kirk

I too have had the odd strange noisy recording, with my unhacked GH2. The slightest underexposure is punished hard. I recently had to shoot a white church surrounded by trees and with a dark red structure in the shadow on one side, lots of contrast on a bright sunny day... First take was perfect when viewed on a big screen... I had centered the histogram as best I could. But fearing the white wall was burnt through I made a second shot just a tad on the dark side... the dark red wall was now unbelievably noisy. This was while I still used the flat Nostalgic setting. Following a tip recently, I now use the Vibrant setting of all things, get much less noise trouble and files come much closer to the final look I want, reducing grading to a minimum...

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1346918979' post='17427'] That's what I do: When I wake up my GH2, it starts at ISO 1600. If I want i.e. 320, I go 1600→ 800 → 400 ↓320. Did you dial down the saturation to -2? And: I know I'll be getting stoned for that, but most of the colored-noise-issues simply don't show up with standard firmware. [/quote] Which is one reason why I shoot un-hacked B) Now ducking... And I'll have to read up on the ISO issue again...

My understanding of the ISO issue was that you'd better avoid the top line??? Or arrive from one step above?

Oh I'm not easily bruised on my contentment! Having had my GH2 drop to the tarmac on saturday (clothing opening the quick release...) I promptly ordered a replacement GH2 without hesitating for a second. And now the repairman tells me they can probably fix the damage easily, so I'll be the content owner of two :-) I didn't even try to be annoying... just sensed that you not really were in the GH* camp, and that you probably would feel more at home with the heavier calibers :-) I'm not a "you're either with me or against me" kind of person.

Beneos, if you don't like the size, price and "toylike" appearance, why even bother? Sounds to me like you'll just continue to find reasons not to go M4/3... Get a Canon or Nikon if that makes you happy. And let content M4/3 users be content...

Frank, I bought a GH2 (replacing one I accidently dropped on saturday :angry: ) yesterday from Scandinavian Photo. Some European dealers still have a few if you search a little

[quote name='ilariobiraghi' timestamp='1346554416' post='17129'] Well, 800$-camera with a 10K$-lens? Perhaps! But f/0,95 is out budget for me ;). Anyway, what do you exactly mean with «low light [...] done with care»? Without light panels, evening or indoor natural light only is always critical - I think - for low-light nuances (not just a bright candle in a black field). Thx [/quote] 10K$?? 1000 $ is more like it... I'd rather spend money on lenses than cameras, actually. The GH2 plus a f/0.95 is still way cheaper than the 5DIII. I love my heavy Zuiko 4/3ds 11-22mm like a baby. By done with care I simply mean choosing the right picture mode and exposing carefully using the histogram. Here are two 1600 ISO shots at f/2.8, first with the rather noisy Nostalgic setting, the second with the Vibrant setting, which works best for me in low light. Both places were so dark that it was difficult to se the buttons on the camera... No Neat noise removal. [media]http://vimeo.com/47927412[/media]

You are wrong about the GH2 not providing shallow DOF... there are lenses available with extremely shallow DOF if you want it (f/0.95), and shooting in low light is absolutely possible if done with care....

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1346360638' post='17000'] What is the optical trick Nikon used to give a 2/3" CCD a 1.0x crop factor in 1999? [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_E3"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_E3[/url] [/quote] Would indeed be an interesting solution to quite a few problems...

[quote name='Greg' timestamp='1345564799' post='16140'] Eventually we are all going to have to come to terms with the fact that video looks like video. [/quote] And maybe, hopefully, eventually develop a new and exiting look without trying so desperately hard to make it look like film. Some new photographers are finding exiting new ways of expression which were impossible with film/darkroom... I hope the same will happen with video. Now ducking and running for cover :ph34r:

Good and very inspiring article! I love using available lighting, and keep experimenting with it... here's a couple of recent GH2 shots in "impossible" locations with very little light and high contrast... http://vimeo.com/47927412

[quote name='richg101' timestamp='1345539240' post='16115'] [url="http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Professional-Photo-Video-Camera-Tripod-with-Fluid-Head-Aluminium-Very-Sturdy-/360481006958?pt=UK_Tripods_Monopods&hash=item53ee57a56e#ht_3037wt_1141"]http://www.ebay.co.u...#ht_3037wt_1141[/url] a copy of the fancier model. When it arrives, the fluid head is not as smooth as you would have liked, but after a week of using it, the movement is superb. very smooth with variable drag. Way better than the manfrotto head you mention IMO, and usually im a manfrotto fanboy. [/quote] Is it equipped with a 75 mm bowl??

