Panasonic GH2 Reviewed by Digital Resource Page

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_gh2-review' target='_blank'>http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/p.../dmc_gh2-review</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 (priced from $899) is a hybrid camera/camcorder that uses the Micro Four Thirds standards. It's the follow-up to the DMC-GH1, and it offers a host of new features, including a higher resolution sensor, faster autofocus and continuous shooting, a touchscreen support for Panasonic's 3D lens, and an improved Full HD movie mode."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/dht/auto/1293039182.usr15670.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #d2d2bb;" /></p><p>The Panasonic GH1 is a fantastic but underrated camera, and I am glad to see that the GH2 improves on it. DCResource has a review and the camera does not disappoint. Have a read, and remember that the GH2, unlike the GH1, does not require you to purchase the stupidly expensive 14-140/4-5.8, which was the main reason for the GH1's poor reception. If you are keen on shooting videos and have an actual plan to do so (unlike yours truly who bought the GH1 and has yet to publish a single video), this is a camera that should be in your shortlist.</p>

[Janak Parekh]

I am patiently waiting for this body, but it's still freaking unavailable. :mad:

--janak

[Jason Dunn]

I have to admit this size of camera kind of puzzles me - at this size, wouldn't a DSLR make more sense? DILC/EVIL cameras only make sense to me when they're significantly smaller than DSLRs...

I am patiently waiting for this body, but it's still freaking unavailable.

Interesting - are you looking for an alternative to your GF-1? Or have you outgrown it?

[Janak Parekh]

I have to admit this size of camera kind of puzzles me - at this size, wouldn't a DSLR make more sense? DILC/EVIL cameras only make sense to me when they're significantly smaller than DSLRs... Which SLR would you recommend for, e.g., HD video shooting? With fast silent continuous AF? And as compact as the GH2? With compactly-designed lenses as well?

Interesting - are you looking for an alternative to your GF-1? Or have you outgrown it? The GF1 is fine, and I expect to continue using it, but there are times where I'd like to do serious photography, and the GH2's better sensor, EVF, higher-quality movie mode, etc. are all nice features. Additionally, I now have an investment in m4/3rds lenses (20mm prime, 7-14mm wide-angle, 14-140mm zoom). The alternative would be to invest in a new system... ugh. One system is enough, I think.

--janak

[Jason Dunn]

Which SLR would you recommend for, e.g., HD video shooting? With fast silent continuous AF? And as compact as the GH2? With compactly-designed lenses as well?

OK OK OK...clearly it makes sense to you. Don't get all riled up! :D

...I now have an investment in m4/3rds lenses (20mm prime, 7-14mm wide-angle, 14-140mm zoom). The alternative would be to invest in a new system... ugh. One system is enough, I think.

Good point. In the end, it's all about the investment in the lenses. ;)

[Janak Parekh]

OK OK OK...clearly it makes sense to you. Don't get all riled up! :D No, no, I'm not riled up at all! :) It was a legitimate question. I mean, I drool after the 5D Mark II, but, that thing is freakin' huge and expensive (and doesn't have silent AF, right?). If you have a better answer, I'd really really like to know :)

Side note: the reason I care about video is because I take videos of our a cappella group at work (YouTube - ScaleAbility's Channel (http://www.youtube.com/scaleability) if you are really curious), and so I actually have a need for something the GH2 is supposed to excel at.

Good point. In the end, it's all about the investment in the lenses. ;) Man, I so hate vendor lock-in. :(

--janak

[Janak Parekh]

Update: Jason noticed the Panasonic store is selling the body-only version (with a 7-14 days ship time). Just ordered mine with my company's discount at the Panasonic store. I'm excited to get this new toy, I'll report back when I do. :D

--janak

[ptyork]

Side note: the reason I care about video is because I take videos of our a cappella group at work (YouTube - ScaleAbility's Channel (http://www.youtube.com/scaleability) if you are really curious), and so I actually have a need for something the GH2 is supposed to excel at.

