The long awaited DPreview of GH2 is finally posted: http://dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgh2/
Niels
Niels
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
GH2 review (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter njlarsen
- Start date
Very interesting indeed. I wonder whether some features will creep into the FZ series after a while. I still like that compactness more. Though they have started to "blow it up" a bit as well. But it's mainly the fact that everything works with the same (albeit limited) lens that makes the FZ series so attractive for me.
I have just received my GH2. It is still too early to say much about how it works, but one thing that dawned on me after I ordered it: for same angle of view and distance (equivalent length in mm) I will have less depth of field. That means that more often, not all of the bird will be in focus at the same time.
But it is definitely much faster on acquiring focus and taking the shot, so much so that single shot almost is as good as burst mode in the old FZ18.
There are still lots of things I have not figured out how to handle yet.
Niels
But it is definitely much faster on acquiring focus and taking the shot, so much so that single shot almost is as good as burst mode in the old FZ18.
There are still lots of things I have not figured out how to handle yet.
Niels
Let us know in due time about your experiences, please. That faster focus and reaction is definitely a great plus. I have only recently started to use the burst mode more often. I think it was because of discussions here. Need to get used to sift through the many similar looking pictures though. And I'm not good in throwing out decent shots, even when they are almost identical.
I use ACDSee to organize my photos, and recently also to do some of the editing (after switching to the pro version). In there, there are a couple of tools that help:
compare, allows you to have two images side by side on the screen, and to scroll one side through a series while the other is constant, to see if any of the others are better than the one you keep, and
give numbers 1-5 to indicate relative quality. (I rarely use this second one, I can never remember if it is meant to be 1 for best or 5 for five stars
)
Who cares how many photos you have of a bird as long as you can find them o
Niels
compare, allows you to have two images side by side on the screen, and to scroll one side through a series while the other is constant, to see if any of the others are better than the one you keep, and
give numbers 1-5 to indicate relative quality. (I rarely use this second one, I can never remember if it is meant to be 1 for best or 5 for five stars
)Who cares how many photos you have of a bird as long as you can find them o
Niels
Here is an example illustrating a couple of things (and these are very early days, I will probably be able to do a lot better in a while when I know more):
One, the small DOF compared to a superzoom (fz18): the flank is in focus, but the head is not.
second: the much better iso performance: this was 2000 iso, f5.6 with 1/250 s at 300mm (600 mm eqvivalent). The first attached image is an untouched jpg directly out of the camera except for resizing. The second is a crop of the same image. Both have seen no additional sharpening or noise reduction beyond what the camera have done.
I will start play with Raw when I get more time.
For some reason, this was taken using white balance of Sunny even though it was not; I have made no attempt at correcting that on this jpg.
cheers
Niels
One, the small DOF compared to a superzoom (fz18): the flank is in focus, but the head is not.
second: the much better iso performance: this was 2000 iso, f5.6 with 1/250 s at 300mm (600 mm eqvivalent). The first attached image is an untouched jpg directly out of the camera except for resizing. The second is a crop of the same image. Both have seen no additional sharpening or noise reduction beyond what the camera have done.
I will start play with Raw when I get more time.
For some reason, this was taken using white balance of Sunny even though it was not; I have made no attempt at correcting that on this jpg.
cheers
Niels
Attachments
Another (better) photo with the new camera: http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/359390/limit/recent
Niels
Niels
One more example uploaded yesterday: http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=359657
So far, I have set the iso to auto with limit to 3200, and use shutter priority at about 1/400. I have so far only used the out of camera jpgs, RAW conversion is somewhere in outer space as far as I am concerned (but I save as jpg + RAW so I can learn Raw conversion later).
There is noise in the higher settings of iso, but the noice I am seeing is much nicer than from the fz18. This last image I did not do any further noise reduction, down-res took care of most of it.
I need to play some more with NR, sharpening, etc settings
Niels
So far, I have set the iso to auto with limit to 3200, and use shutter priority at about 1/400. I have so far only used the out of camera jpgs, RAW conversion is somewhere in outer space as far as I am concerned (but I save as jpg + RAW so I can learn Raw conversion later).
There is noise in the higher settings of iso, but the noice I am seeing is much nicer than from the fz18. This last image I did not do any further noise reduction, down-res took care of most of it.
I need to play some more with NR, sharpening, etc settings
Niels
kristoffer
Used Register
What lens do you use Niels? There is a 300mm for this system right?
There is a 100-300 mm zoom from Panasonic and a 75-300 mm from Olympus (without IS as that is built into the camera body of olympus cams) if I remember correctly. I have a pana camera so the Pana zoom was my choice. (and I complement with the 14-140 mm, which is rather heavy but does a good job of the shorter FL).
Both of the photos that have been uploaded was with the 100-300 at close to 300 mm (the heron definitely at 300). Remember the 2x crop factor for m4/3 cameras.
