I can tell you that the lack of AF on my old 7D for video, and the mostly useless AF recently implemented on some Nikon and Canon models, the GH2 will win easily based on that feature alone - at least for me.Thanks for the link. I'll still be waiting for the full technical reviews. My concern with the GH2 is that it approaches the price and, for practical purposes, the size of the Nikon DSLRs but not the low light, AF or shallow focus performance. If it outperforms them in video, then I might be game.
I can tell you that the lack of AF on my old 7D for video, and the mostly useless AF recently implemented on some Nikon and Canon models, the GH2 will win easily based on that feature alone - at least for me.
All the serious video shooters with 7D, 5DII, and Nikon rigs (not nearly as common as Canon) use $2000+ in gear for follow focus rigs, rails, etc. The GH1 and now GH2 is really the only competent AF camera in the game. The GH2 ups the ante with stellar AF - on par with mid level Nikon/Canon cameras.
I think the low light issue is the only advantage and if the GH2 gives me solid ISO 1600 I'm happy.
by view, do you mean mirrorless? I somewhat agree, especially in the consumer field. But as a professional, IQ is king, APS-C/FF is still a few miles ahead of m43. And it seems to always be that way, at least for now.Great review of the GH2 and really of Panasonic G cameras and Micro 4/3 in general. This quote really struck me: "The future of the photographic industry belongs to Sony and Panasonic. They get it. As far as I can tell, neither Canon nor Nikon do." I couldn't agree more. When I see people walking around with those humongous cameras and lenses, it amazes me. I was a dedicated Nikon user but now find myself only using my Panasonics. In my view, this is the future of photography and the traditional DSLR's will go the way of the view camera.
Rider, which lenses did you try with the GH1? Under normal circumstances, I didn't find the difference to be marked between my GH1 AF speed with the Panasonic 14-45 or 14-150 and that of the Nikon D5000 and AFS 18-55, which is probably the most comparable lens. My D700 and 24-70 were another story.I would be thrilled if the GH2 is now in the same league as the D7000 AF speed-wise, but I haven't read anything to indicate that it is (including the review above).
Micro 4/3 will always involve compromises. You may feel that the GH2 approaches the size of your Nikon DSLR, but that is entirely subjective. To me, my GH1 and Lumix 20/1.7 were significantly smaller/lighter than my Nikon D5000 and 35/1.8, which in turn was significantly smaller/lighter than my D700 and any lens. Here are a GF1, GH1 and D5000 (which I bought because I was looking for a small/light camera to complement my D700, and the D5000 was smaller/lighter than a D90) shown to scale:With the GH2 Panasonic has pulled a rabbit out of its hat. The new sensor's faster read-out allows the autofocus of the GH2 to apparently equal that of mid-level DSLRs. While I haven't done any lab tests (I'm sure that the technical review sites will do so as soon as production cameras become available), my sense is that Panasonic has licked the AF speed issue on non-DSLRs.
This is especially true when shooting from the hip, as I've been trying to experiment with. At first, I left it center, as that is how I normally shoot. I quickly realized "why am I doing this, I have a better chance letting the camera pick... oh wait, I *also* have face detection!"Face detection, which I used to think was a gimmick. However, after using a GH1 now for a while, I'm struck by how useful it is to take a quick photo at an event with variable lighting (eg, backlighting for some shots and not others) and have the camera meter automatically based on faces recognized in the scene. No more need for spot metering or dialing in exposure compensation under those circumstances.
sorry, I just don't follow why so many lump together APS-C and FF as there is a world of difference. The crop factor to Canon is 1.6 . :43: which is 2 which is just 25% more. The difference between FF and Canon crop is 60%. In other words, a Canon APS-C calculated this way is more than twice as close to the four thirds sensor than the FF. If you use the 1.5 widely used by other manufacturers then the difference is less (50% to 33%) but still is much closer to :43: than FF. I would expect a good modern :43: sensor to be around the same as an average APS-C one. Of course a good one will still have the advantage -- no disputing -- but let´s not get carried away. Part of the issue with the sensor in the first generation, apart from the GH1 arguably, is that it simply ain´t that good a sensorby view, do you mean mirrorless? I somewhat agree, especially in the consumer field. But as a professional, IQ is king, APS-C/FF is still a few miles ahead of m43.
One reason it makes sense to lump them together is that they're part of the same system. Once you invest in a Nikon or Canon system, you can move from FF to DX and vice versa and keep your flashes and as long as you mostly buy FF lenses, keep your lenses too. So even though I've never owned a FF frame Nikon Digital, going full frame is simply a matter of switching out the body. There is no upgrade path for m43.sorry, I just don't follow why so many lump together APS-C and FF as there is a world of difference.
Partially as Rider pointed out, APS-C/FF from canikon is essentially the same system so to speak. Yeah, you're right that APS-C and m43 are pretty close. I shouldn't have simplified it as so. But it boils down to Panasonic/Olympus being able to actually catch up. I don't think they can personally, they will always have the time disadvantage to APS-C. And the fact marketing favors the "big boys." I've seen a few E-PL1's and E-P1's in the wild, a GF1, and I've never seen a G/H body aside from my brothers =(sorry, I just don't follow why so many lump together APS-C and FF as there is a world of difference.