The "GH2 revisited" report

[Paulo Bizarro]

Thanks Michael for this report. As it is common in this site, I found it very "down to earth", and without all the "noise" that abounds in other places. Specifically "discussion noise" about, well, noise, undiscernible differences in image quality, etc, etc.

For the past two years or so, I have been following the development of micro 4/3 cameras with interest. They seem to strike a correct balance between ergonomics and capabilities, with "good enough" image quality for my requirements. I have wet my feet with the GF1 plus 20mm pancake lens (a fantastic combination). I have now progressed in my plunge, and bought a GH2 with the 14-45mm lens.

After getting more experience with micro 4/3 system from Panasonic, I expect to be selling my Canon DSLR system.

[DaveCurtis]

Yes, a great follow up review.

The area that really interests me is the development of the EVF and the future of prisms and mirrors in the full frame DSLRs.

[uaiomex]

If it only didn't look like a down-scaled reflex camera. Its silly looking! It's like partnering with a naive wannabe
Eduardo

Yes, a great follow up review.

The area that really interests me is the development of the EVF and the future of prisms and mirrors in the full frame DSLRs.

[rkissinger]

Hi!

I had hoped Michael would comment on the fact of AEB framerate being limited to the slowest framerate of the GH2 (3 vs. the 5 it is capable of).

That at least for me is a major bummer and I can't believe almost no one seems to be bothered by it...


Cheers,
Rene

[Dick Roadnight]

If it only didn't look like a down-scaled reflex camera. Its silly looking! It's like partnering with a naive wannabe
Eduardo

You might just as well say "if only a Hasselblad looked like a scaled-up Nikon"... presumably they are targeting SLR users who are accustomed to that "classic" shape? ...or people who want to get the "street cred" of using a DSLR without the crap wide angle performance, mirror slap blur and noise, low flash sync speed...

The solution to this dilemma is to buy a GF2 as well, using the same set of lenses.

[michael]

Hi!

I had hoped Michael would comment on the fact of AEB framerate being limited to the slowest framerate of the GH2 (3 vs. the 5 it is capable of).

That at least for me is a major bummer and I can't believe almost no one seems to be bothered by it...


Cheers,
Rene

Why is this a major bummer? I can only see an issue if there is movement in the frame and you're shooting for HDR blending, and even then you're likely to have some subject blur even if it could do 10FPS.

The bigger issue to my mind is that AEB only allows a maximum of 1 stop increments, forcing one to do a 5 stop bracket for HDR shooting. A three step 2 stop option would have been most welcome.

Michael

[Pelao]

Thanks for the update Michael. Good to know the stills quality is so useable.

I have had my GF1 for just over a year and am impressed with the opportunity it offers. I will admit to being disappointed in Panasonic's decision to remove the great manual controls in the move from GF1 to GF2. Glad they have kept them on the GH2.

[rkissinger]

When doing e.g. street photography with situations arising quickly, I like to have the possibility to just frame and shoot fast 3 image bursts without worrying too much about exposure (...and during a workshop with Jay M., he said he does it too, so I am sticking with it).

I know I am still not getting the exact same shot 3 times, but with a 5 fps camera I am getting close (had the 1ds Mk III, know 5fps for me do work). With DSLRs this is a no brainer. If the camera does 5 fps, they will do that in AEB mode as well (as lonng as the shutter speeds do permit it).

If on a 5D Mk II the framerate in AEB mode would drop to 1 fps instead of the 3fps I guess some more people would complain.

The GH2 has become faster in almost every respecet, but the AEB mode hasn't become any faster than on my GF1.
If someone tells me this limitation is a technical one, then I may just accept and decide if my MFT system is worth keeping. But I suspect it is not and more likely a design flaw (or marketing decision) and I don't get why no one is complaining about that...

Cheers,
René

[michael]

With all due respect to my friend Jay Maisel, if you're shooting raw there is simply no need to shoot a bracket except in the most extreme circumstances.

If you're shooting JPGs, then I would have to ask – why are you shooting JPGs?

Michael

[uaiomex]

Exactly. I've said it before. If you shoot raw, you don't need 1/3 increments. It's overkill. It crowds and complexes the visual readouts.  1/2's would do it.
Eduardo

With all due respect to my friend Jay Maisel, if you're shooting raw there is simply no need to shoot a bracket except in the most extreme circumstances.

If you're shooting JPGs, then I would have to ask – why are you shooting JPGs?

Michael

[rkissinger]

With all due respect to my friend Jay Maisel, if you're shooting raw there is simply no need to shoot a bracket except in the most extreme circumstances.

If you're shooting JPGs, then I would have to ask – why are you shooting JPGs?

Michael

No, of course I am RAW shooter. And that's only one of the many valuable things I learned from you over the years!

I don't want to argue who needs what function and capability of some piece of equipment. If it's only me that would like to have the camera shoot faster in AEB then so be it.

