upgrading from GH1 to Gh2

[Old Picker]

Any advice?
I have two GH1's, 14-140 kit lens and also 20mm 1.7 Panasonic Lens. How much better is the GH2 than the GH1 as I am thinking of buying one?
What I have seen on this forum in the examples of the photo's to be honest, I have been inspired and cannot believe the quality etc of the M4/3 cameras. I did not appreciated what I already have before hitting this forum.
Also, I have been thinking of buying the 100-300 panasonic zoom.
I'll be hoilidaying in San Francisco at the end of March and would like any advice on camera shops in the city, or is it worth buying before I get there?
Really glad I joined you guys, so much info, yet so may questions,
Many thanks
OP

 

[dhazeghi]

Also, I have been thinking of buying the 100-300 panasonic zoom.
I'll be hoilidaying in San Francisco at the end of March and would like any advice on camera shops in the city, or is it worth buying before I get there?

Wouldn't really bother buying camera equipment in San Francisco. There're two half decent stores (Calumet and Adolph Gasser), but they're fairly pricey and nothing special in terms of selection. The best photo store in the area by far is in Palo Alto (Keeble & Schuchat) about 30 miles away, but that's not exactly in the city.

DH

 

[RDM]

you can read the review on dpreview and if you scroll down after hitting this link you will see a side by side comparison,

Panasonic DMC-GH2 Review: Digital Photography Review

 

[Ned]

What do you feel you're lacking the most in with what you have?

You have a 14-140mm/3.5-5.6 and a 20mm/1.7, so a 100-300mm/4-5.6 will definitely add something worthwhile to your collection. If you feel you should have a super-telephoto, then I can't argue with that purchase.

However, I don't know about the GH2 as you need to identify where you feel your GH1s are lacking to warrant an upgrade.

 

[zpierce]

For me, the upgrade was all about the sensor. You gain 2 stops of usable ISO in my opinion. On my G1, I capped myself at ISO 800, on the GH2, ISO 3200 is roughly the same. I find this very helpful with my 100-300 lens, where you have a smallish aperture and the potential for lots of camera shake necessitating faster shutter speeds. I often find myself shooting at higher ISO with that lens and grateful that I don't have my older camera.

Additionally you get very fast AF, much improved video if you're into that, and a touch screen. If any number of those traits are important to you, the GH2 is a worthy upgrade. Also a pretty reasonably priced upgrade these days given that it's no longer a hot new release.

 

[Luckypenguin]

The OP currently has two GH1s which is a different beast to the G1. My own take was that if the GH2 came down significantly in price I might consider it, but ultimately I'm really intrigued to see what a GH3 might bring to the table.

 

[John M Flores]

IMO there's not much difference between the GH1 and GH2 with regards to still image quality. I have both, and the reasons why I use the GH2 more often are not image quality but rather

1 - better video
2 - ability to set LCD to "Constant Preview" where what you see on the screen is what you'll get, rather than the GH1 not showing overexposed or underexposed shots until after you've taken the shot
3 - faster access to focus point control via either the touch screen or rear control

If you're looking for improved image quality, buy the Olympus 45/1.8 and wait for the GH3.

Finally, regarding the 100-300, only buy it if you really need the long end, i.e., birding, sports, etc. I find that I use the 14-140 ten times more frequently.

best of luck.

 

[zpierce]

The OP currently has two GH1s which is a different beast to the G1. My own take was that if the GH2 came down significantly in price I might consider it, but ultimately I'm really intrigued to see what a GH3 might bring to the table.

I was simply referring to the sensor, which I realize was still a different beast, but very similar in performance. Every review I've ever read (which have been many) and every sample I've viewed showed very similar performance with a slight nod to the GH1.

 

[Luckypenguin]

I was simply referring to the sensor, which I realize was still a different beast, but very similar in performance. Every review I've ever read (which have been many) and every sample I've viewed showed very similar performance with a slight nod to the GH1.

I can't say exactly since I've never had a G1, but when I had the sister GF1 model for a brief period last year the (RAW) image output seemed different to the GH1, and the colour output in particular seemed totally different.

 

[Ned]

The OP currently has two GH1s which is a different beast to the G1. My own take was that if the GH2 came down significantly in price I might consider it, but ultimately I'm really intrigued to see what a GH3 might bring to the table.

The GH3 shoots directly onto Blu-Ray or DVD, and can use the Lumix G 12.5mm f/12 3D lens in video.

 

[photoSmart42]

I wouldn't upgrade to the next generation. I'd skip a generation to make it worthwhile.

