The GH2 is the latest micro four-thirds (M4/3) camera to be released by Panasonic and is the most advanced model in the line-up. I don’t own one, but my neighbour Nik does; and the day after he brought it home from Hong Kong, he lent it to me for two days. Personally, if I had just purchased a new camera I would not lend it to anyone; so big thanks to Nik for letting me play with it.
The main reason he lent it to me was to let me try it out as a sports camera, specifically by trying to capture polo action. More on that later; but just to note that the two days I had to play with it coincided with a need to use another camera to photograph polo matches, so my GH2 time was limited. So don’t expect a detailed review with image comparisons; just some feedback from someone who has a GF1 and a sports-oriented camera and has made a rough comparison between them and the GH2. If you are thinking of getting an M4/3 camera, maybe this will help; maybe not.
So, here it is:
First negative point, at first glance it looks very similar to every DSLR churned out by the likes of Canon and Nikon. There is a bump in the middle for the mirror-box, which is rather unnecessary because it doesn’t have a mirror; and the overall feeling is that Panasonic could have done much more to make the camera aesthetically pleasing.
Still, while it may share the looks of a DSLR, it maintains the M4/3 ethic by not sharing the size. The GH2 is tiny compared to my 1D, and not much bigger than the GF1.
It’s light too; so unless you have a fetish about being able to stuff your camera in your pocket, the GH2 can be a lightweight and compact companion.
Image Quality The GH2 has a new sensor, sporting 18 megapixels. How many of those pixels you get to use depends upon the aspect ratio you choose to shoot.
This diagram from Bjorn Utpott, a talented M4/3 photographer.
But with a sensor that is almost the same physical size as the GF1’s 12 megapixel sensor, there is a concern that stuffing more pixels onto the sensor would increase noise and decrease quality. Fortunately, this is not the case. Those that have properly tested the camera report an improved dynamic range (the ability of the camera to show shadows without dissolving into noisy mush, and manage highlights without giving up and just displaying white) and an ability to use higher ISOs with less noise. Which means that, at low ISO and with a scene that does not have a wide rang of light and dark areas, you will notice no difference between the GH2 and GF1 image quality; or with the quality of output from many other cameras. What will make a difference is the quality of the lens and, more importantly, the quality of the eye of the photographer composing the photo and choosing the light (that means you).
Still, it’s good to know that the GH2 is potentially “better” when it comes to IQ, whilst giving us more pixels to play with.
The Viewfinder
Unlike the add-on that is the rather crappy GF1 viewfinder, the viewfinder in the GH2 is built in; and it is very, very good. In bright sunlight it is a little darker than looking through the viewfinder of a DSLR; but in lower light, all the way down to party -time mood lighting, it provides a fantastically clear and bright view of the scene you want to photograph.
As you change settings it adjusts the view to show the image you are going to make if you press the shutter; and seems to do this more accurately than the GF1. The zoom-in feature for manual focusing gives a much crisper image, which makes manual focusing even easier than before; plus you have the usual options to display information such as the histogram in the viewfinder. Overall, one more nail in the coffin of the “look through the flapping mirror” concept of the DSLR; the future is definitely mirrorless.
The Screen
The screen on the back of the GH2 is articulated, which meant it did not take long for she who must be obeyed to realise she could turn it round and take composed photos of herself (is it just Thai women who love to photograph themselves?). Very useful for composing when on a tripod, and of course it supports the usual zooming in and information display options.
Press a button and the screen displays information regarding the shot you are about to take. From here, you can change settings (dial in some exposure compensation perhaps), without having to initiate other controls. Again, especially useful if you are shooting on a tripod.
But wait, there’s more. When in preview mode, you can touch anywhere on the screen to move the focus point around. MUCH easier than having to slide the point around with control buttons; it’s an instant and precise change of focus point.
But wait, there is even more, a real “bloody hell, that’s clever” feature. Change an option in the menu. Now, when you touch the screen, the focus point is moved to the point you touch, and the camera focuses to that point and takes a picture. And it is fast, really fast. Touch, click, photo! Yes, I know your mobile phone can do this; but not at lightning speed.
This is a perfect feature for stealthy street shooting, no need to put the camera to your eye to choose a focus point and shoot; just open up that screen and make that photo collection of beach road hookers (they do not like being photographed, I have tried). The GF2 has the same feature and I might have to revise my original dismissive stance. Stick a small lens on the GF2 and get out on the street for some real candid shots.
Speed
I already mentioned that the touch screen shot is quick, but normal shooting is even quicker. The focusing mechanism on mirrorless cameras has traditionally been slower than a DSLR; which means slower shooting. Not any more. The GH2 matches or is even quicker than the shooting time of a DSLR. For practical purposes, it is instantaneous. Having said that, I never feel slowed down by the reaction time of my GF1.
