GH3 GH3 or Black Magic Camera?

R

RandyQ

Well-known member
Hi folks,
I've been shooting with a hacked GH1 and waiting for the GH3 to arrive for the longest time. Today, however, there is the BMC to consider, so I'm wondering if anyone here has thoughts on which one to get.

I shoot mostly corporate stuff on my GH1 and have the rigs/lenses/audio all sorted out. It seems to be the right pricepoint for my clientele. The Gh3 will be a great upgrade because the change will be minimal but very big upside.

On the other hand, BMC opens up our business to a different world. I expect possible rental potention from filmakers, etc. But doing BMC is a diffferent workflow, and our clientele may not appreciate the upgrade (corporate film shot on RAW 2K?).

What do you folks think?

rgds/ RandyQ
 
Your work sounds like about what I do, as well. The added workflow of RAW and 2.5K wouldn't be practical for me. That makes added work that I don't need. But you can record directly to ProRes, which would actually make workflow easier. So that's nice. We haven't seen what the DR on the GH3 is yet-- or at least we need to wait until we get the final product to know for sure. But even so, I'm sure that the BMCC will be waay better, even in ProRes. I don't like that you have to add on a separate battery pack since its battery is internal. The smaller sensor size is a slight minus, but it's not all that much smaller.

All things considered, I'm pretty sure I'm going to get a GH3 (I have a GH2). Even if the BMCC was the same price as the GH3, I'd probably still prefer the GH3. I don't know, I need to see the final verdict after it is released. I know I don't want to buy another $3k camera, even though that's a great price for what you're getting. I already have $3k in an ENG camera, plus the GH2 at original retail with lenses, etc. Now a couple of years down the line, if the next BMCC has a few improvements and at least a m4/3 sensor (and I feel like I can put $3k or more into a camera), it would definitely be a harder decision. But I'm sure by then, Sony, Canon, and everyone else will have more lower priced cameras that blow today's cheaper cameras out of the water.

You probably have a lot of powered m4/3 lenses, right? Remember that those won't work on the BMCC, even on the one with the m4/3 mount. I did hear that they may release one in a few months that will support those lenses. So that's probably the one you want to hold out on if you do go that route.

I've been doing this on my own for a little over two years. If I was making the big bucks-- which of course I aspire to be within a few more years-- then I would probably go for one of the $5k - $10k cams. I think the word "game changer" is being used a bit too often for cameras right now, but as far as price with what you get, the BMCC is the biggest game changer so far. So I see it as a stepping stone for what's going to come out in another 2 - 5 years. So since I'm happy with the camera that I am currently using, as are my clients, I do feel like I can justify a $1300 purchase for some upgrades that will help me. But I just can't do that for a $3k purchase, and that's what it really comes down to for me.
 
You don't have to use raw with the BMC, it supports ProRes and DNxHD as well. I would wait until more GH3 footage has hit the internet.
 
atarijedi said:
You don't have to use raw with the BMC, it supports ProRes and DNxHD as well. I would wait until more GH3 footage has hit the internet.
Click to expand...

Yes, but one of the biggest selling points of the BMCC versus other cameras is arguably the 12-bit RAW support. Once you don't need that (for example, corporate / commercial gigs where a quick turnover is key), AVCHD out of a cheaper GH camera works great. I suppose if you're a heavy FCP user I could see the benefit of recording straight to pro-res, but AVCHD straight out of my hacked GH2 works extremely well in Premiere, Avid and Vegas, and still looks great to my clients. Heck, if the GH3 has decent clean hdmi, you could still record externally to a Ninja for less money.

Don't get me wrong, I think the BMCC is really great. I just don't necessarily think it is a perfect choice for everyone.
 
Last edited:
Definitely the GH3 is the cheaper option while still giving you awesome imagery and depth of field control. But yeah- the boost you get with raw in terms of dynamic range and color grading options in post production with the BMCC will definitely make the extra costs worthwhile. To be honest I'm not sure these cameras are an appropriate comparison- it's Apple to Oranges. What's your budget and need is really the deciding factor.

