Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Please, support PV!
It allows to keep PV going, with more focus towards AI, but keeping be one of the few truly independent places.
Taking Pictures with GH2.. need some advice shooting properly
  • 178 Replies sorted by
  • I'm a analogue film man and have not really experimented in RAW that much. The test I'm doing is just the straight JPEG out of the camera. I'm definitely on the hunt for a new lens but not before I experiment to the max with this lens (14-42mm F/3.5 Zoom) and camera in it's basic state. If I don't do this I will never really know how bad or good this lens was. It's just like Vitally Keslev & Nick Driftwood, they have experimented to the max with the GH2's codecs with amazing results, pure geniuses, and I want to adopt the same method with my operation of the GH2. My posting on here of my problems with photo quality issues are just a experiment to see what other people's experiences and opinions are.

  • Like almost everything, every camera had its own way of using. I shot with Panasonic for more than 7 years and still learning new things. I've got first real glass (25mm pana-leica) only 2 years ago. Until this I've shot with kit lenses only. I have 14-42mm and 45-200mm Panasonic lenses. But with better glass came pleasant results and these 2 primes (Leica & Sigma) worth every penny.

  • The kit lens is good for video but not stills. Poor stills Excellent Video. I have to decide between the Panasonic 25mm F/1.4 or 25mm Voigtlander F/0.95 lens I'm going to purchase the 17.5mm Voigtlander F/0.95 lens anyway but undecided about the other. Thanks for sharing your experiences

  • The Voigt is better if you are into manual focusing + video. The Panny-Leica is recommend for mostly stills if you want fast focusing. Works well as a video lens, but less so than the Voigt.

    Also, start to shoot RAW if you want the most out of the GH2. Lightroom is easy to learn - lots of videos on youtube. You don't even need photoshop for most of the work once you get a handle on Lightroom.

  • @T2iRebelvsGH2LOUIS ...

    Straight-from-the-camera jpegs are when using the original camera maker's settings are so often bogusly "juiced" I cannot recommend using them. Your Canon clearly is set for higher saturation and sharpness, giving a "feel" of being a better image ... and your Panny is set more "neutral". For doing anything with them after-the-fact, you definitely would want the settings more like the Panny. With as much in-cam sharpening as the Rebel seems to have, going much above 8x10 inches I would expect you'd start to see the haloing of the sharpening around edges. Not good.

    What that means is you are judging Panny harshly for not pre-cooking the image files as much as Canon.

    With digital gear you do need to learn the gear more ... and how to set the camera up and then to process afterwards. With still images a TON of the original data is tossed when the cam makes a jpeg. That's why raw-capture is so often used, especially by pros. Not exclusively, but ... mostly.

    If you get most image-editing software these days, they can handle raw images just like anything else. You get to keep all the data of the original coming into the computer software, and YOU get to make the choices for contrast, saturation, color balance & tint, sharpening ... and that's a good thing. I use Adobe's Lightroom, but there are a lot of others out there that do similar stuff.

  • My 14-42mm F/3.5 Lens must go. I don't like the lens, especially coming from a background using Nikkor's and Hasselblad Carl Zeiss Lenses These are some shots taken with iA on auto and some all manual shot with incandescent light

    1. GH2 WITH FLASH iA.JPG
    3170 x 2464 - 2M
    2. GH2 WITH FLASH iA.JPG
    2902 x 2205 - 2M
    3. GH2 WITH FLASH iA.JPG
    2264 x 947 - 648K
    4. GH2 WITH FLASH iA.JPG
    1272 x 556 - 284K
    5. GH2 WITH INCANDECENT LIGHT.JPG
    2800 x 1514 - 2M
    6. GH2 WITH FLASH iA.JPG
    2800 x 2127 - 2M
  • Here are some more shots in JPEG. Video reigns Supreme!! way above the JPEG or RAW pic formats of the GH2. This camera can be tuned in to produce acceptable results but I don't want acceptable results I want exceptional results and thought I could get it with the standard kit lens. The T2i Rebel blows it away with it's standard kit lens especially in low light. I'm happy with the video performance but photos.. This is not what I expect from a camera. I will keep the camera for video and purchase another one for photos. It's just a matter of me not liking the quality of the photo tool in the GH2. I simply don't like it.

    11. GH2 WITH INCANDECENT LIGHT.JPG
    2196 x 2659 - 2M
    10. GH2 WITH INCANDECENT LIGHT.JPG
    2074 x 2491 - 2M
    9. GH2 WITH INCANDECENT LIGHT.JPG
    2159 x 2858 - 2M
  • Video reigns Supreme!! With this machine, Vitally Keslev and Nick Driftwood.

