Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Pelao on December 29, 2010, 12:03:53 pm
-
Thanks for the report so far. This is the practical stuff that I find so valuable in making decisions. Of course it's always a matter of priorities and preferences, but I really appreciate knowing how stuff works, rather than just a list of features.
I was especially curious about this point:
"This works, but it's a bit fiddly when trying to work quickly. There is an undocumented method for magnified focusing of manual lenses that we have not seen mentioned anywhere else as yet. Simply press in on the thumb wheel. This magnifies the image, and then a touch of the shutter release returns the screen to normal magnification for composition and shooting."
This is exactly the method I use for my GF1 for lenses that do not AF. It is simple and very effective. In fact it is one reason why I prefer the GF1 to the EP2 for this type of work. Much less fiddly etc.
I am pretty certain that I learned this from the GF1 manual. Odd they would leave it out of the GH2 manual.
-
I’m delighted to learn you are planning a Cinematography for Photographers tutorial.
I just tried video a little over a year ago, and ended up buying an EXIR, which I love (except for its weight). It is an entirely different world, but opens some fascinating doors.
My GH2 does not magnify the image when I touch the left arrow. This did work to magnify the image on my GH1, but neither that or hitting the set/menu button or the left arrow will magnify the image on my GH2. It is one thing I find frustrating. The only way I can do this on the GH2 is to touch the LCD screen where I want the focus point to be. I have tried the left arrow and the Menu/set left arrow with the GH2 in A,S and the movie symbol setting, with the AF on M, AFC and AFS. What settings are you using that make this work for you?
How about some pics of your dog?
Thanks,
Bill
-
OK, I read the instruction book (page 84). Press and hold the Q.Menu button until the little yellow square appears, then press the Menu/Set button, and Presto, It works! Apparently other GH2 cameras work like the GH1? I have firmware 1.0, but still, I wonder if these changes are different in some cameras than in others? I ordered one for my daughter, and when it arrives later this afternoon, I’ll check it to see the the GH1 method works in it.
Bill
-
I just got my GH2 too, and I'm pleased so far. I wanted to comment on something you said in your latest GH2 report on the need to quickly engage the 24P mode for shooting video. I have assigned by C3 to this task, and my C1 and C2 for BW and color photography. So from a fast action photo session to go to video I switch from C1 or C2 into C3 and then use the red button.
-
Very excited to hear that your planning to release the cinematography for photographers book, especially using the GH2 for the example work. I am wanting purchase a camera to make videos for bands so i want quite a bit of filmic and arty shots with slow motion etc. I was very excited about the GH2 on release but now i cant find many examples of the gh2 being used to create a really cinematic look like say the 5dmk2 achieves in the countless short films people have made. Is the GH2 the wrong camera for me or could this book show me what i am after? Also has anyone else seen the gh2 being used an a cinematic way. I understand the quality of the shots is outstanding, im only talking about that arty look. I recently seen talk about the nostalgia setting? Does this give a filmic look?
Thanks, Craig
-
The "film look" is created primarily by the use of 24P along with a 189 degree shutter. This means a shutter speed of 1/48 sec. This provides the motion blur that looks like film. 30 FPS and especially 60 FPS less so.
The second price of the puzzle is shallow depth of field. All large sensor cameras offer this. The GH2's sensor is very close to the size of the Acadamy 35mm frame this produces dof similar to the Hollywood movies that we are used to.
The 5DMKII has even shallower dof because of the full frame sensor, which can be difficult to work with in some situations, but it's still highly regarded because of the popularity and ubiquity of Canon cameras.
Michael
-
Thanks for the reply! So I should be able to achieve a cool artistic feel with this camera and correct lighting etc (once my skills are as good as what the camera can offer).
Is the lack of 'filmic' short films or clips on the internet regarding the gh2 in comparison to the 5dmk2 more likely to be because its so new that it just literally isn't that many people messing about with it and using it in this way yet rather than it not being capable of the cinematographic look. However there are some nice clips shot with the voigtlander 25mm 0.95 lens which look excellent.
