GH2 users: please comment on ultimate image quality

as regards sharpness, I don't think you will have anything to worry about. The G1 at 100% view has similar sharpness to the Nikon D700 (that's D700 not the new 7000). Most comparisons I did at the time were 14-45 v the Pro 17-35 on the Nikon so you'd expect the Nikon to have quite an advantage. It didn't and the 20 and 7-14 are sharper still. Of course sharpness has much to do with the lens but also the AA filter and image processing plays a major role and I find G series RAW files very good in this department. The GH2 has a slight edge in both sharpness and contrast over the first generation camera -in some files it seems more noticeable than others. The bigger advantage is in contrast handling and low light. The latter measures 1-2 stops. For instance in a fairly high contrast daylight scene including sky and shadow, the G1 can "fill light" up to a couple of stops without significant degradation only at base (100) ISO though a little contrast is lost. The GH2 can certainly manage up to at least 320 ISO and contrast does not appear significantly reduced. The GH2 in this respect cannot match the D700 which is what you would expect but is certainly superior to the D200 of a couple of years previously (not FF of course either). I would guess that the GH2 sensor overall is about on a par with an average one generation old APS-C camera. Which means pretty respectable. Sharpness and detail will often be superior with the Panny cam. though most of the consumer DSLRs are used with lower grade lenses making the comparison more difficult.

Zenfolio | David Owen | G1 v GH2 high ISO and DR the last three photos give an idea of shadow lightening DR at respective base ISO and the others are high ISO comparisons in case they are of interest. EXIF is in the "info" tab. These are full size jpg conversions

David

 

Firstly thank you - It is very much appreciated.

I work from raw files exclusively and am very pleased with what the GH2 can deliver. I've used a lot of m4/3 lenses with it, and the zooms are OK, but I believe I get better results from the 14mm, 20mm, and 45mm Panasonic primes. I also believe that I get the best possible results from the GH2 sensor using either the Voigtlander 25mm or M Mount prime lenses from Leica, Zeiss & Voigtlander etc. I was quite surprised by just how good the results were.

I did a test comparing the results from my Leica M9 and GH2 using M Mount lenses and was surprised how close the GH2 was in terms of sharpness, particularly at wide apertures. Comparisons with lenses like the 20mm are a little softer but still very good.

Sharpness is not however the whole story. I do find the GH2 has more luminance noise at all settings than other m4/3 cameras. Even at its base ISO of 160. With a little fiddling around with Photoshop, editing out some of this noise and sharpening I can get an image that's still sharp but looks a lot smoother in large areas of blue sky for example.

I don't think that anyone would claim that the GH2 is a star performer in terms of either dynamic range or high ISO and both of these can affect that ultimate image quality.

To a large extent getting the ultimate out of the camera depends on what you use it for. I mainly shoot outdoors in good light at base ISO, working from raw files, with the GH2. Thats where to me it really shines. I had a Pentax K-5, which has a very similar sensor to the Nikon D7000 and Sony a580 and a55 cameras and I've used the Canon 60D sensor in both a 7D and 550D. Personally I prefer the results from my GH2 over those cameras for what I do. Again I must state that this is at ISO 160, with raw processing. At ISO 400 and above I wouldn't use the GH2 as I believe at those settings the other cameras mentioned here produce less noisy results.

Its very difficult for the GH2 to compete with a full-frame sensor and particularly with the monster sensor in the Sony a850 and Nikon D3X. The sheer size and resolution of this thing and its advantages in terms of dynamic range, which is very good indeed, and low noise at all ISO's means that the perceived resolution is very impressive indeed. However having said that the sharpness (acuity) at base ISO on the GH2 stands up very well indeed. In terms of print quality you may think it comparable to the larger sensor.

If you haven't already, have a look at some of the stuff Michael Reichmann writes over at Luminous Landscape. The Luminous Landscape By sheer co-incidence he uses the same cameras I do, except for a Sony a900 instead of my a850, and he also has lots of Leica lenses I can't afford! He's a great fan of the GH2 and writes about its performance in glowing terms, particularly in terms of print making.