Pretty entertaining. Given the words to the Billy Joel knockoff, I'm assuming you're a Googler in Manhattan and this is a company-based group. Looks like a fun place to work. Color me jealous. ;)

Looking forward to your followup. Especially with regard to AF performance in video.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Company discount. I'm jealous. -.-

The G and GH series are anywhere from smaller to much smaller than a DSLR. Not having the mirror box helps a lot as well. Not to mention you still need to add a lens. Compare the 14-45 vs the 18-55 of most manufacturers, and the 14-140 vs the 18-200s.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Man, I so hate vendor lock-in. :(


You don't have a choice here. Even if there were universal mounts there has to be a new set of lenses due to the much shortened flange distance on a mirror-less camera. :D It's the same quandary Nikon and Canon face, since they'll be effectively selling on their brand name alone if they launch their own mirror-less system.

[Janak Parekh]

Pretty entertaining. Given the words to the Billy Joel knockoff, I'm assuming you're a Googler in Manhattan and this is a company-based group. Looks like a fun place to work. Color me jealous. ;) Correct on both counts! I actually just put up videos from our holiday concert last week, in case you're really curious. :)

Looking forward to your followup. Especially with regard to AF performance in video. Me too! :D The contrast/focus on the GH2 is supposed to be lightning-fast. That's actually one of the less important criteria for videos where we're all standing, but in general, I've found the video-taking utility of my m4/3rds camera to give it a lot more value, and I expect that the GH2 investment will be worthwhile.

--janak

[Janak Parekh]

Company discount. I'm jealous. -.- Yeah :) With discount, the GH2, body-only, is $630 pretax. That's not quite impulse buy, but given that I was almost ready to jump, it was certainly a good enough price to go ahead and leap off the cliff. I also already have the 14-140 lens... and the 7-14mm, and the 20mm. I'm trying, really hard, not to spring for the 45mm/f2.8 prime macro/portrait...

The G and GH series are anywhere from smaller to much smaller than a DSLR. Not having the mirror box helps a lot as well. Not to mention you still need to add a lens. Compare the 14-45 vs the 18-55 of most manufacturers, and the 14-140 vs the 18-200s. Right, although the cost you do pay is that most of the m4/3rds lens, being smaller, are slower. Still, the GH2 + 14-140 is a very compact, powerful combination.

You don't have a choice here. Even if there were universal mounts there has to be a new set of lenses due to the much shortened flange distance on a mirror-less camera. :D It's the same quandary Nikon and Canon face, since they'll be effectively selling on their brand name alone if they launch their own mirror-less system. Well, that's mostly true. You can use Four Thirds lenses on a Micro Four Thirds camera, with some caveats. Wouldn't Nikon and Canon be able to implement something similar?

--janak

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Right, although the cost you do pay is that most of the m4/3rds lens, being smaller, are slower. Still, the GH2 + 14-140 is a very compact, powerful combination.

The two lenses I used in my comparison have smiliar speeds. 18-55s and 18-200s are f/3.5-5.6.


Well, that's mostly true. You can use Four Thirds lenses on a Micro Four Thirds camera, with some caveats. Wouldn't Nikon and Canon be able to implement something similar?

Have you tried adapting lenses from SLR cameras? My goodness they're huge. It generally loses the m4/3s advantage. I tried to use my Tokina 11-16/2.8 as a wide-ish lens of sorts but it was just not a good idea.

[Janak Parekh]

The two lenses I used in my comparison have smiliar speeds. 18-55s and 18-200s are f/3.5-5.6. Right, but with bigger SLRs at least you have the option of larger, faster lenses.

Have you tried adapting lenses from SLR cameras? My goodness they're huge. It generally loses the m4/3s advantage. I tried to use my Tokina 11-16/2.8 as a wide-ish lens of sorts but it was just not a good idea. I didn't say it was a good idea. :P Just that it is possible. But yeah, in practice one will likely never do it unless you already have a specific 4/3rds investment.

--janak

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Right, but with bigger SLRs at least you have the option of larger, faster lenses.



That's really a case of the system that doesn't have enough depth; no reason for m4/3 to not have f/2.8 zooms that are smaller than SLR standards.