I'm definitely set on getting a camera this year, so im just looking at any available examples i can find. I think the cinematography for photographers book is an excellent idea. Im sure it will fill me with all the inspiration i need to go buy the GH2!
-
The 5DMKII has been shipping for two years. The GH2 for only a few weeks.
Good luck.
Michael
-
Re: depth of field of GH2 vs 5DMarkII. How much shallower could you possibly want? I'm using a Zeiss T* 50 1.7 lens on the GH2 and with it wide open the depth of field is not even 1/4 inch at 6ft! And we're not even talking about an 1.4 or faster lens.
-
Yea with the right lens i have seen that the brokeh is lovely on this. So i have decided im definitely upgrading asap. If i was to go for this which i probably will, can anyone recommend if the 14-140 kit lens is good. I also decided to treat myself to one nice fast lens also. Something along the lines of the voigtlander 25mm 0.95. Is that about as good as i could get for that sort of price or is there anything else i should consider?
thanks
-
Yea with the right lens i have seen that the brokeh is lovely on this. So i have decided im definitely upgrading asap. If i was to go for this which i probably will, can anyone recommend if the 14-140 kit lens is good. I also decided to treat myself to one nice fast lens also. Something along the lines of the voigtlander 25mm 0.95. Is that about as good as i could get for that sort of price or is there anything else i should consider?
thanks
I checked three 14-140s, three 100-300s and one each 20 f1.7, 45-200, and 14-42mm lens, as well as the Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 and several Leica M lenses. I used a variety of subjects, and the same lighting. I tried to find something around the house that would eliminate differences due to focus variability, and something where I could look at 100 percent at small detail to see where one lens had more resolution than another. I have 12 pages of notes, which I have tried to condense below. I did recheck (reshoot) when there was any question, and I also used AF and focused manually.
The 14-140s, all of them, generally had noticeably poorer image quality than the other lenses. The 100-300 lenses were the best, as far as image quality goes. There is some variability between the 14-140 lenses. One is better than the other from 14-100mm, but less good at 140mm. The 14-140s focused quickly and were smooth to zoom. All of the 100-300 lenses had areas where they bind, especially coming from 300mm back to 100mm, making a smooth zoom in video almost impossible.
The difference between the image quality of the 100-300 and 14-140, at least in the three samples I checked, is striking. At 140mm, at f5.0, the 100-300 is better than the best 14-140 at f8.0, its best aperture. The 100-300 image quality does improve a bit as you stop down, but is so good (at least relatively) that I would usually choose the wider aperture to get a higher shutter speed.
no. 3507 100-300, 136mm f4.4 is so much better than the best 14-140 at 140mm (at f8.0 which is the best aperture showing the most detail in the 140mm lenses) that it is just amazing (this was true using two different GH2 bodies). Here are a couple of examples that are representative - the image size of the 100-300 at 136mm is larger than that of the 14-140 at 140mm, despite the fact they were on the same camera body, on the same tripod. (In the Tifs, these differences are a lot easier to see than in small web jpegs):
100-300, 136mm, f4.4
http://gallery.me.com/billh96007/100323/New-GH2%2C3507%2C136mm%2Cf4.4-53_1/web.jpg?ver=12940992730001
14-140, 140mm, f8.0
http://gallery.me.com/billh96007/100323/New-GH2%2C1690%2C140mm%2Cf8.0-051_1/web.jpg?ver=12940992680001
14-42 compared to 14-140: 14-42 at 25mm, f4.6 and 14-140, 25mm at f4.7 look about the same. At f5.0 the 14-42 is clearly better than the 14-140. At f5.6, the 14-42 is a LOT better than the 14-140. and the same at f6.3, but perhaps the difference is not quite as great as the faster apertures. AT f7.1 the difference is so great it is crazy (the 14-42 is FAR better).