Niels
kristoffer
Used Register
Yeah I know, It makes the 300mm very useful. Please let us know how you like it further on!
Interesting color of this Blue Heron. Are they really this blue on Dominica? From those I saw in Panama and Florida recently, it would seem the bird is "too blue to be true". But sure a most attractive shot! I must add that the birds I saw were either adults or had much more white with just very few bluish/dark feathers.
The adult bird attached here is from Florida. A straight jpg picture taken with my FZ35.
Attachments
Your bird is a full adult. They do, however, start out completely white -- this one was caught somewhere in the middle of the process of changing its feathers to the ones you know. The effect of bluish-gray feathers seen through white ones, combined with the shadow in the setting it was photographed in means that the photo is not far off of the color that I saw while looking at the bird through bins. It would definitely have looked different if caught out in the sun.
Niels
Edit: just noticed you were aware of the color change
Niels
Edit: just noticed you were aware of the color change
There are likely to be more images uploaded as I get time, look at http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/7427 with intervals.
When I am ready to make more conclusions, I will post here; as of now I only have a grand total of just more than 300 shots with this camera
Niels
Thank you for the interest!
I thought I should share a few more shots. If I get around to it, then I will upload some to the gallery later, but attached here are some shots that does not really fit with that:
The dive boat was photographed handheld at 300 mm, iso 160 (the base iso), 1/400s. The guy in the blue T-shirt is a family member, and on the full size crop, I would say that he is recognizable for us who knows him.
The flower was shot with the 14-140 at 140 mm and near minimum distance (listed at 0.5m/1.64ft), f=9, other details as above. It looks like it is a lens that is doing quite well, at least at close focus.
The solitaire was photographed inside the forest on a reasonably sonny moment, and the bird was way too dark (iso 3200, 1/400, 300mm handheld). I therefore lightened the image quite a bit, cropped about half the picture out, and resized: I did on purpose not use either sharpening or noise reduction on this image, which is based on the out of camera jpg. Using NR and sharpening would probably have helped, and using the corresponding RAW image might have helped even more, but I chose to show that even straight out of camera, iso 3200 is usable. (none of the in camera settings for sharpening of NR have been changed from default).
Niels
I thought I should share a few more shots. If I get around to it, then I will upload some to the gallery later, but attached here are some shots that does not really fit with that:
The dive boat was photographed handheld at 300 mm, iso 160 (the base iso), 1/400s. The guy in the blue T-shirt is a family member, and on the full size crop, I would say that he is recognizable for us who knows him.
The flower was shot with the 14-140 at 140 mm and near minimum distance (listed at 0.5m/1.64ft), f=9, other details as above. It looks like it is a lens that is doing quite well, at least at close focus.
The solitaire was photographed inside the forest on a reasonably sonny moment, and the bird was way too dark (iso 3200, 1/400, 300mm handheld). I therefore lightened the image quite a bit, cropped about half the picture out, and resized: I did on purpose not use either sharpening or noise reduction on this image, which is based on the out of camera jpg. Using NR and sharpening would probably have helped, and using the corresponding RAW image might have helped even more, but I chose to show that even straight out of camera, iso 3200 is usable. (none of the in camera settings for sharpening of NR have been changed from default).
Niels
Attachments
The locust in this image also illustrate the point of less depth of field compared to superzooms. I have other photos where the eye is less in focus and the side above the second leg is better focused.
And then to think that some photographers complain of the DOF being too large in cameras with this sensor compared to Nikon/Canon cameras 8-P
Niels
And then to think that some photographers complain of the DOF being too large in cameras with this sensor compared to Nikon/Canon cameras 8-P
Niels
I agree Niels, the quality is very convincing. Love the sharpness both in the Bougainvillea flower and in the locust. And the 3200 iso is surprisingly good!
Thank you Robert,
I feel I see a definite improvement in quality, even in good light and much more so in bad light.
One thing I have not mentioned is about the picture of the solitaire: I tried repeatedly to get other photos with it sitting on other perches. My inability to do so was solely myself using too much time on finding the bird on its new perch, so that it had moved on; when I did get on, the camera focused very well (and fast!) even in the semidark forest. I usually want to half press - had I gone the whole way to snapping a photo every time instead of using my old habits, then I would probably have had more photos of this one
Niels
I feel I see a definite improvement in quality, even in good light and much more so in bad light.
One thing I have not mentioned is about the picture of the solitaire: I tried repeatedly to get other photos with it sitting on other perches. My inability to do so was solely myself using too much time on finding the bird on its new perch, so that it had moved on; when I did get on, the camera focused very well (and fast!) even in the semidark forest. I usually want to half press - had I gone the whole way to snapping a photo every time instead of using my old habits, then I would probably have had more photos of this one
Niels