Anyway, do you have an idea if there's some technical reason for that behaviour or one can hope it may be improved in future firmware releases or new bodies? Or maybe an there is an upside to the slow AEB that makes some people actually want it that way?


Kind regards,

René

[deejjjaaaa]

The bigger issue to my mind is that AEB only allows a maximum of 1 stop increments, forcing one to do a 5 stop bracket for HDR shooting. A three step 2 stop option would have been most welcome.

GH2 sensor is noisy at base ISO, by going 5 1EV spaced shots the right software can better denoise it vs 3 2EV spaced shots... and 7 2/3EV spaced will be even better for NR

[John Camp]

GH2 sensor is noisy at base ISO, by going 5 1EV spaced shots the right software can better denoise it vs 3 2EV spaced shots... and 7 2/3EV spaced will be even better for NR

You must have an extremely sensitive eye for noise. I see hardly any below 800, and even at 800 and 1600, it's like a one-click cleanup in LR3.

[deejjjaaaa]

You must have an extremely sensitive eye for noise.

you must have an extremely insensitive eye for noise by the same logic

I see hardly any below 800, and even at 800 and 1600,

"see no noise, hear no noise, speak no noise" 

it's like a one-click cleanup in LR3.

the mere fact that you can apply NR in raw converters or postprocessing does not make sensor less noisy...

[Peter McLennan]

Not much on the GH's video capabilities.  I believe that the GH2 uses a sensor similar to, if not identical to, the new and exciting Panasonic AF100.

More to come, Michael?

[michael]

I've already written extensively on GH2 video so there was no point repeating it in the new review. The links are in the recent article.

I am told that the sensor and support electronics are quite different between the GH2 and the AF100.

Michael

[Roy]

I would like to know more about how the GH2 compares with the GH1 in still image quality (IQ).

The DxOMark tests indicate that for stills the GH1 is at least as good as the GH2, if not better, in SNR, dynamic range and tonal range. Yes, the GH2 has more megapixels, but they are smaller and more noisy. When downsampled to the same image size, IQ is about the same although the GH1 has a slight advantage. At native resolution, the GH1 has measurably better IQ.

For me, a stills photographer thinking of upgrading from a G1, a used GH1 body looks like a better deal than new GH2 body and may even give better results.

[jaapb]

I am told that the sensor and support electronics are quite different between the GH2 and the AF100.

When pixelpeeped vs AF100 the GH2 appears to do a bit better:

http://www.eoshd.com/content/549-Panasonic-GH2-AF100-pixel-peeped-AF100-loses

Now we don't want to do that do we  

Jaap

[bg2b]

The DxOMark tests indicate that for stills the GH1 is at least as good as the GH2, if not better, in SNR, dynamic range and tonal range. Yes, the GH2 has more megapixels, but they are smaller and more noisy. When downsampled to the same image size, IQ is about the same although the GH1 has a slight advantage.

Based on my own testing, I'm not sure that they didn't do the GH2 a minor disservice by testing at ISO 200, 400, etc.  From looking at the RAW histograms, it seems like the higher native ISOs are 320 and 640, and in terms of DR (where there seems to be most difference in DxO's tests) I get numbers that would fall a hair above DxO's GH1 line on the print chart.  I didn't measure beyond that, since ISO 640 on the GH2 is already slightly beyond unity gain.  I don't have a GH1 to do my own comparison though, and you shouldn't necessarily trust my measurement technique.

In any event, yes, the GH1 sensor overall is probably a touch better in what DxO measures IF you get one that doesn't have banding issues (later copies reportedly give better odds).  The GH2 gives you a small resolution advantage instead.  If you only care about stills, the GH1 at its current bargain prices is a steal.  I went for a GH2 as an upgrade from my G1 because I wanted the better video and the extra AF speed.

[feppe]

A bit out of topic, (not too much) but it's noticiable that with the incredible success of Panasonic, I'm asking about Olympus. After all, they where at the origin of the format but Pana is getting the laurels.
Is Olympus still alive commercialy? 

Barely. They had an awful year financially by any metric - or more accurately, Olympus's consumer imaging division did. They haven't had a major camera release in well over a year, although have had some very well-received incremental upgrades and minor releases with E-PL2 and ZX-1, but it's too early to say if the hype converts to profitable sales. It seems these days people expect a major release every six months, which is a tough standard for small manufacturers.

Nevertheless, they're expected to announce a new "pro" level MFT body and lenses in first half of this year, probably with a new sensor. I'm upgrading my E-PL1 in a heartbeat as long as it delivers on most of the expectations (EVF, better IQ sensor, better ergonomics, keeping IBIS and weak low-pass filter) as that would make the already almost perfect carry-around camera even better.

I'm betting Olympus sells off their camera division this year, probably waiting after a successful (?) launch of the pro system.