25mm Voigtlander, at f1.4 is is pretty close to the 14-42 at f4.6 and the 14-140 at f4.7. At f2.0 the Voigtlander is better than both of the zooms at f4.6 and f4.7. At f2.0 the Voigtlander 25mm lens is better than the 14-140 at f5.0, and maybe just a tad better than the 14-42 at f5.0. At f2.8 it is better than both of them at f5.0. At f2.8 it is equal to the 14-42 at f5.6, and a lot better than the 14-140 at f5.6. At f6.3 the 14-42 may be a touch better. At f6.3 the 14-42 is very close to the Voigtlander at f2.0 and f2.8.
14-140, 41mm at f5.3 - fairly close to the 14-42 at 42mm, f5.6, although you can see the difference (the 14-42 is better, just not glaringly so). Af f5.6 they are also really close - no reason to choose one over the other here. I think at f6.3, the 14-42 is a little better than the 14-140 at f6.3, but not a huge difference. At 41mm, f7.1, the 14-42 is better than the 14-140.
My understanding, from reading various web sites, is the older 14-45 mm lens is better than the 14-42mm lens. The 14-140 is such a handy focal length range, albeit too darn slow, and it focuses quickly and zooms smoothly. I hope someone steps in and offers a better, faster lens in this range with image quality more in line with the 100-300 zoom that works in AFC on the GH2.
Bill
-
Your findings are almost exactly in line with my experience. The 14-140mm isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but it is so versatile and convenient that it is my go-to lens for outdoor use and non-demanding situations.
The 100-300mm is a terrific lens, and much better than the 14-140 in their overlapping range.
The f/0.95 Voigtlander is simply remarkable. Unique when used wide open, and matching just about anything else in its focal range, including Leica M glass.
Michael
-
Excellent, thanks for that reply! From what you have found then would you be confident in using the gh2 with appropriate lens in any situation. Or are the some things it might not handle as well such as low light event or wedding photography? Or once a larger range of fast lenses with af are available would this also be possible.
Thanks again, great insight here.
-
The GH2 is absolutely not a universal camera. It is a terrific compromise camera though.
I can think of any number of cameras that have advantages over it in almost every area, but none that handle just about every aspect of features and IQ in as well rounded a way.
That's why, if I were heading out for a two hour shooting walk (which I am just about to do) it would be (and is) my go-to camera.
Michael
-
The GH2 is absolutely not a universal camera. It is a terrific compromise camera though.
I can think of any number of cameras that have advantages over it in almost every area, but none that handle just about every aspect of features and IQ in as well rounded a way.
Would the GH2 be a good choice when I'm not interested in Video ?
Actually, I was somehow waiting for Canon (Powershot) to react on the m4/3 challenge,
but since the G12 I think I'm losing patience...
Peter
..
-
Hi CJ,
The GH2 would not be my choice for low light event photography, or for wedding photography, although I think it may be useful as a second camera to record video - assuming you have a fast lens, and not the 14-140, which seems to extend its f5.8 maximum aperture well down into its wider focal length range. I used to use Canons with a 50mm and 85mm f1.2 lenses (I loved that 85 f1.2), but switched when the Nikon D3 became available. I switched (back) to Nikon because for me their AF tracking was far more effective. I really missed the fast Canon primes, but soon discovered the seemingly impossible ISOs really were usable, so the 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 became my standard lenses. The D3s has extended this envelope even further. If your low light event photography involves motion requiring faster shutter speeds, good high ISO rendering becomes even more important. Canon and Nikon (and others) have released a variety of new models, so you might look for information about them. Sometimes the only way to be sure is to try a camera and/or lens for a week, and for that this company is good to work with, http://www.lensrentals.com/ . As for wedding photography, and trustworthy equipment reviews, you might consider looking at Sean Reid’s very thorough testing site, http://www.reidreviews.com/reidreviews/ . He does wedding photography, and also publishes extremely thorough reports. There is a very nominal annual fee to access it, but it is well worth the cost of a couple of camera magazines to join and learn from him. The type of testing Sean does is very intensive and time consuming, and I don’t know of any other venue offering the information he publishes. In the past I have photographed a couple of weddings at the request (pleading) of good friends, and when I have to go to a wedding (always on a beautiful summer weekend afternoon), I bring a camera along to stave off boredom. The receptions always seem to be practically dark. I remember using a 200 f2.0 lens at ISO6400 at the last one I attended.