After checking the link to Drew's video about DR/modes I just ran a fast test with the Nostalgic I normally use and the Vibrant, pushing underexposed interior shots in post... man, was he right!! Way less noise and much more usable detail in very dark areas... this will really increase the potential of the GH2 for me (and I too find the fanboy use offending...) Thanks!

My, my, evil thought2... you never ever quit do you?? Do you get some weird arousal of acting stubbornly stupid?? Are you actually positive to anything or just obsessed with being anti all??

I know how to read ;) Just wonder why you bother... AND I insist that the "objective" shot wasn't done well. You should always shoot to get the most information possible inside the histogram edges, and since you cant shoot raw, the film mode choice is of vital importance. And if the Mac clipping issue was present, the DR limitations would have been narrowed further. I have nothing against Canons and that people have their inclinations towards different brands, and would never begin bashing Canons or Canon enthusiats at their fora... what would be the point?

I'd still like to know what film mode setting was used... the choice has a lot of influence on the gradeability of the shot. I don't think the GH2 was treated right (and evil_thought2, I don't care what you think about that either, just wish you bought the camera you deserve and went somewhere else to annoy people ;-)

Still a happy GH2 owner. Just shows you have to know and work around the limitations of your camera. Since the set had a greater DR than the camera can handle there had to be adjustments made to the interior lighting to cope... Noone would ever suggest the GH2 camera could fairly compete with a F65... But handled by a creative crew it did very well, as the comments and round one votes also mirror. And as far as economics go, the fictive rental scheme is fairly uninteresting. If you were producing a real movie you'd probably not rent a GH2 or an I-phone... The luxury of the GH2 is that for the first time a poor bastard like me can afford to own an impressively good camera and use it every day without breaking the bank. Has anyone mentioned what profile was used on the GH2? Didn't look like Nostalgic to me... and was the Mac gamma shift/clipping issue part of the problem for the GH2?

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1344345988' post='15050'] PS to those who can't download, you need to be a Vimeo Plus member. [/quote] I'm a plus member but get no download option...

Lumix GH2 would fit the bill. An adapter and a 35-40mm manual focus Canon FD, Nikon F, Konica AR, Olympus OM etc... Although it would be a waste of good camera to let it hang there for months :rolleyes:

My old Cartoni has a built-in 75mm ball leveler, and I wouldn't go back to my former tripod with no leveling... period!

I'm no expert, and still building my lens collection, but have had great pleasure using my heavy Olympus Zuiko 11-22/ 2.8-3.5, Konica AR 40/1.8 and AR 135/2.5 . I'm hoping to find a Konica AR 85/1.8 The kit 14-42 lens is residing on my B camera GF2...

Instead of spending energy desperately trying to get digital to look like film, I hope and believe that creative filmmakers will be taking digital movies to new levels of visual expression impossible to reach with film. This is certainly happening in still photography. After the glorious black and white film noir stuff, the color movies of the fifties and sixties were often critisized for their lack of visual beauty... things picked up eventually ;) I'm sure it will be quite wonderful to go to the cinema in twenty years too, and please, without having to wear stupid 3D glasses :blink:

No offence meant Jason! And I read your post for sure. Guess we all have different views on what a cage should do to suit our individual needs... I have no plans to get a ReWo, but have had talks with a local machine shop... I treasure the tiny size and light weight of the GH2 and would always go for the smallest and lightest solution, even if I had to make compromises... and contrary to you I never use the GH2 for stills. I'm very glad you got a solution suitable for your needs :)

Both rigs miss a HDMI cable clamp and are bulky beyond belief. Why so much air around the camera? ReWo has made a snug cage (and clamp), which surely must protect the camera much better, and be less of a transportation problem :)

If you change to the BM and shoot raw, you'd have to spend quite a lot on storage for the huge files generated and for backup... perhaps also faster processing power...