The light wasn't wonderful yesterday, contrary to the weather forecast so I didn't get much with the Leica 14-50mm f3.5-5.6 D. I will do this better at some later date.
CONCLUSION
There will be no great surprises here as much of it has been said already. This has been less of a review than a user experience. This is not a camera I've been sent to assess and then send back, its a camera I have bought. If I don't like it, I'm stuck with it!
However there wasn't much doubt that I wouldn't like it. There were enough samples around before it even arrived on my doorstep for me to be fairly certain that it would produce excellent results. And so it has proved.
There are often questions on forums as to whether m4/3 can compete with DSLR's. After the GH2 there may be other questions posed. Such as those from DSLR owners saying "Why can't my camera do what the GH2 can?" There is such a breadth of quality features on this new Panasonic camera plus the addition of of some genuinely innovative ones that m4/3 is not struggling to catch up with the DSLR world but has overtaken much of it.
Articulated screen, HD video with full manual control, 18MP multi-aspect sensor, 1 to 1 crop video mode, touch screen control, faster AF, manual focus assistance, great ergonomics, light, small, the ability to use literally 1000's of lenses are some of the features the GH2 can offer. The old criticisms of poor high ISO performance and dynamic range have been addressed with the new sensor and the GH2 can now hold its own in those areas.
Despite Panasonics insistence on including "Intelligent Auto" and those ridiculous pictogram program modes, this isn't a point and shoot, a beginners camera or an electronic toy. This is a serious camera for serious photography and videography.
OK there may be parts of the new menu system that I don't like, but there's nothing I can't live with. Whether the body is up to extended and long term use I can't say. The two GH1's that I have bought have both stood up to whatever I've asked them to do and are still working perfectly, so it is to be hoped that the GH2 will follow suit.
I haven't mentioned the picture quality yet. However from all the previous sections you will have realised by now that I'm very impressed with it. The 16MP files have the "glossy" Panasonic look I like. The sensor does justice to all the lenses I have used on it, producing sharp, detailed images that are a pleasure to look at.
When I first used this lens I was very impressed with it. http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/2009/06/gh1-14-140-lens.html The technology involved in the silent continuous focusing for video and the excellent built in stabilisation were very impressive. As such its a decent kit lens for the GH2. It takes good images and while at no time approaching the quality of lenses like the 20mm f1.7 it performs better for stills than the 14-42mm. The problem with it is its value in low light situations, because of its modest f4-5.8 aperture. It does struggle indoors in low light, and since its a lens optimised for video this does rather make it less useful than it should be. f5.8 at 140mm at a maximum of ISO 1600 on the GH1 meant that when we used it, we often ended up with some pretty murky footage, and we would often switch to the 20mm f1.7 or another fast lens. The GH2 gives an extra stop, allowing video up to ISO 3200, but even this is often not fast enough.
Shooting some video on it with the 1 to 1 video crop mode - EX. TELE. CONV. - it turned into an amazing telephoto - the equivalent of a 700mm in 35mm / full frame terms, but needed a very stable tripod to get good results. To use it like this the continous AF needed to be turned off as the focus hunting is greatly exaggerated. Trying it with the AF on produced unusable results when I tried it.
Lumix 14-42mm
As I suspected this lens is more useful for video than stills. It has the same silent focusing as the 14-140mm and in that respect provides a cheaper, lighter and smaller alternative to the larger zoom. Results for video were pretty good where its shortcomings wide open are less obvious. With the 1 to 1 video crop mode - EX. TELE. CONV. - its capable of quite a long reach.
Olympus 9-18mm and 14-150mm
Both of these Olympus zooms are also optimised for video, with silent focusing and continuous AF on the GH2, though I found that the 14-150mm occasionally struggled to focus in low light. So if you want to use these Olympus lenses on the GH2 for video you don't have to get the 14-140mm zoom.
In many ways the fact that there are now alternatives to the Lumix 14-140mm makes it less the "must have" kit lens than it was with the GH1. Personally I prefer the Olympus 14-150mm for stills. Its lighter and smaller and I think its a sharper lens than the Panasonic, though there's not much in that. If I'm going to do some follow focus work I'll use the 14-42mm since I'm not going to be trying that with the long end of the 14-140mm and hope to get any decent footage.
Video on the GH2
Thinking about the uses of video on the GH2, and in the light of some questions I've been asked via email, there are some things to be borne in mind.