Bill
-
Hi Peter,
For what it’s worth, My sense of the GH2 is Panasonic’s focus was more on video than stills for this camera - but perhaps that is because video was the primary motivator for me to buy it. I really wanted it because it is reasonably capable in both areas, and also small and lightweight. I can share the areas I wish were a bit better - one is AF tracking. I hoped the GH2 would be at least moderately successful with AF tracking, particularly with fast moving subjects. I sent one to a friend in France to use for dog sports, both for video and for some stills I could send to editors here. While it is not great, here are the settings I found that work best (“best” is a very low success rate) for the GH2 and AF tracking. Obviously set the camera on AFC. Do not use the focus release priority. Set the camera on M (3 frames per second). At H, 5fsp, all you see in the viewfinder is the image the camera took, NOT the actual subject, which has by now moved out of the frame. I am not sure this issue can be overcome in these small, mirror-less cameras. Use the single AF point, and place it where the face of your subject will be most of the time. Experiment with changing the size of the single focus point - if a subject is difficult to follow while keeping the AF square centered on the face, increasing the size can help. Also depress the shutter button half way down to activate the AF before the action starts (to allow the AF to begin working) and keep the shutter release half way down to keep the AF activated while following the subject. If a person is walking, it works fine, but for fast motion I would look elsewhere.
Perhaps because it is winter and seeming dark and overcast most of the time, but also because the maximum aperture of the 14-140 is most f5.8, but I constantly find myself needing higher ISOs than I would like. Image quality seems good up through ISO800, and OK at ISO1600 - and oddly enough, for video I used ISO2500 at my granddaughter’s high school basketball game with the 14-140, and it looks fine to me. I can post the link if you want to see it.
For me the image quality and small maximum aperture of the 14-140 is something I would love to see improved because it covers a perfect focal length range. The image quality from the GH2 with the 100-300 and Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 is really quite good.
I tried a rental Sony a55 before I bought the GH2 (I have a GH1), and the lenses, while faster and better than the 14-140, are a good bit larger (this from someone who has just complained about the slowness and quality of the small Panasonic 14-140).
Don’t give up on video. Sometimes it is far better at telling a story or conveying a point than stills, and still images can be gracefully incorporated into video using the “Ken Burns” effect. I was delighted to learn Michel plans to make a tutorial on the GH2 for video. More and more photographers (like me) are discovering it, and while there is some commonality between video and still photography, quite a bit is different and new to us. I know I spent many hours watching instructional video on the EX1 and FCP, and have really just skimmed the surface of the capabilities both offer. I think Michael’s tutorials, created by a photographer skilled in both areas will be a great hit. It sure looks like this dual capability is the wave of the future.
-
.... My sense of the GH2 is Panasonic’s focus was more on video than stills for this camera - but perhaps that is because video was the primary motivator for me to buy it. I really wanted it because it is reasonably capable in both areas, and also small and lightweight. ...
For me the image quality and small maximum aperture of the 14-140 is something I would love to see improved because it covers a perfect focal length range. The image quality from the GH2 with the 100-300 and Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 is really quite good. I tried a rental Sony a55 before I bought the GH2 (I have a GH1), and the lenses, while faster and better than the 14-140, are a good bit larger ...
Don’t give up on video. Sometimes it is far better at telling a story or conveying a point than stills, ... More and more photographers (like me) are discovering it, ...
