they see from a new camera, putting themselves 'in the shoes' of a potential buyer, well, it's not unreasonable to write that jpegs by default look uninspiring. The fact that it can be tweaked is mostly irrelevant : the enormous majority of potential buyers, if they want to tweak the image at all, will post process a raw and don't bother with the jpeg. But anyway, what will they see in the shop when powering on the demo camera ? Muddy jpeg, hence, potential lost sale. That's all there is to it.
I agree that it is Panasonic's own fault - they should make Dynamic the default setting and call it Standard. I was just objecting to the review not pointing out the reality of the situation. Even with the Panasonic ZS3 point and shoot, you have to set it to "Vivid", in which case you get outstanding jpegs.
Nikon D7000 - 80
Panny GH2 - 79
Pentax K-r - 71
Olympus PEN E-PL2 - 71
"...we're confident in saying that it is the best mirrorless system camera that we've ever tested, bar none. With the GH2 Panasonic has finally demonstrated that it is able to compete with the APS-C format competition when it comes both to resolution and critical image quality."
Panasonic DMC-GH2 Review: 21. Conclusion & Ratings: Digital Photography Review
IMO, the GH2 has closed the gap with APS-C cameras. But not quite there yet to be truly competitive IQ wise, especially IQ wise at high ISO. DPreview may have been a bit generous about high ISO quality. It's better than my EP2 for sure. But it already trails my former A55, which apparently is not even nearly as good as the likes of the D7000 and K5.
But the GH2 has its own merits, and the DPreview presented them pretty well.
I agree about the high ISO performance as I think cameras like the A55 and K-5 are better. But at base ISO I think the GH2 is cleaner and sharper.
David, how would you say your Sony a850 compares to the GH2 in terms of sharpness at base ISO? Obviously assuming good lenses on each, and within the range of output sizes that doesn't push the GH2 files beyond their reasonable limits?
I've just received a GH2, but have so far only managed to charge the battery!
I found it rather ironic that the main "fault" of the camera was the the jpg colours were too realistic! But the conclusion that it can now fully compete with the best of APS-C (except at the highest ISO) is probably justified, providing --and this can't be repeated too often -that you shoot RAW. You need this both for the DR and the detail quite apart from all the other advantages such as WB control. If you hate RAW then get an Oly I would say. Incidentally my Nikon AIS 50mm 1.8 is now being made to look so good that I wouldn't say no to IBIS. I can see myself migrating to Olympus next time round possibly, providing they get a decent sensor and finally get an inbuilt EVF, the lack of which has eliminated them from consideration thus far for me.
I agree with your assessment as to the A55. Dunno about K5 yet, still playing with it. But from samples in the net and my first few photos, the K5 is pretty impressive at least shooting RAW.
I was surprised though when I first noticed that I was getting crisper images with the GH2 over the A55 at 160 through about 800. Pleasantly surprised. Enough to choose the GH2 over the A55.
The only issue I personally have with the camera, as an SLR alternative, is price. Yes, it does do worlds of wonders for video, but I have no such interests, and much of the cost lies there. If the AF system, sensor, and processor are put into a GFX style camera, I may have to jump ship from Olympus.
I think I'd have to respectfully disagree with the above statement. Once I had decided that I was interested in an upgrade from the G1, I seriously considered all (reasonable) contenders alongside the GH2, including the latest Nikon, Pentax, etc. I even checked out a couple of full frame cameras.
In the end, I went with the GH2. Unless you're going to invest serious money in not only an excellent DSLR body, but also top-tier lenses, I doubt you can improve on the GH2 with the notable exception of higher-ISO noise (or less thereof).
My sense was that only more expensive cameras, and more costly and seriously heavier lenses, would compete with the image qualities that I prioritize.
So I don't think the GH2 is overpriced at all. I do think it's a bit "plasticy" when compared to, say, a Pentax K5 or a Sony a850, but it's also lighter to carry, and the companion lenses much easier to tote about. FYI, I also couldn't care less about video.
Yeah, price was a consideration for me too. The GH2 body was about $250 more than the A33 I was considering. But with the A33, I was looking at another $1000 - $2000 for lenses depending on the quality of the 2-3 lenses I'd have gone with. With the GH2, I HAD the lenses. I later sold the 45-200 and bought the 100-300 for a net cost of about $300 - still much less.
If starting from scratch I'd agree the GH2 is somewhat expensive compared to the competition. I wasn't starting from scratch.
In terms of sharpness, they are about the same. The Sony obviously has advantages in terms of resolution, dynamic range and high ISO performance, because of the larger sensor.
I guess thats where I'm coming from. The GH2 with the kit zoom is 999 at amazon right now. The a33 is about 700 bucks depending on the retailer with a kit zoom. The a33 also is better in some areas, especially fast action continuous AF.
I have both the A33 and the GH2. Just for giggles, I took them both out today to try to snap some pics of my son trying for the first time to ride his bike without training wheels. It wasn't "smoking fast" action, but there was a lot of shooting while my son was coming at me and going away from me at high(ish) speeds.
In a nutshell, both camera systems performed admirably at quickly focusing. In neither camera did I have many "duds" where it was terribly out of focus (other than when my wife hit the touch screen with her nose and changed the focus area to the bottom right of the frame).
If I had to choose a winner between the two, it would be the Sony only by a nose (is that a horrible pun???)
Separate names with a comma.