    6. T2i Rebel.JPG
    2895 x 2923 - 2M
  • Everybody has other demands. I like GH2 a lot, but I'm shooting only raw and make jpegs by myself. With decent glass it produces great shots. You can see on my sample shots here. I'm shooting up to iso3200 rarely at 6400, but it needs some noise reduction to get decent results.

  • @T2i ...

    You're still comparing the way the two companies set the out-of-the-box jpeg settings and NOT the camera. Excuse me, but that's neither rational nor intelligent. Panny comes from a VIDEO background, where the main goal is to shoot rather flat and produce a file great to work in post. This particular Canon comes from a still-camera background and that model is of their amateur line which ... like nearly all tv's sold ... is set for hyper-saturation and a fair amount of contrast and sharpening because that is how ignorant consumers supposedly compare them. What looks "hot" right now? Not what actually can be set for the best output in the way YOU actually want to see it. Take those Canon jpegs out and print an 11x14 inch from them ... you'll probably find it execrable to look at. WAY too over-sharpened and ... blocky.

    The problem here is NOT the GH2 ... it's the person using it unwisely. Complaining that a Maserati doesn't ride as smoothly as a multi-ton Lincoln town car on a mush suspension and deeply cushioned seats would make as much sense. You've had suggestions as to how to set up and use the GH2 in a way to get the best of it.

    Instead you keep harping that the camera is producing crap. No, it's not. The person using it is. Sorry to be so direct, but if you're going to learn to use these modern tools, you've got to LEARN.

  • @T2iRebelvsGH2LOUIS

    Shoot Raw! Then do whatever you want with the image. I have a friend that did not have a lot of money shoot some really nice stills with a point and shoot camera. This did not impede him from making a very nice artistic brochure for a client. My point is... it is not the camera thats important, it is what you do with the camera that is important.

    I am trying to understand why you would want to shoot jpeg images? Do you want the best possible quality from your stills? Shoot raw then and be done with it! This is for the GH2 and the T2i. You are here on this forum because you purchased the GH2 and want to hack it to provide the best possible video quality. Then why on gods green earth would you choose to not shoot in raw.... it makes absolutely no sense.

    I don't want to come off as brash but rNeil already suggested to shoot in raw and then edit your images. If you are not willing to shoot in Raw why hack your GH2 for video? This is essentially the same concept, if you want the best latitude in post shoot in raw and hack your GH2 with one of the many patches that are available. This will give you the best possible image quality and most flexibility in post. If you do not understand this concept and how this will benefit you then sell the GH2 and by another Canon T2i if it is better suited for your needs.

    I do not use my GH2's for stills (I shoot Nikon) but if I did I definitely would shoot RAW as well. Shoot raw purchase Adobe Lightroom, grey card, passport color checker and be done with it. Purchasing these basic items will help you in getting the most out of your equipment whether it is Canon or Panasonic. If you are on a budget the photo vision digital calibration target is a cheaper way to get proper exposure and white balance and works really good.

    Purchase some good glass for the GH2 and tinker around with RAW images in Adobe Lightroom. I am sure that you will be able to produce very nice clean images with the GH2. The great thing about the GH2 is that you can purchase some really nice glass really really cheap because of the mount. Minolta has some very nice 50mm 1.4 lenses that are very cheap yet produce really nice images.

    If you are not willing to shoot raw, purchase some decent glass, Adobe Lightroom, or other basic essentials then you should just sell the GH2 and purchase another Canon because it will probably be better suited for your needs.

  • Tough words rNeil.. but it's true. Maybe I wouldn't say it as tough. I've ruined great amount of my shots before I've finally learned how to use these cameras properly and still getting some shots ruined.. It took some time to test things out and find right combination of tools (sw & hw) that work for me the best.. And I'm still open to new things as an enthusiast.. :) And still meet people that think that I'm a noob for using mirrorless because it doesn't spit out these oversaturated jpegs stright from the camera.. But in the end they admit that my results are outstanding compared to their overpriced Canons :) Even my brother is one of those Canon positive people and trying to convince me that m43 isn't wise choice, but our results are pretty similar instead of fact, that his 6D with Tamron 18-55mm F2.8 and Canon L 70-200 F4 cost more than twice as my 2 GH2s with 4 lenses (14-42, 45-200, Leica 25mm F1.4 & Sigma 60mm F2.8). It's just not worth this huge price difference for me to get very similar results. Only thing that his 6D knows better is it's very low light capability but to be honest, how often do we need to shoot at ISO12800+? For me it's very very rarely.. I rather bring some more light and have better resolution and DR over high ISO with lower DR and resolution.. and of course noise :)

  • @JOFO

    I learned a long time ago from those who were best at teaching me (I'm as stubborn as you're going to find) that the best way to get something across is normally just ... say it. Learning a digital camera's habits, faults, and strengths takes a bit of work. Not even a lot ... just a bit. But first, you have to listen to and learn from those trying to help you. Not ignore them and keep whining about the same wrong thing. So, yea, I might say things rather directly.

