Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Panasonic GF2 like a bad movie sequel

Reply
Thread Tools

Panasonic GF2 like a bad movie sequel

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-24-2011
Lower budget, less interesting, less functionality. The GF1 was a
little, efficient tank. This new one is a pure exercise is cost-
cutting. But it's not cheaper of course. Best advice? Find a GF1 in
new condition (with the vastly superior 14-45mm kit lens) and buy it
instead.

http://dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicDMCGF2/page19.asp

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2011
Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On 2/24/2011 5:04 PM, RichA wrote:
>> Lower budget, less interesting, less functionality. The GF1 was a
>> little, efficient tank. This new one is a pure exercise is cost-
>> cutting. But it's not cheaper of course. Best advice? Find a GF1 in
>> new condition (with the vastly superior 14-45mm kit lens) and buy it
>> instead.
>>
>> http://dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicDMCGF2/page19.asp
>>

>
>Why is the damned thing so noisy? Maybe Panny should have put money into
>the sensor instead of that ridiculous interface.



All Panasonic sensors are noisy. Period.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2011
"Bowser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
[]
> Why is the damned thing so noisy? Maybe Panny should have put money into
> the sensor instead of that ridiculous interface.


Panasonic tend not to have as much smoothing as e.g. Canon in the
processing, and therefore with a better high-frequency response, they will
appear noisier but sharper. Remember that this is not as large a sensor
as APS-C, nor full-frame.

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2011
RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Lower budget, less interesting, less functionality. The GF1 was a
>little, efficient tank. This new one is a pure exercise is cost-
>cutting. But it's not cheaper of course. Best advice? Find a GF1 in
>new condition (with the vastly superior 14-45mm kit lens) and buy it
>instead.
>http://dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicDMCGF2/page19.asp



As the review clearly indicates, the GF2 is designed for P&S users
trading up, not DSLR owners who are looking for a more compact
alternative to lugging a heavy outfit. The G2 and GH2 are a better
fit for the latter role.

I'm happy with the GF2 because it sells well to P&S users. That
market is key to the GF2's success. We are probably selling twice as
many GF2s as we sold GF1s. But it isn't a camera I would wish to own.
I was reasonably happy with my GF1 but a GF2 would definitely have
been a downgrade. The Panasonic sales team told us that the GF1
hadn't sold well to P&S users. Customer clinics suggested that they
found the GF1 slightly intimidating. So the GF2 was aimed more
directly at that key market with a different range of features and an
interface that had more appeal.

The downside is that the GF2's interface alienates DSLR users. But
far fewer mirrorless cameras are sold to DSLR users than to P&S users
trading up, and the former group also has the G2 and GH2 to consider.
So I suspect that Panasonic probably got it right. The GF2 sells
well, and that's all that matters.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2011
"David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"Bowser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>[]
>> Why is the damned thing so noisy? Maybe Panny should have put money into
>> the sensor instead of that ridiculous interface.

>
>Panasonic tend not to have as much smoothing as e.g. Canon in the
>processing, and therefore with a better high-frequency response, they will
>appear noisier but sharper.



If you had compared Nikon with Canon, I would have agreed with you.
Canon's noise reduction smothers detail; Nikon's is less aggressive
and leaves more detail, but at the expense of more visible noise.*

But when it comes to Panasonic, the fundamental problem is noisy
sensors. Panasonic-made sensors tend to be a lot noisier than those
used by the the competition.

Some of that noise is inevitable given the pixel density of the
sensor. A full frame sensor of the same density would have 46 MP.

Imagine how noisy that would be!


[*obviously with the usual caveats about generalising too much!]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2011
On Feb 25, 9:30*am, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >Lower budget, less interesting, less functionality. *The GF1 was a
> >little, efficient tank. *This new one is a pure exercise is cost-
> >cutting. *But it's not cheaper of course. *Best advice? *Find a GF1 in
> >new condition (with the vastly superior 14-45mm kit lens) and buy it
> >instead.
> >http://dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicDMCGF2/page19.asp

>
> As the review clearly indicates, the GF2 is designed for P&S users
> trading up, not DSLR owners who are looking for a more compact
> alternative to lugging a heavy outfit. *The G2 and GH2 are a better
> fit for the latter role.
>
> I'm happy with the GF2 because it sells well to P&S users. *That
> market is key to the GF2's success. *We are probably selling twice as
> many GF2s as we sold GF1s. *But it isn't a camera I would wish to own.
> I was reasonably happy with my GF1 but a GF2 would definitely have
> been a downgrade. *The Panasonic sales team told us that the GF1
> hadn't sold well to P&S users. *Customer clinics suggested that they
> found the GF1 slightly intimidating. *So the GF2 was aimed more
> directly at that key market with a different range of features and an
> interface that had more appeal.
>
> The downside is that the GF2's interface alienates DSLR users. *But
> far fewer mirrorless cameras are sold to DSLR users than to P&S users
> trading up, and the former group also has the G2 and GH2 to consider.
> So I suspect that Panasonic probably got it right. *The GF2 sells
> well, and that's all that matters.