Video
I don’t do video, and if I did I always assumed that I would use a dedicated video camera. But there appear to be a substantial body of people who shoot video with what appear to be still cameras. Canon and Nikon DSLRs now do video, and some of the output indeed looks spectacular. But then, along came the Panasonic GH1 and it became the standard for camera video. The GH2 improves upon the GH1 and, according to those who pontificate on these matters, it is now the new benchmark for taking video. It does proper HD video in a variety of formats with stereo sound and if it were part of a bee, it would be the knees. So if you want to make videos and take photos, this is the camera to buy.
Action shooting Given a relatively static subject and a M4/3 camera such as the GH2 will give you fantastic photos. But how would it cope on the polo field? Not very well is the brief answer.
The problem lies in the focusing technology employed by mirrorless cameras such as the GH2. Ask them to focus on something and they will do so, quickly. But ask them to track an object as it moves at speed and capture focus when the shutter button is pressed and they become much more reluctant.
My Canon 1D can track a polo horse across a polo field, continuously calculating where the horse will be when it makes the image (which is a slightly different place than where it is at the instant I press the shutter). It is also continuously checking exposure; and will happily handle ten shots a second. This means cofirming focus and exposure, lifting the mirror, opening and closing the shutter and dropping the mirror back into position so I can look through it; all in one tenth of a second. Amazing technology which comes at a high cost and in a machine that weighs as much as a house brick.
The GH2 struggles to track a running horse. On continuous shooting it manages a couple of shots before deciding it needs a rest. The success rate is low, but when it works it produces acceptable images.
If you want to use GH2 focus tracking to follow your kids jumping around, or for the occasional action shot; then it will do the job. But if action is a substantial part of your photography, then you are still going to need to embrace the weight and cost of a DSLR.
Should you buy one? Or more importantly (to me), should I buy one? I love my GF1, but would be happy to upgrade to an M4/3 camera that offered more pixels (stock libraries love more pixels) without degrading IQ, an integrated viewfinder and an articulated screen. That’s the GH2, and there is nothing to dislike about it, apart from the price which is substantially higher than a GF1.
But…..but, and it shouldn’t really matter, but it does; the GH2 looks like a small DSLR in my hands, when what I want in my hands is something that looks like a rangefinder. I have a feeling that either Panasonic or Olympus are going to produce such a beast in the next few months and I am going to wait. Anyway, any spare money I find in my pocket currently seems to be disappearing on lenses.
And should you buy one? Yes, of course you should. Unless you mainly shoot sports; in which case, shoot less sports and buy one anyway.
Comments 🔗
2010-12-14| Billy the Brush saysDear Sir or Madam,
I write to complain at your organ’s recent transmogrification into a photography fanboy magazine.
What happened to Hello Kitty, coffee machine innards, the Honda birds, your wife’s pussies and her pretty sister and all those ones that made me laugh and cry, usually at the same time, with the self deprecating and sardonic humour that are your trademark? I miss when the hardware was incidental to the stories rather than the focus (sic).
On behalf of exactly myself, dare I ask for just a little more text and a little less on widening your aperture?
Yours aye, Billy
2010-12-14| Billy the Brush saysPS and more golf please
2010-12-14| Spike saysDear obviously Madam,
Thank you for your bitching which has been duly considered and discarded.
On a more positive note, I am pleased to advise that the editor and staff are planning a golfing special which will see us focus (sic) on the sticks and balls of the magnificent game of golf.
2010-12-14| Billy the Brush saysAh, excellent news … well done. I myself will be in Pattaya playing golf with some like minded afficonados in April, however please don’t wait ..
2010-12-14| Jamie in Phuket saysThanks for the review… and the most telling comment “I am going to wait”. There’s always a better one just round the corner.
2010-12-25| Kevin Pettitt says“And should you buy one? Yes, of course you should. Unless you mainly shoot sports; in which case, shoot less sports and buy one anyway.”
Thanks for a good chuckle. And for a good writeup of your experience with the camera shooting action. I’ve been looking for someone to address that question with the GH2 for quite a while so this was very helpful. In my case I’d like something that can handle kids’ soccer games while doing a good job at the usual variety of stills and video. I probably will get it considering 5 yr-olds don’t move as fast as polo horses.
2010-12-25| Billy the Brush saysWill my Canon lenses work with it … he said in clear expectation of the wrong answer ..
2010-12-25| Spike saysYes. And that is the right answer.
2010-12-25| Spike saysBut you might not want to stick fat Canon lenses on such a small camera.
That’s the right answer too.