Just how useful video and the video optimised lenses on the GH2 are, is entirely dependent on what you want video for. If you want to use it to produce some decent quality HD video, for yourself or even commercial use, then the GH2 is a great tool. If you are prepared to take your time, use manual focus, prepare well and have a sturdy tripod then its capable of stunning results. If however you want to use it mainly hand held to record family and holiday events in different lighting situations then it may be less useful. The continuous auto focusing feature sounds a great idea but in reality is less so. The constant focus hunting often makes for unwatchable footage. If you're trying to record your childs first steps, "take 2" isn't an option. The "problem" is with the larger sensor. Even the m4/3 sensor is less forgiving in terms of depth of field than the sensors found in compact cameras and video camcorders. On these cameras continuous AF is far less noticeable because most things are in focus most of the time. As such I think they are a better bet for general domestic video use than the GH2 or any of the DSLR or Mirrorless larger sensor cameras.
This is not to say that something like a GH2 can't be used for these purposes. Its just that it needs more care and more thought. Personally I (we) very rarely use the continuous AF, preferring manual focus most of the time. I (we) rarely use slow zooms indoors. I (we) rarely work hand-held, though the Sony A55 is offering possibilities in that area.
Most discussions about video-enabled stills cameras seem to centre around "pro features" like frame rates, HDMI, rolling shutter etc. and less on the usability of these cameras. Most people don't really care about whether their camera shoots at 30 or 25 frames per second, they just want some decent looking footage without having to employ a film crew! To that end cameras like the GH2 may not be the complete solution.
There is a concern that the manufacturers of cameras like the GH2 or indeed the NEX series, the Olympus PEN's and the Samsung NX series, don't really know who they are for. At the moment it seems to be a "lets cover all bases" strategy. Everybody from a compact camera upgrader to a professional filmmaker seems to be the current target market, which is all well and good, but can sometimes result in confusion for a relative beginner. The GH2 is obviously positioned at the top end of this market, with the quality and versatility to tempt any photographer at any level, but it does require an exploration of its possibilities to realise its potential. It can be used as a point and shoot, and it has its share of "micky-mouse" features, but there are simpler and cheaper alternatives if thats what you want. That features like "Intelligent Auto" are included at all shows the ambivalence of Panasonics attitude.
This is very clear with the GH2's video capabilities. These are immense and provide terrific possibilities, however I want to make the point that these very possibilities can make the idea of using it as a simple movie making machine for life recording more difficult than it looks.
Panasonic's great kit lens.
Panasonic DO have a brilliant kit zoom lens for the GH2. Unfortunately its not in a m4/3 mount.
It has lighting fast AF, a useful zoom range, built in image stabilisation and the image quality of a selection of prime lenses.
Its the Leica Panasonic 14-50mm D f3.5-5.6 which was the kit lens on the Panasonic L10 4/3 DSLR. I tried it on the GH2 yesterday and the AF is lighting quick. Being the last (and least regarded) of the Panasonic D series lenses to be made and designed its the most compatible with the Panasonic G series m4/3 cameras. Image quality is superb. Its possibly even better than the 14-150mm Vario-Elmar. Its absolutely brilliant for stills and video and being somewhat overlooked can be picked up at very reasonable prices either new or secondhand, though if you haven't got a 4/3 > m4/3 adapter you need to buy one of those as well. Its bigger and heavier than the 14-45mm and 14-42mm kit zooms but not by much, however in terms of optical quality its in another league to those lenses.
Its the last lens I'm going to testing with the GH2 before doing a conclusion and after that a comparison piece on the GH2 and Sony A55.
Probably my favourite twin lens combination. Lumix 20mm f1.7 and Olympus 50mm f2 macro. Two fast, light, high quality prime lenses. I took them out yesterday as a mild thaw took place and I could spend more than a few minutes outdoors without feeling that various parts of my anatomy were going to drop off from the cold.
LUMIX 20mm f/1.7 PANCAKE LENS
When I first got the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 Nokton and used it on my GH1, I wondered how it compared with this lens, since they are close in terms of focal and speed. I said that I felt that the Voigtlander was slightly sharper, but wasn't really sure. With the arrival of the GH2 I'm not much further along in resolving that issue and have decided that if they are that close then its not really that important.
The 20mm is better wide open, the 25mm is faster. The 20mm has AF, the 25mm is slightly better at optimum aperture. Swings and roundabouts really. I'm happy to have both to use.
OLYMPUS 50mm f/2 MACRO LENS
I used the Olympus lens with Auto Focus. After using it as a manual focus lens on my GH1 it is nice to have the AF function. Though it certainly isn't particularly fast. It goes through this routine of edging ever nearer the point of focus before deciding its there and snapping into sharp focus. Occasionally it misses. Its a frustrating lens in that way and spoils what is an incredible piece of optical engineering. Every shot with AF takes a few seconds to complete, so its not a lens for quick reaction shots.
After using these two lenses yesterday I've even more convinced that the GH2's metering is working in some kind of highlight protection mode. Both the jpg and raw files I'm getting from the camera are erring more towards underexposure than any other m4/3 camera I've used. This is happening in all metering modes. There are occasions when nothing can help such as the shot below, where any sensor would struggle.
