Pana GH2 several questions (1 Viewer)

I have just been on a birding trip where I got severely challenged by the low light abilities of my FZ18. As a replacement I am contemplating the GH2, which seems to fit the bill with size and weight relatively well while having an improved high iso performance compared to what I have. Am I correct so far?

Next question is what about lenses? the 100-300 would be a must, and I hope it holds up in sharpness etc. But what else? The 14-42 seemed to disappoint according to DPreview, while the 14-140 which I have seen as an alternative kit lens did get OK press. I like to be able to take insect pictures with my current setup, would the combination of 14-140 and 100-300 serve me well there? Would I need another lens for macro?

thanks for any comments and thoughts

Niels

I considered this route too but according to DxOMark, the GH2 actually has slightly worse HIGH ISO performance than the older GH1! And with the new 100-300mm zoom the camera is not that small either. I actually think you would better off with a new Nikon D3100 and 70-300mm, which would be close in weight and size and considerably cheaper.

I understand that the cheaper G2 has a better video performance and slower auto-focus than the GH2. I've no idea what its ISO performance is like. I assume that it's the auto-focus that may be the sticking point. However 4/3 rumours - which is usually pretty accurate - claims that Panasonic will soon bring out a G3 which appears to be pitched somewhere between the G2 and GH2. It probably won't have better ISO perfomance, but who knows? I'd wait to see its specification before I got anything,

RJM said:

I considered this route too but according to DxOMark, the GH2 actually has slightly worse HIGH ISO performance than the older GH1! And with the new 100-300mm zoom the camera is not that small either. I actually think you would better off with a new Nikon D3100 and 70-300mm, which would be close in weight and size and considerably cheaper.

Click to expand...

I see two problems with going the nikon route: 1200g vs 900g (nikon version of 70-300), and less reach (corresponding to about 450mm vs 600mm).

It is concerning if the iso is not great; however, I saw a photo by a GH2 with 1250 iso that was much better than I could do with my fz18 at 400, so even then the GH2 would be a step up for me.

I have been wanting never to have a SLR again due to the weight, and my current camera at 450g is perfect in that sense. For that reason, I do not want to step up by much.

Niels

Here is a review that says that if you include the whole processing into the equation, GH2 is actually better in signal/noise than GH1 (quote: In comparison with the GH1, and despite the heightened resolution, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 has improved significantly in terms of signal/noise ratio. A fine performance, and the answer to the higher expectations that we had of this camera. According to our findings, there has been an improvement of a minimum of one stop, which is a fine achievement. The dynamic range has also been improved throughout the whole ISO range. The new algorithms and the Venus Engine FHD have displayed their merits.)

Niels

I had asked this question about the g series, which was the best one with regards to the high iso sensitivity, and was recommended the gh2, I just wish I could actually go and buy one....

Hi
I have been thinking about GH2 with 14-140 and the 100-300mm for compact size. Theres a videos on utube GH2 + G Vario100-300mm (comparison with EOS 7D+EF400mmF5.6L) - fixed lens unsuprisingly appears sharper, however the lumix gear appears ok when size/weight considered. Coments suggest the lumix white balance maybe an issue on this clip. Link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPG_OoWXJxo&feature=related. Hope this is useful.
Andy

Stfulmar said:

Hi
I have been thinking about GH2 with 14-140 and the 100-300mm for compact size. Theres a videos on utube GH2 + G Vario100-300mm (comparison with EOS 7D+EF400mmF5.6L) - fixed lens unsuprisingly appears sharper, however the lumix gear appears ok when size/weight considered. Coments suggest the lumix white balance maybe an issue on this clip. Link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPG_OoWXJxo&feature=related. Hope this is useful.
Andy

Click to expand...

I have not read the comments but based on your post I looked at white balance. In the first example, the 7D looked too blue, the GH2 looked better to my eyes. The second example the reverse. A later example (white egret, not sure of which number) I would have preferred the GH2 with the 7D too blue.

Thanks for sharing, and if doing stills, I would probably be using RAW on both cameras (except that several programs are able to correct white balance also on jpgs, so it depends on what else you demand from your camera).

thanks
Niels

GH2 Questions

Niels go for it.

If I can share my experience. I started with the FZ1 in 2003. Upgraded to the FZ30 in 2005. In 2008 I was ready to move on again and was considering a Canon or a Nikon. When I dug into it I realized that switching to a camera with inter-changeable lenses you are committing to manufacturer's (rather large) lenses. I also could not understand the obsession with full frame and the need for a mirror. Shortly thereafter Panasonic announced the GH1

The GH1 came out too late for a trip I was planning so I decided to wait for the new model. The gH2 was announced in the fall of 2009 but with a release date in Canada of fall 2010 I did not want to wait and bought the GH1 and the 14-140 in march last year . I rationalized that I could always use the 14-140 on a future upgrade.

