Talk:Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2

Notable tag

Someone added a notable tag to this page. That's a bit odd. Over the past 15 years, there was a major paradigm shift in the industry to using still cameras for video work. This really started with the 5D MKII, which was used in several major film shoots. The small form factor (relative to traditional film equipment) as well as large sensor allowed shoots like House. The GH1, GH2, and GH4 were the next major moves forward, being the first still cameras designed for high-end video use from the ground up, each pushing the state-of-the-art.

The GH1 hit wide-spread amateur use. It allowed large-sensor videography at an accessible price point, and opened up a lot of creative options due to interchangeable lenses, and especially adapted lenses. It never quite hit the pro market due to limitations like frame rate, but it really had a huge impact on things like student and amateur films. On paper, the GH2 was a modest step forward, but addressed enough of those gaps to dramatical expanded professional use -- where House being shot on the 5D MKII was a newsworthy event, with the GH2, this sort of use was common. A lot of pro work, previously done on video-specific equipment, was now being shot on normal ILCs. And a few years later, the GH4 brought 4k support.

Sony then took the lead (the A7S was another notable step forward).

There's now a competitive market where most still cameras offer high-quality video and can be used for professional work. But this wasn't always the case. Prior to the GH2, video from a still camera was viewed as a gimmick by most photographers and camera companies. Some cameras could do it, but they catered to amateurs -- even minimal support for serious videographers was missing (audio levels, etc.). Post-GH2, the flood gates opened up, and there was a serious, competitive ecosystem.

I don't have any axe to grind here. It's clearly notable. I can't comment on the copy (if people feel this is an ad, please rewrite it), but please don't remove it.

(Indeed, I'd argue a rewrite giving better framing of the narrative would make this article much stronger -- from the article, it's hard to figure out how the GH2 even compares to the GH1, let alone the broader narrative of its historical role).

I'll also mention: Having tech specs in wikipedia is helpful. It's nice to be able to use Wikipedia as a reference to trace evolution of technologies. Products on Wikipedia -- within reason -- is helpful too. There aren't that many ILC cameras made (Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji, Pentax, Canon, Nikon, and maybe a couple others, each with at most a few releases each year). What's wrong with having basic reference knowledge about them? The GH2 is uniquely notable, but I would argue it's a good idea to even have oddball models like a random Nikon D750, Sony A6300, Panasonic GF2, or what not with Wikipedia pages. What's the downside? 73.17.150.215 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Questionable knowledge

the article claims:

"The format, with its crop factor of two, is capable of shallow-focus effects (desirable for the "filmic" look where backgrounds are deliberately made out-of-focus) with good bokeh," The sensor has little to do with bokeh. What do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.252.169 (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is correct. This comment is false. Big sensor size and wide aperture means you can blur the background. That was the reason cameras like the 5DMKII and GH2 were used for for a lot of amateur video work. Prior to these cameras, the only way to achieve narrow DoF was to shoot on film, which is super-expensive and requires bulky equipment. CMOS/CCD sensors on video equipment were too small. The 5DMKII and GH2 opened up the creative options of narrow depth-of-field to people who couldn't afford buying and developing reels of film, as well as allowing professionals to do it in constrained spaces, or with many takes. 73.17.150.215 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

new power zoom

There is a new power zoom X series, the first paragraph says there is none — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.162.105.10 (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

POV + Advert

Sorry, but this is biased and one-sided. Fans please calm down.77.185.50.126 (talk)

This does not help, as you make no reference to particular content. Are you saying that the whole article is biased and one-sided. I think you would do better to challenge particular sections specifically so that they can be discussed.

The section 'reception and reviews' has been tagged as not neutral, but I see no 'dispute' going on here so I will remove the tag. That section does need citations, but I think it fairly reports the facts. --Lindosland (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ads + Compatible lenses + Cams

1. Wikipedia is scientific, not an ad. All sentences removed are tagged about a YEAR!
2. MFT Cams deleted: List too long, include in other, probably new, article
3. Compatible lenses: Too long. Stays here for a short time: include in other, probably new, article Tagremover (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)