[Janak Parekh]

That's really a case of the system that doesn't have enough depth; no reason for m4/3 to not have f/2.8 zooms that are smaller than SLR standards. Doesn't the lens diameter have anything to do with it? I suppose you can make a similarly large lens for a m4/3 camera, but the smaller form factor encourages more compact lens design at the cost of speed. Let's hope Panasonic, Olympus & co. wake up and start making some more speciality fast lenses, because I really don't ever want to maintain two lens systems simultaneously if I can help it.

--janak

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Doesn't the lens diameter have anything to do with it? I suppose you can make a similarly large lens for a m4/3 camera, but the smaller form factor encourages more compact lens design at the cost of speed. Let's hope Panasonic, Olympus & co. wake up and start making some more speciality fast lenses, because I really don't ever want to maintain two lens systems simultaneously if I can help it.



Smaller sensor and lack of mirror box means it is possible to design fast lenses that are smaller. It's really just up to them to make it.

[Janak Parekh]

Smaller sensor and lack of mirror box means it is possible to design fast lenses that are smaller. It's really just up to them to make it. I see. So, the slow lenses are more of a function of going for "mainstream," compact products. Annoying. :(

Our conversation here inspired me to go check the m4/3rds lens chart again (http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/lens_chart.html), which I do on occasion (read: once every week or two), and I did notice something very interesting: for the first time, they've added a third party lens to the list, specifically Cosina's Voigtlander Nokton f/0.95 25mm prime lens (http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/manual.html#i_025mm_f095_cosina). I had heard of this before, but it seems to actually exist now. Reviews on the Internet are actually quite positive; has decent bokeh and the softness and aberration, while there, are not too detracting. It's only an optical connection to the camera, unfortunately, so it's manual-focus, manual-aperture. But, this one is far superior to the Noktor 50mm f/0.95 (http://noktor.com/products.php), which is a repackaged mediocre product with a new mount.

Admittedly, the two aren't a valid comparison anyway, since the 25mm is a much smaller focal length. However, a 25mm fast lens might be okay for indoors, where I don't need to capture fast-moving subjects, or even for portrait photography. That said, I'm not sure it's worth shelling out significant money now, I should probably wait. Cosina themselves have said they're going to release more m4/3rds lenses.

But, grrr, waiting is hard, stupid new-toy syndrome us geeks all have. :D

--janak

[Janak Parekh]

Argh! Now I'm reading about cameras again. Sigh :)

Micro 4/3rds Photography (http://m43photo.blogspot.com/) seems to be an excellent blog, one worth adding to your bookmarks. The author is a fan of micro four thirds, and does very thorough reviews. He's also done some unconventional things, like review some top-notch 4/3rds lenses with the adapter. His writing is very accessible to the casual photographer, like me. I've been reading for the last 20 minutes and I've already learned a few things. His blog post on portrait lenses (http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2010/04/portrait-lens.html), for example, taught me a little as to why longer focal lengths are preferred for portraits, and he compares two different candidate lenses for the m4/3rds cameras.

--janak

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

If you don't mind a manual lens, adapt a lens from a dead system (Minolta MD, Canon FL). Plenty of great glass available for cheap, and adapters are easy to get on ebay.

[Janak Parekh]

If you don't mind a manual lens, adapt a lens from a dead system (Minolta MD, Canon FL). Plenty of great glass available for cheap, and adapters are easy to get on ebay. ... albeit, with a larger lens. So, the argument comes full circle. ;)

--janak

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Sorry, was thinking about your comment on portrait lenses; 50/1.8s and 1.4s are pretty small even adapted. It's the zooms that are a pain.

[Janak Parekh]

Sorry, was thinking about your comment on portrait lenses; 50/1.8s and 1.4s are pretty small even adapted. It's the zooms that are a pain. Yeah - the micro 4/3rds blogger I mentioned reviewed an adapted portrait prime, and while it is not too bad, it's definitely still larger.

But thanks for the tip - I'll look when the lens urge next strikes me. :)

--janak