Panasonic GF2 like a bad movie sequel

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Feb 24, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    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
    RichA, Feb 24, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Bowser <> 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.
    Bruce, Feb 25, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Bowser" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > 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
    David J Taylor, Feb 25, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    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



    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.
    Bruce, Feb 25, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote:
    >"Bowser" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >[]
    >> 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!]
    Bruce, Feb 25, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Feb 25, 9:30 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > 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

    >
    > 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.
    Whisky-dave, Feb 25, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    Mike GW8IJT Guest

    "Bowser" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
    Mike GW8IJT, Feb 25, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Bowser <> wrote:
    >On 2/25/2011 4:29 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
    >> "Bowser" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> []
    >>> 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.
    Bruce, Feb 25, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Feb 24, 6:23 pm, Bowser <> 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.
    Rich, Feb 25, 2011
    #9
  10. roy dansse <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:30:38 +0000, Bruce <> 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
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 25, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Feb 25, 4:29 am, "David J Taylor" <david-
    > wrote:
    > "Bowser" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    > []
    >
    > > 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


    That's kind of past. Panasonic default JPEGs do have noise reduction
    added. The last truly uncorrupted Panasonic image came from the FZ30
    P&S.
    Rich, Feb 25, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Feb 25, 4:30 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > 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

    >
    > 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.


    A lot of assumptions in that message. I'll take your word for what is
    said since you see this close-up. But here's a thought; No higher-
    end camera sells as many as lower-end models (e.g., Nikon D5000 versus
    D300) but does that mean there should be no high-end model at all?
    Panasonic/Olympus: Where are the higher-end models? Olympus
    supposedly has a high-end lens coming (though $800+ for some pre-
    existing micro 4/3rds lenses seems to me to BE higher end now!) but as
    yet no body. Panasonic's GH2 is priced toward the higher end, more or
    less, at $1000, but it is high-end in function only, not body.
    Rich, Feb 25, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Feb 25, 2:03 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > Bowser <> wrote:
    > >On 2/25/2011 4:29 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
    > >> "Bowser" <> wrote in message
    > >>news:...
    > >> []
    > >>> 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.


    Panasonic's sensor in the G10 (now discontinued I think) G1, G2, GF1,
    GF2 and Olympus's E-P1, E-P2, E-PL1 and E-PL2 are more or less
    identical, with different post-processing. But, the sensor in the
    Panasonic GH1 and new GH2 are not the same as in those others.
    Different size, different performance.
    Rich, Feb 25, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Rich <> wrote:

    >On Feb 24, 6:23 pm, Bowser <> 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.



    Complete nonsense. That isn't remotely true, Rich.
    Bruce, Feb 26, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Rich <> wrote:

    >On Feb 25, 4:30 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> 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

    >>
    >> 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.

    >
    >A lot of assumptions in that message. I'll take your word for what is
    >said since you see this close-up.



    Caveat 1: I haven't been doing this very long - a matter of months.
    Caveat 2: The data I get comes mostly from Japan, where mirrorless
    sytems have really taken off. Some data comes from Europe, where
    mirrorless systems only starting to take off. In North America, the
    market for mirrorless is taking a lot longer to grow.


    >But here's a thought; No higher-
    >end camera sells as many as lower-end models (e.g., Nikon D5000 versus
    >D300) but does that mean there should be no high-end model at all?
    >Panasonic/Olympus: Where are the higher-end models? Olympus
    >supposedly has a high-end lens coming (though $800+ for some pre-
    >existing micro 4/3rds lenses seems to me to BE higher end now!) but as
    >yet no body. Panasonic's GH2 is priced toward the higher end, more or
    >less, at $1000, but it is high-end in function only, not body.



    Olympus won't introduce a high end Micro Four Thirds body until sales
    of the E-5 DSLR have died down. Panasonic thinks it already has a
    high end body in the GH2 - at least, that's what the sales reps are
    being told to say.

    But they aren't alone.

    Sony has long discontinued the Alpha 850 and 900 bodies although many
    unsold copies remain (they were spectacularly bad sellers) and has
    been reluctant to replace the Alpha 700. In the end, the Alpha 77 SLT
    camera body will probably become the flagship of the Alpha range with
    25 MP on APS-C.

