GH2 GH3 or BMC m4/3?

Jaime Valles

Jaime Valles

Veteran
Well, somebody had to start this thread... ;)

It appears Blackmagic Design has listened to its customers and introduced a new flavor of the BMC:

http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagiccinemacamera/

There's now an EF mount version and a Micro 4/3 version. The m4/3 is a passive mount, meaning you can't control electronic Lumix lenses. This doesn't bother me since all the glass I have for my GH2 is manual anyway. And for filmmaking purposes, you really should be using manual lenses for greater control.

I had given up on the BMC because I didn't want to use only Canon EF lenses, but now that the m4/3 version is due in December, I may just spring for that one.

Blackmagic Design Cinema Camera
Pros:
  • RAW 12-bit 2.5K
  • ProRes 10-bit 1080p
  • 13 stops dynamic range
  • Great color, filmic highlight rolloff
  • Can use practically ANY manual lens with adapters (m4/3, PL, Leica, Nikon, Canon FD)
  • HD-SDI monitoring
  • Only $3000
Cons:
  • RAW takes up a MASSIVE ammount of HDD space
  • No control of electronic Micro 4/3 lenses (Lumix lenses are out)
  • Expensive SSDs for recording footage
  • Not the best at low light
  • No 60p
  • No XLR, no phantom power
  • No HDMI monitoring
  • Bigger & heavier than DSLRs
  • Needs external battery to work properly
  • No flip-out LCD

GH3 (based on current rumors)
Pros:
  • Electronic Lumix lenses work great, as do all other types of lenses with proper adapters
  • "Wide dynamic range", whatever that means in reality is anyone's guess right now
  • 72Mbps All-I recording
  • SD cards for recording footage
  • 60p in 1080p
  • Can take great 16 megapixel still photos
  • Flip-out LCD
  • HDMI monitoring
  • Weather sealed
  • Possible XLR attachment
  • Possible extended battery grip
  • Probably less than $1500
Cons:
  • 8-bit 4:2:0 recording only (most likely)
  • Max resolution is 1080p, not 2.5K
  • Unknown video quality (don't know yet how filmic the image will be)
  • No HD-SDI monitoring


Whaddayathink?
 
Last edited:
I have a lot of m4/3 Olympus and Panasonic lenses, so this announcement was exciting. But no electronic control = no aperture control and no auto focus. Or focus at all, since most of them are focus by wire.

Screw that noise. GH3.
 
LOL Erik!

I should probably add that I understand we're comparing two non-existent cameras. One has just been announced, and the other is still a rumor (albeit a very credible rumor).
 
I think many will end up buying BOTH now, because of the new MFT mount version... ;o)
But I doubt many will decide BETWEEN a GH3 and BMC as their main camera, different pricerange, different applications, different workflow.
Only if you already own a GH2 and have Voigtländers and other manual lenses AND want to have a true cinema camera for those of your projects who´d call for one, well then the BMC might be a better investment than a GH3...
 
I edited the first post with a list of pros & cons for each camera (obviously the GH3 is still a mystery and we'll have to wait and see what they announce).
 
Looks like BMD concluded that the world of camera lenses boils down to one major choice: Canon vs Everyone Else. It kind of reminds me of the PC revolution in the early 80's when it was IBM vs Everyone Else, with Apple leading the insurgents. Back then, however, PC compatibility issues were the inverse of today's lens mount conumdrum - IBM's was the open standard vs Apple's proprietary OS. Most other ironies hold as well.

The thing that puzzles me about the MFT standard is this: why they haven't openly documented and promoted the MFT electronic lens control protocols? I'd think this would give Panasonic and Olympus a major boost in third party support for the system. Of course, Canon hasn't done so either, but as was the case with IBM, Canon's huge market share has motivated third parties to reverse-engineer it on their own. What makes this an important issue is that the EF and MFT protocols have emerged as the two major competing standards for electronic lens control. (Nikon's F-mount is the odd man out, because it is a hybrid electro-mechanical system rather than all-electronic.)

For me personally, I'd also be in the manual-focus camp, so the MFT BMC would suit my purposes just fine. Even if the BMC had electronic lens control, the AF100 would be a better choice for ENG-style use of auto-exposure/focus MFT servo lenses anyway. And for light-weight portible flexibility, nothing can beat the GH2 for its price. What the BMC competes against are the Canon 5DMkIII and Nikon D800. BMC wins because 12-bit RAW video is no doubt the wave of the future.
 