I do think you would notice a difference over your G1, and looking at the images on your flickr photostream, very impressive by the way, I think the GH2 might suit you very well, if thats representative of what you want it for. Your 20mm lens would certainly work very well, though the 14-45mm might need stopping down a bit to get the best out of it.

If I was shooting what you shoot, I would choose the GH2 over the other cameras that you mention, and indeed I have made that choice. However that's very much my personal opinion and others may disagree with me.

By the way interesting Gibson headstock. Les Paul? I'm a Fender man myself
but the "blueshound" tag indicates we may share similar tastes in music as well as subjects to photograph.

 

ultimate image quality

I am a new member and have used Canon ( not full frame ) with a 100 2.8 macro and their lenses...I have a G2 with a leica 45 2.8 macro and the G2 with the 45 2.8 is sharper in my opinion by far...I have disposed of all my Canon equipment and gone to the Panasonic G2...So far I'm very pleased with every lens. I have the 18-45, 45-200 and the 45 2.8

 

I have done similarly, getting rid of my Nikon gear and am totally enjoying the G1 with 14-45 and 45-200 and a GF1 with 14, 20, and Pan/Leica 45. Am not sure at what point there would be an advantage in replacing the G1 with something like the GH2? Is the G2 any different than the G1? I am not interested in the touch screen and shoot mostly outside.

In any case, there is something really nice about these cameras that seems to transcend logic or reality.

 

For much of printed photography that is true. I once put together an A3 calendar from a variety of different cameras. Everything from Pentax and Fuji 6MP cameras to Canon 21MP. By interpolating everything up to the same size and with some careful sharpening, the whole thing looked very consistent, and even experienced photographers who looked at it couldn't tell the difference.

Also at weddings I've shot with with a Canon 5DMkII and a G1 or GH1 as a backup camera. The m4/3 pictures are just as likely to get selected for the album as the Canon shots and indeed when printed, are virtually indistinguishable.

I do however work in a field where "pixel-peeping" is the order of the day. By providing images for stock and picture libraries I have to cover all possible uses for an image and that can be for anything from the size of a postage stamp to a 48-sheet advertising poster. Clients tend to like bigger files to reproduce from, as they will often (if not always) crop the image. Consequently those who accept or reject images for these libraries will examine the files in micro detail to assess whether they are suitable for large scale reproduction. They allow no interpolation. They also know that clients will carry out the same examination of the files to assess their quality. In terms of most reproduction it may make little difference, but for some critical applications it does.

Very occasionally I sell images for advertising campaigns, which are used in a variety of ways. Magazines, posters, billboards, point of sale etc. To use an image in this way it has to be top quality. In film days, it was only medium-format transparencies that would ever be considered for this. With digital its only the high end of the DSLR range that gets considered for this.

I did look at Michael Reichmanns example with the Hassleblad and the Canon compact, and it may be true that at certain print sizes there was little difference. However these days many images are published on the internet. Not just at small sizes either. There are now e-books and e-magazines out there that have images at the same size as books and magazines, including A4 and A3. When someone starts blowing up large pdf's on their iPad, they are going to see the same detail (or lack of) that we see on our own screens. This is only going to become more common in future years. How many of us now look at the majority of our pictures on a screen rather than as some form of printed material? This technology is available to and used by everybody. I've looked at some of my images full res. on an iPad & it certainly allows a very critical look at the kind of quality I can produce. At the levels of magnification possible, it is possible to see the differences that are apparent.

So while at the moment it may not seem that important for certain uses, increasing image size and higher pixel counts may become more relevant as time passes and certainly images taken with more MP's are more future proof that those without. Imagine how your great grandchildren will be viewing images.

Also finally we're still struggling to catch up with what plate film cameras have been producing for decades. If anyone's ever seen images from the 20 x24 Polaroid camera you'll know what I mean.
20×24 Studio » Where Large Format Polaroid Instant Photography Lives