Panasonic GH2

[vaphoto]

Greetings;
Michael has been posting on the "Home Page" a lot in nice images taken with the GH2 and the 14-140 kit lens. Is this camera considered a good choice as a backup for the Leica M9 and for macro and telephoto use? Also, is the 14-140 one of the best lens choices? The video functions may be something I will learn to use, but not my primary concern. I have been looking at the GH2 body with the 45-200mm, 20mm, 45mm macro and M-lens adapter.
Thanks
Bob

[deejjjaaaa]

Michael has been posting on the "Home Page" a lot in nice images taken with the GH2 and the 14-140 kit lens.

if you will apply some extra NR to suppress the noise or downsize/print to hide the noise... GH2 has a noisy sensor.

[David Watson]

I have one of these as my holiday/walkabout camera and I have the 14-140 lens. I normally shoot with a Hasselblad H4D-50. At normal iso's the quality is amazing for a small sensor camera.  The lens is very sharps at medium apertures and I have noticed any significant noise problems.  Given its price and specification I think that you will find it a worthy and useful backup to your M9.

[deejjjaaaa]

At normal iso's the quality is amazing for a small sensor camera.

for amazing quality you need to go to Sony sensors... fast CDAF (120 readouts/sec) does not come for free... so if you just move the NR sliders to the left :

original, unresized, screencopy = http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/4816/gh2crap.jpg

[NigelC]

Sorry, slightly unrelated question on GH2 - what is miniimum effective tripod option that fits in with small, portable ethos of camera. Will be using 9-18, 14-140 and 20  (if I get a 100-300 I'd use a beanbag) - would Gorilla pod work?

[DaveL]

I've had my little tripod for 35 years. Leica tabletop. Large Leica ballhead. I'm glad I have it; works as a chest pod for me, more often than a table top 'pod.

It's a lot more expensive now than then. ebay may be a choice.

[Joop van Houdt]

Hi Guys. I've got the GH2 together with the 14-140 and 14 pancake.
The camera is very good, not as good as my Canon, but for a camera this size very good.
It's asmall, light, fast, good viewfinder, nice screen, good menu.
Sensor is noisy indeed, but with the right treatment no problem. Don't sharpen in LR. Just NR there.
See for yourself, specs (iso/lens) under the image:
http://defotograaf.smugmug.com/Other/PANASONIC-GH2-with-14-140/15195398_Gv9TP#1172015461_bP6dT

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... so if you just move the NR sliders to the left : original, unresized, screencopy...

So what are we supposed to see?

[deejjjaaaa]

So what are we supposed to see?

noise

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

noise

I thought that is what are you driving at... but there is no visible noise there, for all practical purposes, other than a bit of chroma. There is a reason that every RAW converter has a slight amount of chroma noise reduction as default (e.g., 25 for ACR).

Now, it might have been slightly more impressive if you posted the same shot taken with your no-noise camera of choice, side by side, for comparison.

And yes, I understand that your level of perfectionism and my level of perfectionism most likely differ, as well as the definition of "for all practical purposes", but the bottom line for me is the file you showed as "noisy" is not noisy in my book. And even if you would persuade me, using whatever scientific measurement, that the file is noisy, it would not matter for me much, if at all, as I consider this noise-phobia highly overrated (i.e., a reasonable amount of noise isn't usually such a big deal as the noise-phobs and pixel-peepers want us to believe)

[deejjjaaaa]

I thought that is what are you driving at... but there is no visible noise there, for all practical purposes, other than a bit of chroma. There is a reason that every RAW converter has a slight amount of chroma noise reduction as default (e.g., 25 for ACR).

try something like K5/D7000 w/ NR sliders off at base ISO

And yes, I understand that your level of perfectionism and my level of perfectionism most likely differ, as well as the definition of "for all practical purposes",

no perfectionism - the sensor is just plain noisy @ base ISO... optimization for video and fastest CDAF (w/ 120 samplings per second for CDAF purposes) makes it worse for stills... exactly the same story happened w/ Samsung... when Samsung decided to go NX route their 2nd generation sensor (Pentax K7, NX-series) being more optimized for video and faster CDAF was actually a worse performer than 1st generation (Pentax K20D) for stills...

but the bottom line for me is the file you showed as "noisy" is not noisy in my book.

I posted an example - everybody can click it to see @ 100% and decide for yourself... I have the camera and I use more NR there vs for example Sony sensor based cameras... or you can use such noise hiding tricks as printing (printing hides the noise) and viewing the whole image at once from some convenient distance - that does not change the fact that sensor is noisy - it just says that you can find some ways to hide or ignore that noise... I really do not care that planet Earth is actually a "geoid" (or whatever is the name for that shape) and not a flat piece of rock, but that does not mean that it is not a "geoid"... so the same is for noise - you can ignore it in your "book" for your own purposes, but that does not change the fact.