 

[Old Picker]

Many thanks all.
My whole reason for upgrading was to get a better quality still, but it seems like there doesn't seem to be that much of a difference. Great advice from everybody, it is very much appreciated.
OP

 

[Ned]

Get the Lumix 100-300mm. That's something that will expand your capabilities. Then when you decide what other lenses you'd like, you will have the money saved from the GH2 to purchase them. Like how about the m.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 and m.Zuiko 12mm f/2 to complement your Lumix 20mm f/1.7? Those will all give you so much more than the addition of a GH2 to your two GH1 bodies.

 

[Old Picker]

Hi Ned,
Many thanks for all your help on this. Great advice.
I have just looked at the Olympus 45mm and although I have a Canon FD 50mm and 85mm, it is a pain manual focusing all the time especially with a moving grand-daughter . The Olympus seems good buying advice. The main reason behind getting the 100-300 was to take close up of street people........from a distance.
Thanks again
OP

 

[brunerww]

OP,

I guess I am the outlier here. I have both cameras, and I hardly use the GH1 any more except as a backup camera.

The EVF for the GH2 is better than the GH1's (1.56M vs 1.4M dots). For my aging eyes, it is much more usable in low light.

Speaking of low light - as others have said, the GH2 produces usable images up to ISO3200 - and darned good images at ISO1600 - in lighting conditions where the GH1 produces mud. The GH1 is a fine camera when there's plenty of light, but I shoot in lots of places where the GH2's advantage in low light has been a lifesaver.

I have also not heard people talk about the advantages of the extended tele converter (ETC) mode. ETC on the GH2 gives me an additional 2.6X on all of my lenses! You could buy a 45-200 for the GH2 and get a longer effective focal length than the more expensive 100-300 gives you on the GH1!

The 3:2/4:3/16:9 true multi-aspect sensor is gravy on top of all this -- and I haven't even mentioned the things that make the GH2 the best video camera in its price range (e. g., live HDMI out while recording, 4 manual settings on its audio gain control).

For me, at £690 body-only in the UK, I recommend you trade in one of your GH1s (you should not buy a stateside NTSC camera if you ever plan to shoot video and show it on a UK PAL TV).

Safe travels on your San Francisco holiday. It is my native city, so I know it's not only a great place to visit, but it's also a great setting for stills (and video)!

Cheers,

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution

 

[Mboss]

The OP currently has two GH1s which is a different beast to the G1. My own take was that if the GH2 came down significantly in price I might consider it, but ultimately I'm really intrigued to see what a GH3 might bring to the table.

I was one of the lucky ones to purchase a GH2 for $486.88 on eBay when the seller momentarily dropped the price for 30 mins yesterday.

eBay.com Item Purchase History

Just got my shipping code and it's on its way. Hopefully everything is legit. It's listed at $619.71 for a brand new body only right now!

 

[John M Flores]

OP,

I guess I am the outlier here. I have both cameras, and I hardly use the GH1 any more except as a backup camera.

The EVF for the GH2 is better than the GH1's (1.56M vs 1.4M dots). For my aging eyes, it is much more usable in low light.

Speaking of low light - as others have said, the GH2 produces usable images up to ISO3200 - and darned good images at ISO1600 - in lighting conditions where the GH1 produces mud. The GH1 is a fine camera when there's plenty of light, but I shoot in lots of places where the GH2's advantage in low light has been a lifesaver.

I have also not heard people talk about the advantages of the extended tele converter (ETC) mode. ETC on the GH2 gives me an additional 2.6X on all of my lenses! You could buy a 45-200 for the GH2 and get a longer effective focal length than the more expensive 100-300 gives you on the GH1!

The 3:2/4:3/16:9 true multi-aspect sensor is gravy on top of all this -- and I haven't even mentioned the things that make the GH2 the best video camera in its price range (e. g., live HDMI out while recording, 4 manual settings on its audio gain control).

For me, at £690 body-only in the UK, I recommend you trade in one of your GH1s (you should not buy a stateside NTSC camera if you ever plan to shoot video and show it on a UK PAL TV).

Safe travels on your San Francisco holiday. It is my native city, so I know it's not only a great place to visit, but it's also a great setting for stills (and video)!

Cheers,

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution

FWIW, the GH1 has a multi-aspect sensor as well. I agree with your thoughts on usability and video, but I've had a different experience with the GH1 in low light. I'll ask the cats to demonstrate the GH1 @ ISO1600:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Giving the GH1 a chance by john m flores, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Two sleeping cats prove the effectiveness of image stabilization by john m flores, on Flickr