    Pentax has the K-5 as its DSLR flagship but where is the high end
    model? Does the lack of a high end model hurt Pentax sales? I have
    no idea, but the 645D, worthy though it is, cannot be considered a
    flagship for an APS-C based range.

    So in the end, the only camera companies with truly high end bodies
    are Canon and Nikon.
    Bruce, Feb 26, 2011
    #15
  16. David J Taylor <> wrote:
    > "Bowser" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > []
    >> 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.


    Looks like the public prefer no noise and less detail, rather than a
    bit of noise and more detail, since that's where most camera makers
    pitch their noise reduction.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Feb 26, 2011
    #16
  17. RichA

    Irwell Guest

    On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:14:23 +0000, Bruce wrote:

    >
    >
    > Caveat 1: I haven't been doing this very long - a matter of months.
    > Caveat 2: The data I get comes mostly from Japan, where mirrorless
    > sytems have really taken off. Some data comes from Europe, where
    > mirrorless systems only starting to take off. In North America, the
    > market for mirrorless is taking a lot longer to grow.


    Has anybody come up with a better term than 'mirrorless'
    to describe this type of camera?
    Irwell, Feb 26, 2011
    #17
  18. roy dansse <> wrote:

    [drivel, foaming mouth idiot]

    Show us your rare moths!

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 26, 2011
    #18
  19. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Irwell <> wrote:
    >On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:14:23 +0000, Bruce wrote:
    >> Caveat 1: I haven't been doing this very long - a matter of months.
    >> Caveat 2: The data I get comes mostly from Japan, where mirrorless
    >> sytems have really taken off. Some data comes from Europe, where
    >> mirrorless systems only starting to take off. In North America, the
    >> market for mirrorless is taking a lot longer to grow.

    >
    >Has anybody come up with a better term than 'mirrorless'
    >to describe this type of camera?



    I have a feeling that, whichever term I was to use, someone, somewhere
    would get irrationally upset. ;-)

    In the UK, there is an attempt to have "compact system camera" or CSC
    adopted as the standard term.

    Personally, I prefer 'mirrorless' as it highlights the main difference
    between these system cameras and DSLRs.
    Bruce, Feb 27, 2011
    #19
  20. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >On 2011-02-27 02:20:02 -0800, Bruce <> said:
    >> Irwell <> wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:14:23 +0000, Bruce wrote:
    >>>> Caveat 1: I haven't been doing this very long - a matter of months.
    >>>> Caveat 2: The data I get comes mostly from Japan, where mirrorless
    >>>> sytems have really taken off. Some data comes from Europe, where
    >>>> mirrorless systems only starting to take off. In North America, the
    >>>> market for mirrorless is taking a lot longer to grow.
    >>>
    >>> Has anybody come up with a better term than 'mirrorless'
    >>> to describe this type of camera?

    >>
    >>
    >> I have a feeling that, whichever term I was to use, someone, somewhere
    >> would get irrationally upset. ;-)
    >>
    >> In the UK, there is an attempt to have "compact system camera" or CSC
    >> adopted as the standard term.
    >>
    >> Personally, I prefer 'mirrorless' as it highlights the main difference
    >> between these system cameras and DSLRs.

    >
    >How about a "The light seems to reach the sensor without too much
    >interruption, other than the lens" camera?



    Nice and succinct. ;-)

    However, it applies to just about *every type* of digital camera
    except those with a pellicle mirror ...
    Bruce, Feb 27, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Scot Gardner

    FARGO: Any Chance of a Sequel?

    Scot Gardner, Oct 14, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    2,834
    Douglas Bailey
    Oct 30, 2003
  2. Hitman of Las Vegas

    Indy sequel canned -sad day for us all...

    Hitman of Las Vegas, Feb 17, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    70
    Views:
    1,586
    Eric R.
    Feb 27, 2004
  3. SnowMan

    Is there a TRON sequel (on dvd) ?

    SnowMan, Sep 17, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    659
    Jordan Lund
    Sep 20, 2004
  4. Mike Henley

    Any news of an Oly 5060 sequel?

    Mike Henley, Oct 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    269
    Mike Henley
    Oct 25, 2004
  5. Chris Wilkinson
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    387
    Chris Wilkinson
    Nov 29, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page