Billh, - many thanks for your detailed respose !
It is food for thoughts (or just trying it).
Best regards, Peter
--
-
Michael,
Are you planning to try this adapter (and report on it), This is the official text from Birger: http://www.birger.com/ “The rumors are true! Birger is coming out with a lens control system for EF mount lenses on the Panasonic AF100. Control for the iris, both auto and manual, will be from the camera. Continuous (video-style) auto-focus will be supported on most Canon “L-series” lenses. Power is provided by the camera for most lenses. Image stabilization is supported on “IS” lenses, and this feature can be turned on or off from the lens. Ships 14 February 2011. MSRP $700 for the adapter. Optional cinema-style remote control, available at additional cost, to be announced January 2011. Sign up for the “General News” email list to receive updated announcements. Photo (on top) is a prototype on an engineering sample of the AF100, and a Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 lens.“
(When do you get your AF100?)
Also, I noticed this information, “Panasonic is about to launch the new 12-50mm f2.5-3.3 zoom, a video optimized lens!
http://www.43rumors.com/ft4-panasonic-is-preparing-a-12-50mm-f2-5-3-3-zoom/
Thanks,
Bill
-
Not sure yet. Let's see when it comes out.
Michael
-
Michael: Along with a lot of others, I'm sure, making a decision about a camera is daunting. I've looked all over your site and can't find anything written up about the Canon T2i and it's video qualities. That camera interests me because of the large investment in lenses, familiarity with Canon, low light capabilities, and image quality. On the other hand the new GH2 with the 14-140mm lens is very appealing. Probably the best for video if this was your major concern. Mine is only for decent video for articles on our site, not major productions like you produce for tutorials. Have you written anything up on the T2i that I can't find? Have you used the camera? Any opinion would be great.
I do wish that Panasonic had a GH2 with a 14-42mm lens that was optimized for video like the 14-140 is.
Thanks,
Don...
-
Since this is not an equipment review site per-se, I am only able to look at a very small percentage of the models on the market at any one time. Basically, those models that interest me at any given moment.
No, I haven't looked at the T2i, nor any of the current Nikon models either. I find what Panasonic is doing with the Micro Four Thirds format, and Sony (potentially) with the NEX format, the most interesting area at the moment. That's why I'm working with these tools and covering them here.
Michael
-
Thanks Michael: I think Panasonic has been doing a great job with their tools also. I respect your opinion, that's why I asked. I really like the video options available on the GH2 and the image quality that I've seen looks to be good for I would use it for. It is time to upgrade again. Have a good year!
Don....
-
@BillH
Thanks for the reply! Do you think the 5dmkii would be more suited to doing low light events. Im wanting to shoot stills of low light event photography and stills of bands posing for photo shoots and film for music videos of bands. Also want to do some arty short films as i have a very creative writer to hand.
Eventurally if i get good enough id like to start trying out weddings ( as second shooter to start). Do you think FF would be better for me?
Thanks for your insight!
Craig
-
Hi CJ,
I don’t know much about the 5DII. I tried one for a week to see how it worked for video, and found it almost impossible to use for that purpose. Those who do press it into service for video, do so for the very shallow depth of field they can get from a full frame sensor, but to even make video possible with this camera, an extensive cottage industry has sprung up to supply ancillary bits to make the camera workable. My understanding is, for video, the best DSLR is generally thought to be the GH2. There are some excellent examples to look at, among them is, http://vimeo.com/18155086 (shot with GH2), his blog, http://pampuri.net/ There's a less-compressed 425MB version of the edit that you can download from Emmanuel's Vimeo page.