[Jim Pascoe]

I have just acquired a GH2, partly for its video and partly because it will go on a two week cycling trip with me soon.  Today I used it a bit shooting a school stage production of Bleak House.  My other cameras there were a 1DS mk3 and a 5D mk2.  They were all set to ISO 3200 because I was shooting in available light.  Now of course the two Canon cameras were much better in the noise department than the GH2, but the images from the GH2 were quite acceptable.  My old Panasonic G1 would have been hopeless by the way.  The noise cleaned up well in Lightroom though the Canon files did not really need much in the way of noise reduction.  I also had fast prime lenses for the Canons to hand, plus a 70-200 2.8.

The autofocus kept up even in such dim conditions, only the lack of a fast lens stopped me shooting more with the GH2. (I do have the 20/1.7, but not with me today).

The point is, it may be a relatively noisy sensor, but it is still pretty good.  Did I mention the fact that the video I also shot at the same performance was excellent, even at 3200, and the camera weighs next to nothing.

I seem to remember from my old navigation training that the Earth is described as an 'Oblate Spheroid'.  That was about 30 years ago though and it may have changed since.

Jim

[NigelC]

Was well set on GH2/14-140 + 20 and Olympus 9-18 as walk around/travel set, leaving 5D2 for when have specific purpose, but new Canon 600D with vari-tilt LCD has given me pause for thought. If I was north of 50% video/50% stills, the GH2 is still stand-out option, but I see my use as 10-20% video max. 600D plus 18-135 is slightly bigger than GH2/14-140 and about 200 gms heavier. I'd keep my 50/2.5 macro as 600D/50 would be lightest available light (sort of) option, although obviously portrait rather than slightly wider than standard. I'd have to get Canon EFS 10-22 and that for sure is distinctly bigger and heavier than Oly 9-18. However, I can see all sorts of walk round options  such as 10-22 + 50, or my existing 17-40 +50. Key benefits are better APS-C imge quality, lower noise, compaitibilty with EF lenses and cheaper option, assuming 600D pricing not too far above 550D (it can't be or would bump into 60D). Also can't bring myself to sell my mint 300/4. For occasional wildlife work, 600D + 1.4 + 300 = nearly 700mm! - and save £500 on new Panny 100-300 (yes I know it weighs a lot more!)

Anyway, just my take, if video is your primary thing then I can see GH2's continuous AF is a decisive feature. BTW 600D seems to have something similiar to the extended focal length of the GH2 in video mode.

[John Camp]

And yes, I understand that your level of perfectionism and my level of perfectionism most likely differ, as well as the definition of "for all practical purposes", but the bottom line for me is the file you showed as "noisy" is not noisy in my book. And even if you would persuade me, using whatever scientific measurement, that the file is noisy, it would not matter for me much, if at all, as I consider this noise-phobia highly overrated (i.e., a reasonable amount of noise isn't usually such a big deal as the noise-phobs and pixel-peepers want us to believe)

As I've found out (somewhat to my amusement, but occasional frustration), there's almost no possible way to "win" this argument. The other side simply ignores you. We recently had a long article on MF cameras in which "quality" is essentially defined as resolution. Deejjjaaaa says the camera is noisy, and maybe it is, and maybe it isn't -- I wouldn't know -- but I do know that by the standards set out in either the MF article or deejjjaaaa's comments, virtually no photograph widely agreed upon as "great" by other photographers, critics, museums or collectors would be even marginally acceptable. I just looked at a terrific collection of Edward Weston photographs which would be laughably soft -- and even out of focus! gasp! to say nothing of "noisy"!-- by these standards. All of this is just another example of doing architecture commentary based on which carpenters used the sharpest saws.

JC     

[flaxseedoil1000]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/46756347@N08/

That's a GH2 w/ 14-140mm and it's jpeg

Correction, that's a GH2 with the cheaper panny 45-200mm with the LC55 close up lens attached.

[deejjjaaaa]

but I do know that by the standards set out in either the MF article or deejjjaaaa's comments, virtually no photograph widely agreed upon as "great" by other photographers, critics, museums or collectors would be even marginally acceptable.

what a lame argument - nobody is talking about the greatness or lack thereof of the photos - we are talking about the sensor, it is noisy... now you can take great photos w/ it, but it still does not change that fact that the sensor is noisy and nowhere not only the current generation of Sony sensors, but even not near the previous generation and the gap is much more than can be attributed to the small difference in the die area - it is clearly a sign that Panasonic, like Samsung still can't touch the Sony level technologically.

[BFoto]

Don't sharpen in LR. Just NR there.

Why not?