Home / Cameras / Camera / Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 / Performance and Results

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 - Performance and Results

By Gavin Stoker

Reviewed:

Awards

  • Recommended by TR
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2

Summary

Our Score:

9

Though using both physical and virtual buttons in tandem appears initially confusing, we managed to get up to speed fairly quickly. And in doing so we discovered that having the option to swipe a finger across the screen rather than press a button on occasion simply acted as a time saver rather than the obstruction a lesser gimmick might.

An example of how both work well together is that with a press of the back plate located Q.Menu (Quick Menu) button, that will be familiar to Lumix snapshot users making the step up, a toolbar of essentials including image quality and metering options is presented along the bottom of the screen. Each option can be selected with a finger tap, or, if preferred, a tap of the multi-directional cross keys control pad to the right of the screen. Any change is effected with a subsequent finger tap or alternatively a press of the menu/set button at the centre of the pad.

By way of further friendly tools the GF2 offers a top mounted intelligent Auto (iA) button, as also found on Lumix compacts. A press of this immediately throws the user into said scene and subject recognising mode, enabling point and shoot operation with consistently reliable results. One-touch video recording again features, here enabling the capture of Full HD 1,920 x 1080 pixels clips in stereo audio and in AVCHD file format, or a slightly lower 1,280 x 720 pixels in more widely compatible Motion JPEG format. Panasonic has again thoughtfully included a wind cut function for shooting outdoors, and both modes are a good fall back when you might not actually have a camcorder to hand. Plus, one press of the provided red button and the user is immediately recording video, black bands cropping the screen top and bottom, no matter which mode might have been previously in play.

General handling quickly becomes intuitive therefore, saving on time wasted fiddling around when you could be lining up the shot required instead. In terms of performance we didn't notice a marked difference in quality over the GF1, and neither should there be as the sensor is identical and the available optics similar. In terms of image noise, though, disappointingly we noticed some grain creeping into shadow areas as low as ISO400, though not really reaching problematic levels until ISO1600. The top setting of ISO6400 then should only be approached as a last resort - as a means of getting a shot that might not otherwise have been attempted. There is of course the option to shoot using the pop up flash, and, if the white balance setting for the flash is manually selected when shooting under tungsten, one can achieve reasonable results free from obvious colour casts. On the whole though, white balance is pretty accurate, though there is a tendency for daylight images to look a little cool if shot under a mix of artifical and natural light.

In general use we achieved exposures that, fittingly given our wintry test climate, were deep, crisp and even - particularly when using the 14mm kit lens. As we've found with Panasonics in the past, colours are naturalistic with a tendency to veer toward the warm, which makes the GF2 a flattering tool when it comes to portraits.

In summing up, the GF2's appearance and performance shouldn't prompt wailing and gnashing of teeth from existing GF1 owners; we'd argue the 'improvements' here don't warrant the expense of you upgrading.

What's perhaps just as exciting as a new camera itself is that, coinciding with the arrival of the GF2, we now have the ability to shoot still images in 3D at the consumer level; the other option in the Panasonic range being to spend £1,500 on its top-end stereoscopic lens equipped HDC-SDT750 camcorder.

Verdict

While the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 is a worthy successor to the existing and soon to be phased out GF1, it's not the most direct, like-for-like replacement. This means that existing owners may well want to hang on to the camera they've already got - especially if they value the tactile nature of a chunky physical shooting mode dial over a virtual screen-based equivalent. While it is being touted as a direct replacement, we feel the two cameras could have happily existed in tandem for a while.

Though the aim here with the GF2 was to fashion a compact system camera that was both easier to use and swifter than its predecessor, that aim has only been partly realised. The use of controls both physical and touch screen based does make for faster access to key functions once you've got to grips with how the two entities work together, but requires a bit of inquisitive button pressing in the short term.

In the final analysis, while the GF2 is an excellent camera in its own right, it doesn't feel as revolutionary as Panasonic's first attempt in the GF1. But if it draws a wider audience to Micro Four Thirds and its inherent benefits - smaller bodies and smaller lenses, yet results comparable (if not an exact match for) the DSLR 'big boys', then we're all for it.

SpiderJacek

January 3, 2011, 1:17 pm

Design score means Build score and Performance means Image Quality? :)

Hamish Campbell

January 3, 2011, 1:47 pm

I bought the GF1 about 6 months ago, so was kinda relieved (in a sad selfish sort of way) when the GF2 turned out to be more a re-focusing of the camera rather than an upgrade.





I know next to nothing about this stuff but have read a number of people were disappointed with the change to the new prime lens (pancake) as the 20mm that came with the GF1 was well regarded and the new supposedly somewhat of a step down in quality.

Mircea

January 3, 2011, 2:20 pm

Great review, but no full resolution samples? Also, we need crops to check out the ISO performance.

Ray Hopper

January 3, 2011, 3:19 pm

Thanks for the review, Gavin. As I asked your predecessor on several occasions, PLEASE tell us about the shutter noise on mirrorless cameras - they really should be completely silent by now. The Samsung NX100 is the quietest I've handled so far, whilst the Sony NEX's are the noisiest. I shan't upgrade my Canon G11 until near-silent shutters are available.

Peter

January 3, 2011, 11:12 pm

Does the 3d effect get reduced because the camera sensors are much closer together than a normal pair of eyes?

piesforyou

January 3, 2011, 11:34 pm

@Ray





Just curiosity - what's the problem with shutter noise?

atomsmasher

January 4, 2011, 5:44 am

Gavin, great review. Full resolution crops in the review or links to the original jpeg files would be very helpful when evaluating image quality. Which lens was used for the test photos? Cheers

Cliff

January 5, 2011, 2:10 am

Thanks for the comments. We have added an image quality score, and full res images will be in future reviews, which are being written as I type.

Voldenuit

January 5, 2011, 11:31 am

Pretty spot-on assessment, although I think TR was a bit lenient with the final score.





The most egregious omission compared to the GF1 is the loss of the AEL button, making focus/exposure lock more of a chore than it needs to be. This is especially important in m43 with its limited dynamic range and tendency to clip highlights.





Another negative point is that the bundled 14/2.5 lens is fairly average, whereas the 20/1.7 was good enough reason to get the GF1 just for the lens.





But nitpicking aside, I do agree that m43 is still a credible alternative (though not necessarily replacement) to APS-C DSLRs. The portability alone is a great reason to get the system, and it still boasts a larger lens selection than, say, NEX. Also, the NEX, while theoretically able to drive some Alpha mount lenses (with adapter), is very slow to focus when doing so (slower than, say, the GF2 with most 4/3 lenses).





If you're shooting in low light, though, you probably want a Pentax K-5 or Nikon D7000.

Matt G Baish

January 5, 2011, 1:03 pm

@Ray Hopper





When I recently tried out the Sony NEX-3D my local Sony Centre I was amazed as how the shutter noise took me back to the days of `proper` cameras - for me it isn't a problem &, in fact, would be a desirable `feature`:)

Ray Hopper

January 6, 2011, 1:45 am

@piesforyou and matt g baish





There are a small minority of photographers, of which I am one, working in theatres, concert halls and rehearsal rooms etc., to whom shutter noise is anathema. IMO street photography also sometimes benefits from silence.

Williamn

January 10, 2011, 4:08 pm

@Ray Hopper.


That makes sense. If reviewers won't review the shutter noise, then just go down to PC world etc, and try out the camera.

comments powered by Disqus