GH2 GH3/12-35/35-100 Wished Pricing

Boncrek

Boncrek

Well-known member
What price would you be willing to pay for the GH3, 12-35mm F2.8 and the 35-100 F2.8?
Lets be hypothetical but also be realistic as well.
M43 zoom lenses especially tend to be a little higher priced than their equivalents in other systems.

For me I would pay in the range of $800-$1000 for the GH3 body only.
Might sound expensive for some, might sound cheap for some but that's what I think the final price could be.

For the GH3 w/12-35mm Kit I'd pay in the range $1800-$2000. really hoping this one is accurate :)

For the 35-100mm I'd pay $1200-$1500. This one will probably be higher priced but a man can dream right? :)

If they decided to reintroduce the 7-14mm F4.0 in a weather-sealed body I'd pay prob $1000-$1200 for that puppy.

If you could influence the pricing, what would you all pay?
 
IMO, $800-$995 body only. The 12-35, if it goes past the $700 point, I am sitting out until it gets there. Same with the 35-100, $700 is my mental ceiling on lens prices that I will pay. Again, IMO, I think Panny has found their sweet spot in lens pricing in that $400-$700 range. At this point, again IMO, Panny and M4/3 needs to concentrate on market share and affordable quality lenses is one way to get it there.
 
"Well you can wish in one hand..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV-p51fvYLc


Unless the lenses perform significantly better than their Oly f2.0 counterparts, I'm thinking about $800-900 each would be the max I'd pay. The Leica D 14-50 sells new for about that, has great build and image quality and better range at the minus of heavy breathing and variable aperture and all sorts of audible clicks and whirrs... so I'd sacrifice 15mm to get constant ap and silent op at the same price.

I don't care about a new body right now. My AF is doing most of the work.
 
Depends on what the GH3 does. If it's capable of 1080/60p and has clean 4:2:2 HDMI out, I'd pay $1000 for the body alone.
 
The hypothetical GH3 will most likely be $900 USD (body only). That's how much the current GH2 retails for and I wouldn't expect Panasonic to raise the price. (although Canon recently jacked up the price of the 5D MkIII compared to the MkII, so who knows).

I would expect the 12-35 to be around 1.2k, and the 35-100 around 1.5k. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for them to be less, but these prices seem reasonable considering the cost of the Canon/Nikon equivalents and the Olympus 14-35/35-100. Also, the 12-35 has OIS, something even the more expensive Nikon & Canon equivalents don't have.
 
i just hope the lenses dont reach the oly lenses price. man those are really expensive. $2000+ is heartbreakingly expensive
 
Jaime Valles said:
Depends on what the GH3 does. If it's capable of 1080/60p and has clean 4:2:2 HDMI out, I'd pay $1000 for the body alone.
Click to expand...

Wow really....you just listed something that no other DSLR is capable of and act like $1000 is a fair price for it. And the only camera capable of 4:2:2 retails for $3k....if the gh3 could do those things as well as a few other fixes here and there, $2k would be reasonable
 
Last edited:
gundammrw said:
Wow really....you just listed something that no other DSLR is capable of and act like $1000 is a fair price for it. And the only camera capable of 4:2:2 retails for $3k....if the gh3 could do those things as well as a few other fixes here and there, $2k would be reasonable
Click to expand...

Well, the Sony NEX 5N shoots 1080/60p, and it's only $600...
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-NEX-5N-Compact-Interchangeable-Touchscreen/dp/B005IHAIMA

And if he Nikon D800 has clean 4:2:2 HDMI output, I don't see a reason why the GH3 couldn't have it as well.

But let's put it this way: What would Panasonic include in a GH3 that would make it a viable upgrade from the GH2 if not for 1080/60p and HDMI 4:2:2?
 
Yes 1080p60 isn't much, but to also ask for 4:2:2, when ALL other DSLR's use 4:2:0. And yes the D800 has it but its also $3,000! Could they do it? Yep. Would they do? Maybe, maybe not. But remember they also want to put it at a price point people could afford. If for whatever reason things went this way what do you think a mass majority (meaning non film makers, 95% of those buying it) would choose:

1. GH3 4:2:0 - $1000
2. GH3 4:2:2 - $2000

If they did do it and it was 10 bit as well, you might as well bury all the competition. Believe me I'd be first in line, I just REALLY doubt it and especially at that price point.

P.s. if that did happen they might as well discontinue the Af100
 
unless the gh3 has a global shutter, i'll just stick to a gh2
if it HAS global shutter? about $2k
 
wgzn said:
unless the gh3 has a global shutter, i'll just stick to a gh2
if it HAS global shutter? about $2k
Click to expand...

I really hope the price isn't $2K.
Its quite hard for me to even save $1K much less lenses and other gear.
The real pull for me with DSLR/ILCs is the image:price ratio.
You get a lot for very little
 
The GH3 would have to have CONSIDERABLY reduced rolling shutter in all modes for me personally to consider upgrading at all. The GH2 does everything I need it to, and more; it's unlikely that a person watching a production filmed on either a GH2 or GH3 will be able to tell the difference at all.