A couple of others I really like are, http://vimeo.com/14725884 and the one Michael posted, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kD_M50-V6s&feature=player_embedded Also this video with the GH2 and 25mm f0.95, in what appears to be available indoor light, gives us a sense of how good the Gh2 is when used like this, http://vimeo.com/17062701
The son of good friends uses Canons for wedding and magazine photography. I think he uses the 5D series, although he may now also be using the 1Ds series Canons. I’m mostly familiar with Nathan’s magazine photography, some of which you can find on these sites, http://www.nathanweltonphoto.com/outdoor-photographer/
http://www.nathanweltonphoto.com/ (look around the rock climbing, adventure sports, etc.)
But I know he also has an excellent reputation as a wedding photographer, enough so that he also does weddings outside of the USA. Look around at featured weddings and other favorites.
http://www.dreamtimeimages.com/fullscreen/index2quiet.html
http://www.dreamtimeimages.com/blog/
My feeling, for what it is worth, is the best dual purpose (for both video and stills) is currently the GH2. But a proper video camera like the EX1R is easier to use for video, and a camera like the D3s is a better tool for the stills you have in mind. That is not to say the Canon isn’t, it’s just that I have been using the Nikons lately, so I am familiar with them.
One possible disadvantage you may have with the GH2 is the perception it is not a “professional” camera. I actually like this because people by and large ignore it, but when you are there in an official capacity, people’s perceptions can be important.
Probably the most important thing you can do is try the kind of photography you like, read, look at your images and those from others and see what you do and do not like, and figure out out to do the things that appeal to you. A lot is done in post processing, more than most people realize. People lighten and color the iris of eyes with Wacom tablets, they remove weight and wrinkles and blemishes with portrait plug ins, selectively blur backgrounds and other areas of the image to focus attention on a specific area...There is so much like this at work with most of the images you see that you really like. You can download the Lightroom tutorial available on this site L-L Guide to Lightroom 3 , and join (for example) http://www.photoshopuser.com. It really is not all about which camera is “best”, but rather a combination of many things. Good luck!
Bill
-
Your findings are almost exactly in line with my experience. The 14-140mm isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but it is so versatile and convenient that it is my go-to lens for outdoor use and non-demanding situations.
The 100-300mm is a terrific lens, and much better than the 14-140 in their overlapping range.
The f/0.95 Voigtlander is simply remarkable. Unique when used wide open, and matching just about anything else in its focal range, including Leica M glass.
Michael
Hope this isn't considered a hijack of the thread, but I'm struggling with lens choice having settled on GH2 as just the thing, particularly for travel/hiking, where 5D2 is too intrusive/heavy and LX3 is too limited. Also, don't want another "system" - just to cover most opportunities. In UK, only available with 14-140 or 14-42. Only way to get body only is to jettison the 14-42 on ebay. Older 14-45 doesn't sound much better than 14-42, so, although 40-150 sounds OK, that 2 lens combination not viable. I thought of Oly 9-18 + Panny Leica 45, but then no real tele-option and would like something up to 135/200 (35mm equivalent). So notwithstanding your comments about 14-140 (which has some quite good reviews in SLR gear and DP Review) it looks like only option for a minimalist set up., probably with a 20mm pancake for low light/low visual impact.
-
Agreed, the 14-140mm together with the 20mm pancake are the ideal minimalist setup with the GH2.
Michael
-
Correction, the GH2 is "available" (i.e. not in stock!) at one UK retailer, Camera World, even if not officially. That said, my "minimalist" choice would be 14mm and 20mm pancakes + 45-200. In fact the 100-300 has got me thinking - for travel and wildlife it looks a no-brainer in preference to 5D2 and I could more than pay for it by selling little used 300/4LIS on ebay, maybe with enough over to pay for upgrade from LX3 to LX5. I'm hugely impressed with Panasonic ability to come up with new products that really hit the spot.
-
Park cameras in the UK have the GH2 body only for £700 - I just had mine arrive today.
Jim
-
I made a 9 1/2 minute Blu Ray disk of various clips I shot in different film modes, and watched it on the large Sony TV. These are a few of the clips in the Blu Ray, http://www.vimeo.com/19066379
I watched it three times and made notes the last time.
