GH3 gh3 for stills?

J

JasonMillard81

Active member
A lot of attention has been diverted to the new ML raw capabilities, and rightly so. I'm looking to get some feedback on taking stills with the GH3...some timelapses but also regular stills. I'd like to be able to print out big prints and frame them for apartment decoration etc.

I tried flickr but it's not a great flow on how to navigate, and haven't seen much written since i's popular as a video camera.
 
I recently used my GH3 on a pleasure trip to Ireland for both video and stills and was quite impressed with its photo skills. I was easily able to print an image at over 17" wide (and could have gone quite a bit larger) with beauitful quality. I also just finished a paying gig with a Canon 1DX, 5DmkII, AND my GH3 and used the GH3 for both photos and video (along with an FS700 and PMW-200). It performed very well and even garnered a lot of interest from the client (good interest). Bottom line - for stills it might not be a complete match for the higher end full frame Canons BUT it's also no slouch. It is very capable of taking high quality professional stills. By the way, the GH3 did very well as a video rig alongside the FS700 and PMW-200. I'm using the 12-35mm, 35-100mm, and 100-300mm Panasonic lenses along with an older Olympus OM lens for macro work (with extender tubes). Overall - for compact, lightweight shooting the GH3 has been a wonderful addition to my "arsenal". I am using it frequently with no regrets.
 
The GH3 being so compact and high quality makes me want to take it everywhere I go. The best camera is the one you have with you.
 
I had already done prints 1 x 1.30 meters without any real problem from my GH2. GH3 is definitely even better. Unless you apply "The Extremist's Pixel-Peeper Torture Toolbox" to the GH3, it's absolutely fabulous. If you sniff around you will find pro-photographers who work with that camera for certain jobs without any real problem. Only question remaining is, if you need a FF camera for your work. Well, then you should use one.
 
The OP already bought the 5DIII. He didn't think he could shoot any video worth watching with a GH3. Go figure!
 
vtwiz said:
The OP already bought the 5DIII. He didn't think he could shoot any video worth watching with a GH3. Go figure!
Click to expand...
Okay then. There is the magic triangle of price, shlepp-ability of equipment, tech-specs. Throw it onto the job you need to do, adjust the vectors and see, which camera fits the task best. If the 5DIII is the right camera for him - the better he has bought one. For me GH3 is currently king of the hill, top notch video, very good stills, nice price and relatively small. And the ability to put lots of strange glass that I own in front of it. Read from certain pro-shooters, they sold stills from the GH3 to big agencies without problems. And if one needs a Hasselblad .... Then one probably should get one....
 
vtwiz said:
The OP already bought the 5DIII. He didn't think he could shoot any video worth watching with a GH3. Go figure!
Click to expand...

Wow... I appreciated the feedback when I was researching cameras...it's weird that some of you act like the girlfriend I dumped for another chic. I'm confident that that refurbished 5d3 i got for $2300 (pre-tax) was an excellent deal. I am really looking to expand my photo capabilities and like the idea of having the RAW option in addition to the FF look and the canon color scheme. Resale value will hold much higher if and when I want to upgrade bodies in a few years. I've never said GH3 sucks. Ultimately the colors and "feel" of most video paled in comparison to the footage I enjoyed coming for 5D line.

Relax...

it's a camera!

:)
 
Look, the 5D is a good choice. Im truely not fussed what you choose.

I was just a little confused by the fact that you were asking for all this advice on the GH3 but were trashing it in other threads saying how terrible it was.

I'm glad you finally made up your mind.
 
ive owned and used all manner of gh, canon, nikon. and i simply found it easier to achieve the aesthetic i wanted with the full-frame canons.

YMMV
 
Unless you are really concerned about the esthetics of full frame or a smaller sensor, the camera is irrelevant. It's the OPTICS and working in raw, along with your skill as a photographer (understanding light, framing, etc.,) that will deliver an image that matters.

Of course, if you are doing 50 foot commercial prints, then a Nikon D800, or a Canon 5Dx would perhaps be a smart choice. Or dare I say even medium format. But you still need the glass.
 
Yep, considering that today's 5DIII's and GH2/3's are all so good, it really is the lenses that will give you the look you are after. As an aside, I have never heard a true pro complain that MFT is not a big enough sensor and that they couldn't get what they needed out of it. John Brawley (a DP heavily involved in testing the Black Magic Cameras) has never said that the Pocket Camera which has a S16mm sized chip (smaller than MFT) can't produce shallow enough DOF. How often do you need someones eyes in focus and nose out of focus anyway). Saying this, it's still possible even on the S16mm sensor of the Pocket Cam with the right lenses.
 
I look at these two cameras as totally different tools that do the same thing. I have the original 5D and it takes amazingly good stills. I havent used it in a long time. Why? Because it's heavy and bigger than the GH2 and now my GH3. I traded some image quality for it with the GH2 but the stills that I get from the GH3 are pretty darn good and the trade off for a small light weight system wins for me. I dont hesitate to take the camera and the Lumix f2.8 12-35 & 35-100 with me. Its incredibly light and compact. Try that with the Canon f2.8 24-70 L and 70-200 L versions. Those are some heavy lenses. I'm not making money with my GH3 but some pros are, and most users dont either. Again it's all about having the camera with me and wanting to carry it around. I'm digging the system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top