Although the FZ30 took good pictures in good light I immediately noticed a depth of colour in the GH1 that was not present in the FZ30. This shot of an American Robin for example would not have looked as good if taken with the FZ30.

http://rustyblades.smugmug.com/Natu...-of-the-World/15414769_Fiyot#1155225972_5HYbW

I do not like changing lenses so the 14-140 is perfect for travelling. I recently added the 100-300 for birding and am very pleased with it. As you point out high ISO is essential in some situations. The gH1 is very good to 400 and gves a usable 800 to 1600 in certain situations (inside buildings for example where the subject doesn't move and you can use a slow shutter speed). Birds move so you need a high shutter speed so more ISO

This shot for example is ISO 800
http://rustyblades.smugmug.com/Trav...stern-European/12406484_WTRxX#887570435_my3h3

This one is 1600
http://rustyblades.smugmug.com/Trav...y-5-6-Budapest/12407781_PZwXd#894904020_PmLwS

This last one is interesting because it was so dark in this part of the church you could not see any detail in person. The detail and colour came out on the photo.

I will not get the gH2 but will rather wait for the next upgrade which may or may not be a DSLR shape. The only reason I bought the GH1 was the viewfinder. If a future GFx comes with a viewfinder I'll take the smaller form.

Paul

Thanks Paul,
I have to get back to this post later, seems that smugmug is down at the moment (or don't like my location).

Niels

Paul,
today smugmug seemed to be ok, I could at least see your pictures! Thanks for that.

One additional question: the 14-140 was at least one place I looked written as less sharp than the 100-300, but is sounds to me like you have been happy with it? Have you tried any of the shorter lenses?

Secondly, also on the 14-140, have you tried photos of insects etc, how does it work for you on close ups? and if you have tried, same question for the 100-300? I like the telemacro mode on my FZ18 which allows me to focus at around 1m/3ft with maximum zoom and therefore take a picture covering about 8cm / 3 inches across, and am wondering if either of these two would give an opportunity for something similar.

thanks
Niels

I do like the 14-140 but it is not as sharp at 140mm as the 100-300. It is however an excellent lens for travelling.

I have used the 14-140 for insects and flowers. I used my FZ30 in the same fashion as you do with the FZ18 using the macro setting for the lens. The FZ30 was actually better at this for two reasons. 1. closer focusing distance of about 150 mm vs 450 mm for the 14-140. 2. The FZ 30 had greater depth of field so more margin on the area in focus.

With the GH1 and 14-140 combo I seem to get better results if I keep the zoom at about 100 and then crop. This typically yields a better picture than shooting at 140 and less cropping. This combo works well for flowers and butterflies. I haven't shot too many insects. I've put some samples up at the link below. The focus on the praying mantis may be suffering from the lens being too close. The flower is an example of shooting at 95mm and then cropping. You can see the pollen grains.

I haven't tried the 100-300 on insects yet. It'll be a few more months before they re-appear in this part of the world.

http://rustyblades.smugmug.com/Natu...as-Macro-Lens/15591192_u2Wgc#1168169995_wFvh7

Thanks to everyone who answered my questions in several threads. I have now pulled the trigger, and am waiting for the 1 month delay necessary because of where I live (getting someone to carry the stuff down to me).

Niels

Thanks for starting this thread which has clarified several issues for me as I've been thinking along the same lines as Niels (who, I just realise, is in Portsmouth Dominica, not the original in Hants UK which explains a opaque soccer comment I made elsewhere to Niels - apologies). Although I'd like to pretend otherwise, I think the GH2 is beyond my means and I'll probably go for the G2 (or G3 when its specs eventually appear) with a 100-300 lens. The 14-140 lens seems the obvious adjunct to a set-up primarily aimed at getting bird photos. However, I'm also pondering a second option - a Samsung EX1 to take w/a photos, flowers,insects etc. instead of a second lens for the G series camera. With creaking knees (and preference for not lying down on wet grass!) a flip screen is an important consideration and, in all honesty, the relatively 'poorer' image of the smaller camera isn't a huge problem. As far as I can see the pluses would be - a) not having to change lenses, b) instant access to w/a camera, c) less weight more easily portable than an additional lens and d) a more discrete option in towns/villages. (it might also give me a digiscoping option when I don't want to take the larger camera). Even though this would, I think, be a more expensive option, I find it an attractive one,

Thanks John,
no problem with the misunderstanding of the Geography. My answer on that other thread was based on American football (the one played mostly with the hands ) -- I have lived in Wisconsin, so am a fan of Green Bay Packers :-O

Niels

PS: my wife has for a good while been happy using the Canon G9 for general photography and close ups. She is getting a little frustrated with low light performance of the camera lately, so we will see where she goes after this. I think the newer G-series have flip screen, but I am not sure what the cost will be for you.