    I've got a D3 sitting here. That thing's got the most amazing stills files of any cam I've used. Realistically even outdoes the negs I produced with our RB67 Pro-S 6x7 cm medium-format film. And I'm shooting an mft and feeling that yea, for the most part it does just fine, even compared to the wife's new D600 Nikon's 20+ mb files.

    Because ... oh yea, I'm using what the camera can do. Had to learn that. I look back on our first couple digital cams and how we made and worked those files and shudder.

    If you learn a little bit about how they work you can take images or footage from both GH2 & GH3 and make 'em do hand-stands. D800 stills at 60" long-side prints? No. Shoot at 6400 as clean color-wise as a D3? No. Nearly everything else, you're good to go.

  • The panny 14-42 isn't a great lens, my copy is softer at the long end as well, but having shot with the comparable kit lenses from Nikon and Canon I have to say that i dont think they wouldn't have produced a more pleasing image in the same situation when shooting with a pop up flash. Actually, it doesn't matter if you are shooting nikkors, L series, Zeiss, etc., shooting direct in someone's face with a pop up flash and not fixing your white balance is going to look bad all of the time.

    Not bothering to shoot in raw is like not caring where you had your film processed.

  • You can get very crisp images with the GH2. I took this is all manual mode, with a 20mm pancake lens. Adobe Camera Raw for post processing. The detail in the shrubs blew me away. I initially thought my T2i took better pics as well, but it's just a matter of finding out what works best for each camera.

    https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t31/1618239_10100886683541091_1497744476_o.jpg

  • No!!!! I'm not comparing the way the two companies set the out-of-the-box jpeg settings. I'm just sharing my experiences taking pictures with a GH2 and not being happy with the results. I don't think you have been reading my posts properly because if you remember, I said that THE GH2 is the SUPREME CAMERA shooting video & THE CANONT2i REBEL SUPREME in photo shoots. That states my opinion on both cameras and my experiences with them. I'm on this sight to learn and share my experiences with others, which I think is a clever thing to do because one can learn and may be get the results one is looking for. I do know (without post productive work) that I do not like the character & quality of the JPEG on the GH2 and much prefer the Canon T2i Rebel. Did you know that I was blown away when I saw the JPEG quality that came out my partner's T2i Rebel that I bought her 2 weeks ago. Why are you telling me what I already know about >>> your comment (Panny comes from a VIDEO background, where the main goal is to shoot rather flat and produce a file great to work in post. This particular Canon comes from a still-camera background and that model is of their amateur line which ... like nearly all tv's sold ... is set for hyper-saturation and a fair amount of contrast and sharpening because that is how ignorant consumers supposedly compare them. ) I'm not ignorant and know all this. I also know that the complete picture quality cannot be judged until one has put the JPEG or RAW file through post. I speaking of the quality straight out of the camera, Just like my Old Nikon F3, MAMIYA RB67, HASSLEBLAD 500 ELX & CM did. With the GH2, Effort is required to get good Photos where as with the Canon Rebel it's effortless. Replying to another comment of yours >>>> (Canon jpegs out and print an 11x14 inch from them ... you'll probably find it execrable to look at. WAY too over-sharpened and ... blocky.) I've done that last week from a T2i Rebel and the print was good.. Not perfect like a post production print but a damn good start. When I take the GH2's JPEG OR RAW file and print them the GH2's print Blows it away. I am not at the stage of complex post productive editing and have only a basic editor which I don't really use. The Point I'm trying to make is the Lack of quality that comes straight out of the GH2. I going to purchase a Canon For my stills and keep my treasured GH2 for my video. I've taken on board the suggestions given to me and are thankful for them. You don't get my point. I'm not complaining nor have I got a problem. I'm expressing my opinion and experiences using this GH2 for shooting Photos. My Kit lens are going soon so I have taken advice from people, well that's a start. You got a bit personal and touchy with your message. I'm on here to learn and not argue with people and I will learn. I do agree with you that the camera is not producing crap. The person using it. The T2i produces the still images that I like right now straight out the camera. May be at a later date that may change, only when I change my lens and get involved with post work on my files. Thanks for your opinion, that's what I'm on here for