-Noah
 
One thing that I must mention, the most IMPORTANT upgrade I ever did for myself was lighting. After I bought a simple Arri 3 light kit and some cheaper knock off kino flo's my quality in image quality has greatly increased. Many people mention the poor 8 bit compression of dslr's but I've come to find out if you light your subject really well you can get some very very nice quality out of the GH2.

My focus now is on lenses, continue to learn more about lighting and I want to get a nice monitor for my camera. As an editor as well I have been learning a lot more about color correction and grading which has also brought a new level of quality to my work. So for the time being I think myself and many others have still not fully maximized the GH2 and this camera can still be excellent for another year while I continue to build my skills.....

$ 00.02

ps. BMCC looks amazing, but if you have pro Dp's using GH2 hacked cameras mixed with Red Scarlet/Epic than I'm good for now.....
 
As much of a no brainer as this is to me (Blackmagic over GH3 hands down) it would make it a lot more of a no-brainer for others if Blackmagic opened up the camera's menus to custom LUT import. So instead of being stuck with either Video or Film, you can pull a LUT you've made with Davinci and all of your ProRes stuff will come out ready to deliver.

Do you know how much more amazing it is to light for a camera that sees in the neighborhood of 13?????
 
For quick turn arounds (corporate, weddings events etc) go with the gh2.

For slow feature film projects in which you have a lot of time to tweak IQ the BMC is the choice.
 
berylium said:
For quick turn arounds (corporate, weddings events etc) go with the gh2.

For slow feature film projects in which you have a lot of time to tweak IQ the BMC is the choice.
Click to expand...

^ That pretty much sums up what I was trying to say.
 
There are two ways to affect the dynamic range. Either you can increase the camera’s dynamic range or decrease the dynamic range of the scene. Buying lighting to reduce the dynamic range of the scene is way cheaper than buying a new camera.

I shoot live action events indoors in poorly lit areas without the option to add additional lighting. The GH3 will be my only option since I would like to do live broadcasts eventually. If you are happy with the GH1’s results and you can add more lighting I would do that.
 
I don't know the final image of the GH3 yet but I think we all know what we kind of can expect. My opinion is based on this.

It's very simple.
The BMC has a more professional looking image than the GH3. Higher DR, Supersharp en flexible in grading. Just highest of high end imho.
The GH3 has a very acceptable image. Most likely good enough for your clients. But is it for you? I like the BMC much better in this.

The BMC is a hasle. Not a good design for handheld and highly recomended to buy lots of expensive extra's $1000+.
The GH3 is good to go out of the box. For handheld or tripod.

The BMC is very expensive in data management compared to GH3. For memorystorage on shoot and memory storage in postproduction.

btw, heart that the image from .mov is much better than AVCHD on the GH3.

Good luck with your decision. I go for the BMC and keep my FS100 on my side for most of my projects. The BMC for 'special' projects. More like a hobby since the FS100 makes me enought money and give me the right projects. Just as the GH3 may do for you. However I don't like to show up with a DSLR since a videocamera looks more serieus to the client.
 
I'll wait until the GH3 is out before I even think about it.
I'm not judging it based on a firmware before 1.0.

As for the GH3 not looking professional enough - a matte box and half-decent rig will see to that.
 
As for the GH3 not looking professional enough - a matte box and half-decent rig will see to that.
Click to expand...
ive always thought the bmcc looked like a bedside clock radio.
 
I would say if you only shoot studio stuff, the BMC might be the better bet. BUT, the form factor, less crop, not limited to ISO 1600 and Slow Motion makes the GH3 a much more versatile camera.
 
Love the BMC image, but it's got some flaws that are real issues, so much so I can't believe there won't be a replacement within 12 months to address them, so I think if you're an early adopter that's at your own risk. The built in battery, the fact it only records to one media (as opposed to dual so you have a backup), the fact it doesn't have phantom power and XLRs, the fact the screen placement means really you need an EVF, the fact the m4/3 is passive, to me it's an oddity, great picture but impracticable. It falls between an SLR and a proper professional camcorder, so fails to tick all the boxes for either role, it demands compromise and workarounds.