But I do anticipate a few less problems with dynamic range using the GH2. It was a concern I had, as the sensor has more pixels in the same space, but Panasonic seem to have dealt with that issue, and certainly the problem is no worse than with the GH1 and from what I see, probably slightly better.
This is a video shot with the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 Nokton lens at f/1.4 throughout. It shows the video 1 to 1 crop mode, EX. TELE CONV. in the menu which creates the movie by restricting the lens that it shoots through to the 1920 x 1080 size of full HD video. This gives you 2 lenses in one. The normal focal length, in this case 25mm and an approx. 2.6x increase, in your lens range for video. (For stills it just reduces the size of the image recorded to 1920 x 1080 pixels.) So for the Voigtlander its a 35mm/full frame equivalent of a 250mm f0.95.
This isn't a digital zoom, its the same quality as the normal size lens would provide. Amazing feature, and as others have said Panasonic don't seem to be making anything of it. Apparently if you use the 100-300mm zoom at the 300mm end you get the 35mm/full-frame equivalent of a 1500mm lens!!!
Some shots with the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 Nokton. Comparisons at f/0.95 and f/8 which I believe is the optimum aperture on my copy. The images are quite big if you click through and view them on flickr. Again, you guessed it, very good, very sharp, especially the f/8 ones.
These are again from the out of camera jpgs. and again they are rather good.
There's a little useful trick for manual lenses on the GH2, you touch the screen at the point you want to focus on, and the magnified view comes up in the EVF or on the screen. Very handy.
These are two sets of ISO tests. Shot at f/8.
This one runs 160, 320, 640, 1250, 2500, 5000, 12800,
This one runs 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, 12800
Both are bigger on flickr.
Just to say that these are good light tests. High ISO results do tend to look worse in poor light, such as dark interiors.
Finally this is an aperture test at ISO 160 f/0.95, f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16
As I work my way through the lenses I use for m4/3 my appreciation for the results that the GH2 produces grows. The above is a montage of the point of focus from various (messy and badly lit!!) shots taken on a tripod using my Olympus 50mm f2 macro lens. "the nearest we've yet found to a technically perfect lens"Dpreview. This is going to sound repetitive, but yet again the camera produced very sharp images. This time I shot jpgs, and the images here are straight from the camera. At ISO 160 these are very good. I'd have to do a comparison but I think that these jps look better than those from my GH1, GF1 etc.
Because of the long exposures needed, between 4 and 10 secs at f8 or f10 there's some long exposure noise reduction kicking in. There was still some slight colour noise that had to be removed, but the images were very good with regard to overall appearance.
Another interesting thing seems to be happening, with regard to dynamic range. I felt that the camera was underexposing some of the shots and I increased the exposure. Looking at them on the screen I did see some burnt out highlights. It seems the GH2 may be trying to produce an exposure from its metering that avoids this. This is an approach that Nikon, amongst others, took to avoid dynamic range problems. This led to some shots looking underexposed on many of their cameras. The idea of protecting the highlights at all costs is not new. If indeed the GH2 has better shadow detail, then this would make sense, as another way for the camera to produce the most usable dynamic range possible. I will investigate further.
Finally, its nice to be able to report that the superb 4/3 lens range that Olympus produce, at last have a decent sized sensor to work with. 4/3 is a dying format. I'm sure the E-5 is a decent camera and Olympus may (or may not) decide to continue with the format, but I think there is no doubt that 4/3 (as opposed to m4/3) is on its last legs. This will leave the 4/3 lens range high and dry. Whether Olympus continue to make them (or indeed are still making them) is open to question. Whatever the case, there is no doubt that they are amongst the best (if not the best) digital lenses ever made. (I must stop putting things in brackets!)
I know that I'm going to be scouting around my favourite second hand dealers to see what turns up. I'd love a 14-35 f2 for example, even taking into account the weight, but finding one at a decent price is difficult. Many people forget you can use these on m4/3, and most work very well. The 50mm macro is just amazing on the GH2. Slow focusing it may be, but the image quality is breathtaking.
ZEISS 50mm f2 Planar
My sharpest M-mount lens. I've often said that I personally don't think its worth it to go out and buy expensive m-mount lenses for m4/3. I've never been sure that the difference is that noticeable over the best of the native Panasonic and Olympus lenses. While by no means saying to anyone, go out and buy m-mount lenses, the GH2 does seem to show up the differences between lenses more than I've been aware of on other m4/3 cameras. I tested the 14-42mm kit lens first, and the more lenses I test, the worse it looks.
