GH3 Adam Wilt's GH3 "First Look" initial review

hehe...is Adam telling us he's not hacked his gh2 ? That's funny ! ...maybe with the hack, it'd be 95% !
 
Last edited:
Good review.

I think that for lower ISO's, 800 and below I still prefer the GH2's image. It seems to display "gradients" better, transitioning from light to shadow in a more graceful way I think, while the GH3 can perhaps see a bit more in the shadows... but just, just barely. GH3 colors are very well defined, with little to no mud.

In terms of stills, overall feature set, low light / iso performance and build quality... the GH3 is an undeniable upgrade. It's turning out to be a fantastic camera, but a little easier to pass up than I had hoped.
 
It's pretty surprising that in his overview of differences, he completely misses the reason the GH3 is attracting a lot of cross over adopters - 1080 60p.

It's a big differentiation between the GH2 and the C100 and C300 for that matter.

It's why we didn't get "C" cameras and picked up a pair of GH3s
 
jimagine said:
It's pretty surprising that in his overview of differences, he completely misses the reason the GH3 is attracting a lot of cross over adopters - 1080 60p.
Click to expand...

Yep... my main reason for upgrading... oh and better bigger body, weatherproofing, all I, big mic jack and headphone jack and Wifi. That's quite a list right there.
 
jimagine said:
It's pretty surprising that in his overview of differences, he completely misses the reason the GH3 is attracting a lot of cross over adopters - 1080 60p.
Click to expand...

A hack will do that mode justice...still think 28Mbps is a little low for it.
 
ATL Media Group said:
Yep... my main reason for upgrading... oh and better bigger body, weatherproofing, all I, big mic jack and headphone jack and Wifi. That's quite a list right there.
Click to expand...

Exactly, even though I will be shooting IPB as I causes problems.....

I mean you forgot some things also.

* Time Lapse feature
* Oled Screen
* Better Battery (50% last longer, which is HUGE)
* Overall better photography camera
* Finally a Panasonic Battery Grip

Also to my understanding it looks like you are now FINALLY able to change iso while recording?
Regardless inside and out GH3 is a better camera, I should have mine early next week....

** Finally if you have not used the GH3 there is NO way in the world you can say you prefer the GH2 image. I'm more than sure through whatever post software you can make GH3 footage look like GH2.....
 
J.F.R. said:
Exactly, even though I will be shooting IPB as I causes problems.....

I mean you forgot some things also.

* Time Lapse feature
* Oled Screen
* Better Battery (50% last longer, which is HUGE)
* Overall better photography camera
* Finally a Panasonic Battery Grip

Also to my understanding it looks like you are now FINALLY able to change iso while recording?
Regardless inside and out GH3 is a better camera, I should have mine early next week....

** Finally if you have not used the GH3 there is NO way in the world you can say you prefer the GH2 image. I'm more than sure through whatever post software you can make GH3 footage look like GH2.....
Click to expand...

Oh, I didn't forget those.. I just didn't include them... heh.. I'd also add :Timecode both rec run and continuous.
 
ATL Media Group said:
Oh, I didn't forget those.. I just didn't include them... heh.. I'd also add :Timecode both rec run and continuous.
Click to expand...

Also, CLEAN iso. People are saying iso 1600 is comparable to iso 800 on GH2..... Basically people are out of their minds if they don't see ALL of the improvements of the GH3..........
 
I usually like Adam Wilts stuff but I kind of feel this review was a bit lacking and didn't really cover what makes the GH3 an upgrade. He seems to fall into that same pit as many others that think an upgrade should mean beat you over the head quality differences. We have seen lots of video cameras in the consumer and professional markets where a new upgraded model may only add key new features. AF100 to AF100A for example or the Canon HV20 to Canon HV30. By the way I should point out how the Canon HV cameras cost as much if not more then the GH3.

I feel as though so many people are hung up on trying to get a $50,000.00 camera out of a $1,300.00 DSLR that they completely miss what exactly makes this camera an upgrade from the GH2. Many times a camera upgrade, like with the Canon HV cameras, may not mean a quality difference at all and simply adds some requested new features. The GH3 did exactly that and added a crap load of features requested by professionals. For Adam to not focus on some of those upgrades only tells a sliver of the story of the GH3 and I really think he completely missed the point of the GH3. Perhaps he will cover them later but his choice to save the good stuff for later paints the GH3 in a bad light now because he makes it seem like it isn't much of an upgrade at all. This is simply not true. It may not be much of an upgrade if you don't need the extra features but it can be huge even for quality if you are one who likes to shoot 60p. That is a massive quality enhancement right there. It is also a massive quality enhancement in real world shooting if you happen to be somebody who doesn't hack their cameras.
 
He mentions that both the GH2 and GH3, only resolve around 700 lines of detail in the resolution chart, before aliasing kicks in and the detail fades.

That's actually fewer than I thought... Doesn't the 5D / 7D also resolve about 700 lines? Why do the GH2/GH3 appear to be have more detail? Is it the way it 'aliases'?
 
Stab said:
He mentions that both the GH2 and GH3, only resolve around 700 lines of detail in the resolution chart, before aliasing kicks in and the detail fades.

That's actually fewer than I thought... Doesn't the 5D / 7D also resolve about 700 lines? Why do the GH2/GH3 appear to be have more detail? Is it the way it 'aliases'?
Click to expand...

This is indeed curious. I seem to remember the Zacuto test saying more than just 700. But regardless, Wilt said the AF100 resolved 680 lines and the GH2 and GH3 look sharper than the AF100, so it makes somehow sense.
But regardless if fake (aliasing) or real resolution , it looks like real resolution to the naked eye since GH2 footage compares really well to C300 and even RED which for sure resolve more. But in 1080p and to the naked eye the GH2 doesn't look like only 700 lines next to them.
 
This is part of the issue with trying to measure resolution with a DSLR. Even if you cannot see it the entire image is made up of aliasing. Adam likes to measure detail before a chart aliases. Of course a real image will go much higher although it isn't really the same.

Part of the reason why charts are kind of silly for DSLR's. They will never ever tell you a darn thing about how good a DSLR will look when shooting video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top