[Macworld]

Post your comments for Review: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 camera here

[urbanplanner]

Thanks for the review! Do you mean to say that this beats the 5DMkII in subjective video quality?

PS: The "Video Test" footage says "Sony Cybershot" in the voiceover—I think you have your footage mixed up!

[JohnMFlores]

Good review. Many of the points are spot on. And while the GH2 lags behind the current dSLR leaders in terms of still image quality. It is very good. In my experience, it is on par with dSLRs when the light is good but lags a stop or two when it isn't. In other words, it's more than adequate for people viewing on screen or producing 8 x 10 prints (and maybe even larger).

Here are some resources for folks interested in the camera:

Real world samples on Flickr: www.flickr.com/groups/gh2/
My blog documenting my transition from a dSLR to the GH2: www.whatblogisthis.blogspot.com/search/label/GH2

Thanks again!

This post has been edited by JohnMFlores: 10 March 2011 - 08:59 AM

[david247]

As urbanplanner said, the audio on the video says Sony Cybershot. I think you linked the wrong videos.

urbanplanner, the GH2 is considered by some to have some of the finest video, if not the finest, of all hybrid cameras. Do keep in mind that while the 5DMkII excells at still images and is possibly the best full frame digital (35mm equivalent), video is more of an add on, and while good is not fully optimized. Panasonic has done an exceptional job with the video on the GH2. 1080p video is roughly comparable to a 2 megapixel still image in single frame quality. So all hybrid still cameras in effect must process down the sensor image. Therefore quality is video quality is effected by the camera processing. At the moment, the GH2 is at the top of the heap in video quality in general terms. However and I haven't yet seen any good comparisons yet, I suspect the 5DMkii may excell at extreme low light shooting, besting the GH2 in that area.

One other currently unique feature I didn't see mentioned, is the extended telephoto mode of the GH2 in which instead of processing down the full usable 16 megapixel sensor area for 1080p video, it instead uses a much smaller, approx 2 megapixel area in the center of the sensor, eliminating the need for in camera processing. Of course this means that (in 35mm terms) the focal length is further magnified, from the 2X that is normal for a 4/3'rds sensor by an additional 2.8x on top of the 2x. So the 14-140 lens, has a normally equivalent field of view of 28 to 280 lens, compared to a full frame DSLR, in the extended mode you multiply that an additional 2.8x allowing the GH2 to use only the central portion of the sensor for a true 1080p HD video without in camera processing, but the effective field of view (compared to 35mm full frame) is then that of a 78.4 to 784mm lens. These multipliers apply to all lenses used.

I am sure that Canon and other mirrorless and DSLR hybrid camera produces will be improving their internal processing algorithms though to equal or even try to improve upon the GH2. That is only to be expected. But for a short time, the GH2 does have a slight video advantage. Of course many users and viewers may not notice the differences.

[leicaman]

david247, on 10 March 2011 - 09:01 AM, said:

As urbanplanner said, the audio on the video says Sony Cybershot. I think you linked the wrong videos.

urbanplanner, the GH2 is considered by some to have some of the finest video, if not the finest, of all hybrid cameras. Do keep in mind that while the 5DMkII excells at still images and is possibly the best full frame digital (35mm equivalent), video is more of an add on, and while good is not fully optimized.

I use the 5D Mark II at work. I've shot a lot of stills and video with it. It's a spectacular camera for the money. But for still images, it's not the best full frame camera. The 1Ds Mark IV is better, and the Nikon D3X (which I have used and have seen other people's work with it) is clearly the best of breed. Nothing short of a medium format digital camera beats the D3X for still images.

This post has been edited by leicaman: 10 March 2011 - 09:15 AM

[Heather Kelly]

david247, on 10 March 2011 - 09:01 AM, said:

As urbanplanner said, the audio on the video says Sony Cybershot. I think you linked the wrong videos.

These are the correct videos. The audio clip of our editor talking is just to test the audio recording quality of the camera. You will hear the same audio in every video test we post. Our lab is actually in the process of swapping it out for a different, less confusing clip.