A DR increase would be nice, but I've found that nice contrasty lenses and exposing purely for the highlights actually gives plenty of range to work with. :)

If the GH3 had the above, I'd probably pay the same amount for it as I did for the GH2. Because it's more of a consumer (well, prosumer really) camera, Panasonic are very unlikely to increase the price.

As for the lenses... my goodness they are gems, but I personally can't justify spending more than £450 on any single lens, I think. Not when the same results can be achieved with a little more effort with much cheaper primes.
 
gundammrw said:
Yes 1080p60 isn't much, but to also ask for 4:2:2, when ALL other DSLR's use 4:2:0. And yes the D800 has it but its also $3,000! Could they do it? Yep. Would they do? Maybe, maybe not. But remember they also want to put it at a price point people could afford. If for whatever reason things went this way what do you think a mass majority (meaning non film makers, 95% of those buying it) would choose:

1. GH3 4:2:0 - $1000
2. GH3 4:2:2 - $2000

If they did do it and it was 10 bit as well, you might as well bury all the competition. Believe me I'd be first in line, I just REALLY doubt it and especially at that price point.

P.s. if that did happen they might as well discontinue the Af100
Click to expand...

They wouldn't have to discontinue the AF100 (or any of their other cameras) if the GH3 had clean 4:2:2 HDMI out. The reason folks buy the AF100 is because they need a dedicated video camera, one with XLR inputs, ND filters, HD-SDI output, timecode, etc. They don't buy it solely for the 4:2:2 HDMI output. Heck, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of AF100 owners don't use an external recorder, even though they can. So a GH3 with 4:2:2 HDMI and 1080/60p wouldn't hurt sales of the AF100, it would instead complement the AF100 as the ideal B-Camera without all the bells & whistles.

Not only that, but clean 4:2:2 HDMI output would likely deter many folks from hacking their GH3. The whole point of hacking the camera is to get higher bitrate recordings. If we can get that without the hack, many of us would in a heartbeat. GH3 + Atomos Ninja = $2000. I'm not holding my breath for 10bit output, though.

Of course, I don't know that they'll actually do this. But it's what it would take to get me to upgrade from my GH2. And I don't think they'll price the GH3 at more than $1200, since it is a consumer product after all. Because, if they don't offer 1080/60p and clean 4:2:2 HDMI output, what else would they offer to make me want to upgrade?
 
Jaime Valles said:
They wouldn't have to discontinue the AF100 (or any of their other cameras) if the GH3 had clean 4:2:2 HDMI out. The reason folks buy the AF100 is because they need a dedicated video camera, one with XLR inputs, ND filters, HD-SDI output, timecode, etc. They don't buy it solely for the 4:2:2 HDMI output. Heck, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of AF100 owners don't use an external recorder, even though they can. So a GH3 with 4:2:2 HDMI and 1080/60p wouldn't hurt sales of the AF100, it would instead complement the AF100 as the ideal B-Camera without all the bells & whistles.

Not only that, but clean 4:2:2 HDMI output would likely deter many folks from hacking their GH3. The whole point of hacking the camera is to get higher bitrate recordings. If we can get that without the hack, many of us would in a heartbeat. GH3 + Atomos Ninja = $2000. I'm not holding my breath for 10bit output, though.

Of course, I don't know that they'll actually do this. But it's what it would take to get me to upgrade from my GH2. And I don't think they'll price the GH3 at more than $1200, since it is a consumer product after all. Because, if they don't offer 1080/60p and clean 4:2:2 HDMI output, what else would they offer to make me want to upgrade?
Click to expand...

Clean HDMI output is nothing to me.
I don't want to buy an external recorder.
With the hack being free and all I can get amazing picture quality for the price of an SD card.
 
Boncrek said:
Clean HDMI output is nothing to me.
I don't want to buy an external recorder.
With the hack being free and all I can get amazing picture quality for the price of an SD card.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The GH's are not meant to be professional video cameras and are not priced or marketed to professional video users. A G-camera with clean HDMI out and a $1,000 price increase would be an entirely new class of G-camera. I bought a GH2 because it's price/features ratio was right for me. A "GH3" at double the price and completely different feature-set would not the the same price/features ratio and thus I would not be interested. Now, if they included it for free without compromising other features, great! I wouldn't stop them. I'd also never use that feature, but if it didn't get in my way and some people found it useful then I wouldn't mind it being there.

If anything, they should include clean HDMI on the next AF100 as that is a feature ONLY professionals want and the AF100 is the camera meant ONLY for professionals.
 
Jester2138 said:
If anything, they should include clean HDMI on the next AF100 as that is a feature ONLY professionals want and the AF100 is the camera meant ONLY for professionals.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the AF100 already have clean HDMI out? maybe I'm wrong but I was under that impression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top