The Zeiss f2 Planar has a different look to the Olympus lens. Its a typical M-mount look. Its very sharp but with a smoother graduation between colour. You probably think I'm doing a "kings new clothes" thing here, and its a subtle difference but I do see it. I've put the two montages on flickr quite big, so have a look and decide for yourself if you think I'm talking complete rubbish.
It does again produce very sharp results (Yawn!!) and makes very impressive images. I will be trying some of my Voigtlanders in the near future to see how they perform.
WHATS LEFT? The 20mm f1.7 and the Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 plus some video. Ben and I were going to go out and try the 14-140mm yesterday but chickened out and stayed in the warm! Hopefully that will get done soon. Since the 14-140mm is the other kit lens for the GH2 it should be looked at.
I was sold on the GH2 on day one and I think its a superb and potentially game-changing camera. Everything else is a bonus. This new Pansonic sensor makes ordinary lenses look good and good lenses look great. Great lenses like the two discussed here today look absolutely astounding.
It's been mentioned that I have a certain enthusiasm for m4/3, and that is indeed true. But that enthusiasm is based on the fact that it really does the job. If I don't sell pictures, I don't eat and I don't pay my mortgage, so I wouldn't make the decision to dispense with my Nikon and Canon systems if I didn't think the alternatives I have can do the job. I'm satisfied that they can and as far as the GH2 is concerned it "does the job" very well indeed.
One thing I noticed in my testing yesterday was the different "look" of the GH2 files when imported into Photoshop ACR for raw conversion. They seemed to have a "flatter" lower contrast look. Dynamic range has always been a problem up to now for m4/3, but I think Panasonic have gone some way to improving it.
All the images in this post are converted from raw with all the parameters in ACR in Photoshop CS5 "zeroed out" I've added the histogram to the picture. You can clearly see the headroom at the highlight end. There's a lot of shadow detail too.
As ever exposure is critical here. Its easy to moan about a cameras dynamic range when you either over or under expose, and its really important to get the exposure right to retain the maximum amount of information available in order to work on the file later, where increased contrast and overall "punch" can be added.
Certainly Panasonic claimed that they had increased the dynamic range when they announced the camera and though only using the camera for a day it looks to me like they have.
DxO Mark claim the GH2 has a "worse" dynamic range than the GH1. However I'm extremely skeptical about DxO "results" since they don't offer any examples or say what they are measuring.
As ever I use my eyes for my own assessment. Right from the first picture I took with the GH2 I did notice this lower contrast.
This is of course incredibly useful and deals with one of the problem areas of m4/3. I will be looking at this again as I use the camera more to see if it is as good as I think it is.
Again another great performance. The GH2 plus these two Olympus zooms covers a huge range in a very lightweight package. I think I'm seeing a really good dynamic range in these pictures. The raw files seem to have a lower contrast than I've encountered before with m4/3.
If the 14-42mm is the bread and butter lens here comes the caviar. Beautiful sharp results. Better than I had hoped.
This weather is good for assessing the dynamic range of the GH2 and I think its very impressive. I haven't encountered any highlight burn-out yet. There's also very little CA and fringing on the shots with this lens. I realise that this is far from an everyday lens for m4/3, but its virtually my stock lens and certainly the one I use the most. The only disadvantage is that it seems to focus slower on the GH2 as opposed to the GH1. Strange!
This is real quality stuff. 16MP and 46MB files. There was a rumour that Panasonic didn't really want to increase the size of the sensor and only did so to satisfy the perceived desire of the market for more MP's. Don't believe a word. This is a superb sensor and they should be rightly proud of it. It outperforms many of the APS-C sensors I've used by some distance. Incidentally I processed the following shot in Rawker (dc-raw) software as well as the Photoshop version shown here. It was almost identical, showing that this is a genuine sensor improvement and not some "software fix". Very impressive indeed.
Because of the freezing conditions, I am doing these in short bursts, with regard to my fingers! I'm saving the fiddly stuff with lens changing until it warms up tomorrow - hopefully I can get one more trip in today.
I decided to have a look at the 14-42mm kit zoom for the GH2. This is a new lens for me. I've used a 14-45mm but never this cheaper lighter version.
It's an OK lens. Wide open its pretty ordinary, a little soft with a lack of bite. From about f6.3 onwards it starts to perform much better, and f8 - f10 it produces very good results. Its a decent lens for video as it has a very smooth AF performance but for stills I'm not sure I'll use it much with the GH2. It sits nicely on a GF1 and I will in due course try it out with that.
It would be a real shame if people bought a GH2 and just used this lens with it. As will be seen in the next batch of tests the possibilities that better lenses bring to this sensor make it almost a crime to use this lens alone. However its not as bad as some make it out to be. To my eyes its not that much different to the 14-45mm or the Olympus 14-42mm.