[stoneinapond]

"No optical viewfinder"

That's a strange negative. The camera is mirrorless. That's the point. That's like complaining that an electric car doesn't have a gas engine.

And while it's bigger than the "Pens" of the world, it is remarkably small for what it is.

Pictures need a little post processing help, but video is stellar.

One big point is missing, especially for the videographer. The ability to use a vast supply of vintage glass (which can be found quite cheaply) with the correct adapter.

[tmoynihan]

@everybody Sorry for any confusion with the video audio track. As Heather mentioned, it's just a consistent sample audio track we use to test the audio pickup out of each camera, and the mention of a specific product is confusing. We're changing it soon.

@urbanplanner Unfortunately, the 5D Mark II release predates our subjective video testing. From what I've seen, the 5D II captures great-looking video, but the GH2's video excellence goes beyond the quality of the video itself. The GH2's touchscreen controls while shooting, lack of a recording time limit, in-camera trimming, and the adjustable LCD are all features that you should try out, if you can.

@stoneinapond You'd be surprised at how many comments I get regarding optical viewfinders (mainly, the lack thereof on most current digital cameras other than DSLRs). Those who love 'em love 'em, so I try to mention whether a camera has one or not in every review.

It's also relevant in terms of whether someone would consider this camera as an alternative to a true DSLR. Just wanted to make clear that an optical viewfinder is one of the main tradeoffs for a lot of people, and the fact that this camera doesn't have one may not be clear by looking at a photo of it, as it does have an eye-level EVF.

Vintage glass is a definite benefit, but not really a competitive advantage to a video-capable DSLR, which generally doesn't even need the use of an adapter to handle legacy lenses.

[fudfud]

"You'd be surprised at how many comments I get regarding optical viewfinders (mainly, the lack thereof on most current digital cameras other than DSLRs)."

Sounds like a lack of viewfinder is the issue, not optical vs electronic viewfinder. I to don't consider an EVF a CON.

I will never buy another camera that doesn't have a viewfinder, I hate trying to compose pictures in bright light with only a rear screen. But the solution is an EVF. How was the quality of the EVF? I keep holding out for a more pocketable camera with EVF that has either a fixed lens and is very compact, or interchangeable lenses.

[macfevre]

I'd LOVE to buy one. In fact, I've been looking for one for a month now! When, pray do tell, will they be available in the States? It's great to do a review on a product, but it's not so great if that product is not available.

[urbanplanner]

@stoneinapond: Great point about the vintage glass. Seems to me that this is the best, optically sound way of using Canon FD lenses at a fraction of the price of comparable new lenses.

[kimaldis]

But an f4-f5.8 lens? That's insanely, ridiculously slow. I'm not even sure I could work with a lens that slow. In fact, you can't even buy a decently fast lens for any of these cameras. Why is that, when they're priced as they are?

[kimaldis]

"That's a strange negative. The camera is mirrorless. That's the point. That's like complaining that an electric car doesn't have a gas engine."

No it's not. A viewfinder is a perfectly reasonable request on any camera that claims to be serious and there's a few compacts out there with them. It doesn't have to be TTL but a camera needs a viewfinder. It's a serious omission on these cameras.

[MikeForbus]

fudfud, on 10 March 2011 - 12:50 PM, said:

"You'd be surprised at how many comments I get regarding optical viewfinders (mainly, the lack thereof on most current digital cameras other than DSLRs)."

Sounds like a lack of viewfinder is the issue, not optical vs electronic viewfinder. I to don't consider an EVF a CON.

I will never buy another camera that doesn't have a viewfinder, I hate trying to compose pictures in bright light with only a rear screen. But the solution is an EVF. How was the quality of the EVF? I keep holding out for a more pocketable camera with EVF that has either a fixed lens and is very compact, or interchangeable lenses.

The quality of the EVF is outstanding. I even wear glasses and find it superior to some optical finders I've had in the past. It has excellent resolution and brightness.