But first, before the notes on the film modes, I have a question. I was amazed at the detail I was seeing in the rocks. I remember being disappointed at previous shots with the EX1R, This was also true for the video of this area I made when I tried a Canon 5D, http://www.vimeo.com/6186358. I then watched a Blu Ray I shot in the fall with the EX1R, http://www.youtube.com/user/billh96007#p/u/11/ew5DsDOivGc and there is lots of detail in the people (at 3:28) and Blue Heron (4:25). The rocks are in this EX1R video, http://www.vimeo.com/8769320 at 2:05, and while the I see impressive detail in the GH2 video, the same rocks look almost smeary here in the EX1R video. The birds are great though. What is the difference? Is it something about the larger sensor in the GH2? I would love to understand why the GH2 is so good here, and the Canon 5D and Sony EX1R comparatively so bad in this one area.
Notes on film modes I made while watching the Blu Ray:
Cinema: Darks too dark, no detail. Water highlights good, retained lots of detail. Darker area, (zone 3 - 4 ) flat and dull.
Standard: Like Cinema, Blacks have no detail. Cinema may look a bit better in the dark areas.
Dynamic: Maybe a bit better detail in the blacks? Overall I like Cinema best of these three.
Nature: Blacks crunched here too, but held some detail in the blacks.
Vibrant, no detail in blacks, whites holds detail.
Nostalgic: I hate the yellow. I left it in for the short examples I posted on Vimeo, but removed most of it for the Blu ray clips. On the Blu Ray I can see I could have tweaked it a bit more in the whites, but on the computer monitor, if I removed any more yellow from the mid tones, some of the rocks became an unnatural steel blue. I think this is the most interesting of the modes. I used these clips, http://www.vimeo.com/18937528 as the opening clip in each of the modes in the Blu Ray. My notes say, “best by far in the opening blacks, good detail in middle tones, whites OK. My wife commented on the beautiful colors in the rocks in some of the clips. They did look natural and appealing, and held a lot of detail, but I am not sure they are really representative of what you would see if you were there looking at them. I’ll have to check that.
These notes were written while watching a Blu Ray. I output a ProRes HQ copy and watched it on the computer monitor, and it is pretty much what you see in the Vimeo clips.
My Blu Ray notes say Nostalgic and Smooth are best, probably Nostalgic no. 1 and Smooth no. 2, but get all of the yellow out of the Nostalgic clips. I wonder if I can do this in the WB menu?
-
Local dealers didn't have a GH2, so got to handle a GH1 with 14-42 and also tried a 100-300. For me, size, shape and ergonomics are excellent - probably as small as you can go and still be able use without fumbling. But the electronic viewfinder was not as good as expected and maybe not so much better than that in the Olympus 8080 I used to own - is the GH2 an advance on the GH1 EVF? - I hope so. OTOH, the articulated LCD is excellent. Just waiting now for dealer to get in GH2, 14-140 and 20mm to try.
Just an observation on where we have drifted with camera sizes over the last 40 years. Miniature marvel the GH2 - is it any smaller than the Pentax MX of c.30 years ago? My 5D2 is bigger, I think, than the Fs and F1s of past decades and the "uber-cameras", the 1d and D3 are as big or bigger than most MF of that vintage. But that's not really the point - the benefit of M43 is in the lenses - having a 600mm/5.6 you can hold in the palm of your hand is trully mind-boggling!
-
RE What you see is not what you get ...
Shooting 24p the screen downsizes the images a bit... that's okay.
Shooting 1080/50i the screen upsizes a bit. Also not a problem as far as the screen is concerned. But also the actual video files are uprezzed (vertically). In other words: shooting 24p or 1080/50i results in a slightly different scaling of the footage.
The 1080/50i uprezzed files look quite soft therefore... very odd.
Is that a problem with my camera or has some else discovered the same issue?