Not really, surely reputation counts. I wonder who/what the GF3 will
be aimed at.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike GW8IJT
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2011
"Bowser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 2/24/2011 5:04 PM, RichA wrote:
>> Lower budget, less interesting, less functionality. The GF1 was a
>> little, efficient tank. This new one is a pure exercise is cost-
>> cutting. But it's not cheaper of course. Best advice? Find a GF1 in
>> new condition (with the vastly superior 14-45mm kit lens) and buy it
>> instead.
>>
>> http://dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicDMCGF2/page19.asp
>>

>
> Why is the damned thing so noisy? Maybe Panny should have put money into
> the sensor instead of that ridiculous interface.


If the picture is a bit noisy you can always post-process the picture in the
PC.
Mike.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2011
Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On 2/25/2011 4:29 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
>> "Bowser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> []
>>> Why is the damned thing so noisy? Maybe Panny should have put money
>>> into the sensor instead of that ridiculous interface.

>>
>> Panasonic tend not to have as much smoothing as e.g. Canon in the
>> processing, and therefore with a better high-frequency response, they
>> will appear noisier but sharper. Remember that this is not as large a
>> sensor as APS-C, nor full-frame.
>>
>> David

>
>Understood, but it's much noisier than any other m4/3 cam, and nearly as
>bad as a Canon G12, which is a very small sensor. And compared to the
>sensor in the NEX, it's really bad; maybe 2-3 stops noisier.
>
>I briefly had an Oly E-PL2, but it was the controls that drove me away,
>not the noise or IQ. Same sensor?



Same sensor. More effective noise reduction. Less detail?

I don't know the answer to the last one, not having made any
comparions between Pana and Oly products using the same sensor.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2011
On Feb 24, 6:23*pm, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 2/24/2011 5:04 PM, RichA wrote:
>
> > Lower budget, less interesting, less functionality. *The GF1 was a
> > little, efficient tank. *This new one is a pure exercise is cost-
> > cutting. *But it's not cheaper of course. *Best advice? *Find a GF1 in
> > new condition (with the vastly superior 14-45mm kit lens) and buy it
> > instead.

>
> >http://dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicDMCGF2/page19.asp

>
> Why is the damned thing so noisy? Maybe Panny should have put money into
> the sensor instead of that ridiculous interface.


Because they wouldn't give it the GH2 sensor, which is less noisy than
my Nikon D300 sensor.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2011
roy dansse <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:30:38 +0000, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>As the review clearly indicates, the GF2 is designed for P&S users
>>trading up


> Some armchair-photographer's


Ah, you must be a sock puppet.

> review might claim that, but I would consider
> buying any DSLR a severe case of "trading down".


Yes, and there are some that would consider anything but a
poor mobile phone camera a severe case of trading down.
Idiots just as you are rare, but really exist.

> Been there, done that,
> sold it all, and would never go back to their crippling limitations ever
> again. The ONLY thing that DSLRs have going for them these days is lower
> noise at higher ISOs.


And a lot of other advantages, which you conveniently forget.
Don't worry, nobody believes you.

> Something that's not even needed in the hands of a
> true pro.


Of course, since 'true pro' have tons of light equipment and
are allowed and able to use them everywhere.

And anyone else is not worth shooting anything anyway.

> Everything else about DSLRs is a complete downgrade.


True, just think of the battery life of a thousand or more
shots (according to CIPA) with a DSLR. Or the fact that you
can get good lenses. Or the shallow DOF you can get without
paying for a medium format backend (and fast lens and body).

Of course, true pros only need what you prefer them to need.

> Or are you going to admit to the world that you don't have the talent and
> expertise enough to get images just as good from "P&S" (i.e. compacts) and
> superzoom cameras as you can with *ANY* DSLR?


Ah, you are indeed a sock puppet of the soup zoom idiot.

> Go ahead, admit you're just another lame snapshooter that needs every
> crutch you can find. It's a poor craftsman that blames their tools.


Show us your rare moths. Or is it massive dirt on the sensor?

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ANN: Sequel 0.0.19 Released and Sequel discussion list Sharon Rosner Ruby 0 04-16-2007 09:48 AM
Movie ripping into the same format like another Movie matze.melzer@web.de DVD Video 3 02-04-2006 01:16 AM
ActiveX apologetic Larry Seltzer... "Sun paid for malicious ActiveX code, and Firefox is bad, bad bad baad. please use ActiveX, it's secure and nice!" (ok, the last part is irony on my part) fernando.cassia@gmail.com Java 0 04-16-2005 10:05 PM
24 Season 3 Bad Bad Bad (Spoiler) nospam@nospam.com DVD Video 12 02-23-2005 03:28 AM
What has fastest 3D? PCI GF2 MX, or inbuilt S3 Savage4. Chris Wilkinson NZ Computing 9 11-29-2003 08:07 AM



Advertisments