Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 Review Discussion

[Jim Keenan]

After partnering with Olympus on the development of the Micro Four Thirds System standard (an offshoot of the Kodak/Olympus Four Thirds System), Panasonic followed Olympus into the mirrorless/interchangeable lens class of compact digital cameras with 2009's Lumix DMC-GF1. The new genre of camera mated physically larger, more DSLR-like sensors into bodies resembling a large compact point and shoot, with the ability to change lenses like a DSLR while eliminating its bulky mirror assembly.

Read the full content of this Article: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 Review

Related Articles:

• Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 First Look
• Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 gains touch screen
• Panasonic launches 14mm, 100-300mm and 3D Micro Four Thirds lenses
• Panasonic announces revamped Lumix DMC-GH2

[Frank S]

I'm a little confused about the video. In postage stamp size (which is about 3 inches) it looks fine, but in stretch it looks horrible. I have a 23 inch HD Samsung monitor/TV. Most video clips from DSLRs and point and shoots I seen from various camera reviews around the net look very good. Did you put up the right video for this review?

[Jim Keenan]

The video was put up on the site by the studio, but I shot it. It's an MPEG, not AVCHD, and when I looked at the original just now on my 24" HP monitor, it looked as good as any MPEG with regard to color, motion, grain, etc.

I see what you mean with regard to the large screen look with the clip on the site - it appears to be well over 100% size and I think that's the reason for the terrible look. Running the original looks good, so I'll let the site editor know and see if they can't do something.

[JohnMetsn]

Everyone seems to forget to mention that GF-2 lost the remote shutter release port. Maybe it's not a big deal for some, but it would surely be for me, as I love my wireless shutter release...

[Allison Johnson]

Yes, that is the correct video. It was compressed for web viewing, which isn't ideal, so the large sized video you're seeing is distorted. The smaller thumbnail video will give you an idea of how the video will look in terms of smoothness and focus.

[Jostian]

I sometimes get a bit confused by DCR and thus I wonder if their reviews are worth anything, if one reads the D7000 review and compares samples with the GF2 the D7000 is someway ahead, especially in terns of dynamic range, higher ISO's etc, and yet the 2 get the same IQ rating!! I know even teh most ardent pana supporter would admit that the GF2 though great isn't AS good as the D7000 in IQ, for a range of logical reasons (smaller sensor etc.), and yet DCR gives the 2 the same IQ rating???? the IQ of the D7000 should be 4 and a half, as I think the pani deserves its 4 stars (great cam, not quite the IQ of the NEX 5, but a more complete package methinx)

[Allison Johnson]

Thanks for your feedback, assigning a star rating to any camera is challenging. It may help to think of the ratings as a measure of how the camera performed in its own "class." We don't expect a compact point-and-shoot to compete on the same terms with a DSLR, but a 4-star rating isn't reserved only for the highest quality pro cameras.

I agree, the D7000 turned out great quality pictures, and that's why it got an Editor's Choice. The GF2 turns in a solid performance for its class, hence a high star rating.

There's always room for argument and there are so many factors about a camera that can't be quantified in a star rating. That's why we keep writing reviews and not just assigning a ranking to each camera.

[Jostian]

Hi, thanks for the clarification, but... DCR should then clearly categorise reviews as other sites do and state (based on mid range DSLR's) or (based on micro four thirds & entry level DSLR's) or P&S etc, cos as it stands now with each getting a 4 star rating it implies the IQ is the same, and its not.

[Jim Keenan]

Allison's already addressed your concerns but I'll just throw in my two cents regarding my approach to a review. When I review a camera I try to include a range and number of shots, sometimes to illustrate some aspects of camera operation and performance, or sometimes just because. I think by including numerous examples of any particular camera's output that the reader has the opportunity to decide for themself what weight they choose to attach to the product, over and above any ratings the site may choose to assign.

Personally, I shoot RAW files with my personal DSLRs and convert them to JPEGs (or TIFF on request) for clients, but the end use of the image has a lot to do with perceived IQ as well. When I shot the Nikon P100 review for this site I also had my D3 along on that trip to China. Comparing shots of the same subjects with both cameras with a critical eye and close scrutiny at high magnifications showed differences, but in the smaller sizes or with the casual viewing of an image that most folks undertake if I didn't know beforehand which was which it would have been hard to tell one from the other.

I'm not suggesting that a $200 compact is going to outshoot a DSLR in IQ, but in the case of the GF2 the camera is using a sensor physically sized the same as the top Olympus DSLR, uses interchangeable lenses and can make use of Leica glass with the appropriate adapter(s). That's DSLR image capture hardware in anyone's book, subject to the shortcomings of the Micro Four Thirds system (which I personally don't care for). As I mentioned in the GF2 review, when Nikon ever gets around to bringing out their mirrorless, if it does as good a job as the GF2 I'll probably have to add one to our fleet. But I'm not swapping my D3 for it, ever.

[KCook]

Yup. An article, or pinned forum topic, illustrating the output for different sensor sizes would be useful. Not only 100% crops, but also images down sized for more real world apps, such as 1600x900 wallpaper. Not only images with original exposures spot on, but also deliberately 1.5 stops off. Then corrected back to 0EV in PP. This to show any advantage in DR (or lack thereof).

I agree that there is a lot of confusion on the degree of advantage of larger cameras.

Kelly