Meanwhile the GH3 will be practical, unfortunately also with issues, lack of focus peaking is criminal if Panasonic really want to consider it a professional camera, I've heard nothing about dual media so assuming that's another issue, but overall to me it's more of a complete package. At least for GH2 users we'll be able to find benefits and justification to buy one and will be able to work with it.
 
Last edited:
Kholi said:
As much of a no brainer as this is to me (Blackmagic over GH3 hands down) it would make it a lot more of a no-brainer for others if Blackmagic opened up the camera's menus to custom LUT import. So instead of being stuck with either Video or Film, you can pull a LUT you've made with Davinci and all of your ProRes stuff will come out ready to deliver.
Click to expand...

This... is ideal and would make the camera MUCH MUCH more practical for other types of gigs besides cinema. I'm buying it becuase I'm moving into commercials and gigs that will allow me the on-set set-up and post time, however if the majority of my work were more corporate stuff or weddings, run-n-gun docs, etc, the GH3/mkIII/c100/fs1-700/ would all be my choices over the BMC.

I'm yet to see GH3 footage that has convinced me over a GH2 hacked tho... I really hope the IQ i'm seeing will be better on the final production camera.

I really hope BM does a FW update that allows for user uploaded LUTs into the camera for prores/DNxHD. But the video gamma doesn't look too bad from what I see in this video...

 
P13 said:
Love the BMC image, but it's got some flaws that are real issues, so much so I can't believe there won't be a replacement within 12 months to address them, so I think if you're an early adopter that's at your own risk. The built in battery, the fact it only records to one media (as opposed to dual so you have a backup), the fact it doesn't have phantom power and XLRs, the fact the screen placement means really you need an EVF, the fact the m4/3 is passive, to me it's an oddity, great picture but impracticable. It falls between an SLR and a proper professional camcorder, so fails to tick all the boxes for either role, it demands compromise and workarounds. ...
Click to expand...

Yet another example of BMCC kick-*ss features reinterpreted as limitations. Classic.

More about this phenomena: "BMCC limitations (not)".

As for the GH3, calling it "practical" and "more ... complete", especially compared to something like the BMCC, is quite a stretch given that the GH3 is not available in final production form yet. Meanwhile, the lucky few BMCC users in the world are working with final production hardware and v1.1 firmware.

The only thing "wrong" about the BMCC is that its production is "temporarily" halted, and we don't know for how long. Other than that, it's an incredible hardware & software bundle value for folks who can make good use of its capabilities.

In any event, comparing a ~$1.5K GH3 to a $3K BMCC is an apples & oranges intellectual exercise.

Myself, I pre-ordered a BMCC-EF in mid-April (and still waiting ...), and will probably buy a GH3 early next year, too (my m43 Lumix lenses need a new body).

There's no 1 perfect camera for all productions and budgets. One's gear & feature preferences are not universal.
 
Last edited:
BMC footage looks nice, minus some noise I see in the scenes. Also my only real knock against the camera is form factor, won't be able to do any stealth shooting with that beast...... GH3 should be a nice camera was it has been hacked, till then GH2 it is.
 
Peter J. DeCrescenzo said:
Yet another example of BMCC kick-*ss features reinterpreted as limitations. Classic.

More about this phenomena: "BMCC limitations (not)".
Click to expand...
It's no such thing, having passive 4/3 is a limitation as that puts a load of lenses out of use straight away, including some especially good Olympus ones. Not having dual media means you're putting anything you record "at risk" as SSDs and any form of media can fail, true the BMC isn't alone in this, but it's an issue for someone like myself coming from Canon camcorders where having a ready made backup is standard practice. Having to depend on 3rd party power options is a compromise and a work around. These work arounds you sometimes expect with SLRs but you don't expect with professional camcorders, my point is simply it doesn't tick all the boxes of either option and I'm sure these issues will be resolved in a future model. For me the BMC right now is on an uneasy middleground.

I use mainly manual glass, Voigtländer & SLR Magic, but being forced to only have that option is a limitation, with my GH2, at least I can put it on a small rig, I have a loupe and follow focus and so working with manual glass isn't such an issue, but the BMC doesn't have a form factor that fits this use comfortably especially with power and an EVF hanging off, I can see it being a problem, it's most certainly an expensive extra cost to resolve properly.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top