    T2i Rebel JPEG No post Normal domestic incadecent light.JPG
    1648 x 3120 - 2M
    GH2 built in flash and a liitle post.JPG
    1769 x 1474 - 939K
  • What I have noticed with both cameras is the GH2 does not perform well in Low light e.g. given the same natural light conditions and same camera settings the T2i beats the GH2 hands down. Throw light on the subject and the GH2 comes to life while the T2i Rebel shines

  • Your message to me is very interesting and has made me think. You miss read me When I said the camera produces poor results straight out of the camera compared to the T2i Rebel. I was not comparing the potential post work or changing lens etc.

  • I'm a video enthusiast having purchase this camera after doing lots of research, and now really interested in the potential capabilities of the GH2 stills

  • The way I look at, the camera manufactures Give us several formats to choose from and the still formats that interest me are JPEG & RAW and I believe that a camera such as the GH2 should give me reasonable quality JPEGS & EXCELLENT RAW and I haven't been able to bring this out the camera YET!!! But not giving up. I've just started a journey and am going to see it through. I know the bad qualities of direct built in camera flash. I covered my flash with a small white hanky to diffuse the light and make it less harsh

  • That image is incredible you sure that's not a Carl Zeiss lens? LOL

  • Just going to chime in with my 2 cents on GH2 stills. With 3 years of experience, and as I ready myself for the GH4 (had GH1, GH2, skipped 3) I can say that undoubtedly the GH2 can take wonderful pictures, but there is a caveat. The automatic settings such as iA and Program mode are not good.

    Obviously, they're all based on logic, but the logic the GH2 (and the GH1 did too) for what shutter speed to use as compared to what ISO is very poor in my opinion.

    I would much rather have a higher ISO than shoot with a shutter speed of 1/8 or even 1/20 of a second. I'm fine with the GH2 noise up to 3200 ISO, but in iA it doesn't go above 1600, and only does 1600 in low light situations when the shutter is already very slow.

    Using the 14-140 lens which is quite slow leads to lots of situations like this where you're already working at a disadvantage.

    90% of my stills taken indoors (with a smart M4/3 lens) are shot with the Shutter Priority mode. I find I get much better results when I handle the shutter my self. At least early on in this thread, that would help the user a lot.

  • @T2iRebelvsGH2LOUIS

    In terms of Jpegs straight out of the camera I think Canon and Sony did a great job considering the demographic that they where targeting. If you are not interested in shooting RAW it is absolutely essential to make sure that you nail your exposure and white balance. The image will be baked in and will look like shit if you attempt to mess with it in post. I am not saying that it can't be done, it just all depends on how far off you are on your exposure and white balance etc.

    In terms of what you prefer for the overall look, different strokes for different folks. So if you are happy with the way that Canon looks straight out of the camera, use the Canon for stills and the GH2 for video. Personally, I do not care for the still imaging from the GH2 and this is precisely why I do not use it for stills. I am not saying that GH2 sucks for stills, its just that I have a better tool for stills (Nikon Full Frame) so I prefer to use that instead.

    @T2iRebelvsGH2LOUIS If you really want to get nice consistent results, you will need to invest in some of the essential tools that are necessary to achieve this.

    1. Calibrate your monitor= Color Munki Display is reasonably priced. Essential to accurately gauge color.
    2. Photovision digital calibration chart= This will be very helpful for you because it includes a DVD that explains how to properly use this tool as well. Essential tool for basic exposure and white balance.
    3. Get some decent glass= Fast Primes & Zooms!

    The essential tools listed above will help you with Photography/Video and IMO is actually probably more important when shooting video because we are dealing with 8bit 420 with very little room for error vs RAW for photography.

    Best Regards

  • @T2iRebelvsGH2LOUIS ...

    Have you modified the maker's pre-built settings for JPEG production on the GH2? You've not said anything that would lead us to assume you have. Those settings are easily changeable and while I'm not going to say that the GH2 would definitely be equivalent in your eyes at least try to get the cam set up right for JPEG creation.

    If you have ... would have been nice if you'd said so.

  • Regarding the outdoor shot on the previous page, isn't f8 getting into diffraction territory on most m43 lenses?

    You might want to try the older 14-45 kit lens as it is generally considered a bit sharper than the 14-42.