Just to clarify, the BM camera will have a MFT mount, not a MFT sensor. The sensor size will remain the same between the two cameras. The first criteria should be sensor size imho. MFT is about as small as I want to go for a cinema style camera. Otherwise I will just use a 2/3" video camera. The GH3 is looking to be a nice camera by the rumours and will be my choice.
 
Jaime Valles said:
Blackmagic Design Cinema Camera
Cons:
  • RAW takes up a MASSIVE ammount of HDD space
  • No control of electronic Micro 4/3 lenses (Lumix lenses are out)
  • Expensive SSDs for recording footage
  • Not the best at low light
  • No 60p
  • No XLR, no phantom power
  • No HDMI monitoring
  • Bigger & heavier than DSLRs
  • Needs external battery to work properly
  • No flip-out LCD

GH3 (based on current rumors)
Cons:
  • 8-bit 4:2:0 recording only (most likely)
  • Max resolution is 1080p, not 2.5K
  • Unknown video quality (don't know yet how filmic the image will be)
  • No HD-SDI monitoring


Whaddayathink?
Click to expand...

The cons for the Black Magic sound really bad. The cons for the GH3 are all things we live without today.

I think the black magic introduces new features and a lot of new issues. The GH3 just resolves the issues we had with the GH2. I would much rather have a 3rd generation camera than a first.
 
mpgxsvcd said:
The cons for the Black Magic sound really bad. The cons for the GH3 are all things we live without today.

I think the black magic introduces new features and a lot of new issues. The GH3 just resolves the issues we had with the GH2. I would much rather have a 3rd generation camera than a first.
Click to expand...

It a very good point. The GH3 is a refinement of what we already have and love, whereas the BMC is new & untested. Plus, as Bassman2003 pointed out, the BMC has a sensor that's smaller than the GH2/GH3 so that's something to consider.

However, the pros of the BMC are HUGE. RAW or ProRes on board, 12-bit or even 10-bit 4:2:2 will positively destroy 8-bit 4:2:0 on the GH3. And the dynamic range at 13 stops is approaching Epic & Alexa territory. If you can get around the cons, it's an incredible camera.
 
Gh3 for me...... If you have a problem with Dynamic range just light your scene, use reflectors find a better time to shoot. If you shoot inside of a studio then this issue would be less as you control lighting. Personally it's not question, the GH3 is a better camera for me, heck the GH2 with the hack is still a better camera for me.

Now if money were no issue I would be shooting on Sony F3, I love the image from that camera......
 
Who cares? They will both be great pieces of GEAR. People should be asking themselves "Should I shoot this script, or that script" then choose a tool based on that answer.

No matter what comes out there is never a definitive answer. Way too many variables. Plus the next best thing is always just a few months away.
 
Jaime Valles said:
However, the pros of the BMC are HUGE. RAW or ProRes on board, 12-bit or even 10-bit 4:2:2 will positively destroy 8-bit 4:2:0 on the GH3. And the dynamic range at 13 stops is approaching Epic & Alexa territory. If you can get around the cons, it's an incredible camera.
Click to expand...

Here's a big con: the processing of the footage if you shoot RAW to even begin editing, and then the general lackadaisical attitude that is approached to color correction if you're not involved in post.

No way in hell would I ever give a client RAW DNGs or ProRes LOG files for them to stitch together and never even bother to color correct. It would look terrible.
 
Jaime Valles said:
However, the pros of the BMC are HUGE. RAW or ProRes on board, 12-bit or even 10-bit 4:2:2 will positively destroy 8-bit 4:2:0 on the GH3. And the dynamic range at 13 stops is approaching Epic & Alexa territory. If you can get around the cons, it's an incredible camera.
Click to expand...

I agree these things are absolutely things I would want. However, I cannot stress enough how important acceptable video is over no video. I really want the BM camera to succeed. I think it will revolutionize the market. However, I don't like the odds that it is up against. I would bet on the GH3 being known as an excellent choice. I am not so sure that the 1st iteration of the BM camera will be known as a great camera. Probably more like the 2nd or 3rd iteration like the GH3 is.

It sure would be cool if the GH3 surprises us all with real 4:2:2 1080p out of HDMI. That would be a huge step in the right direction. Ironically we would probably have to buy a Black Magic capture card in order to utilize it. :)
 
I think it's hilarious when people refer to it as the BM camera. What an unfortunate acronym. Personally, I'm leaning towards the GH3. It's a great point that was brought up about it being a 3rd version, as opposed to something brand new from a company untested in this market. There will no doubt be kinks along the way, so while I think the image is outstanding, I'm content to wait longer for a refined model later on - and continue rocking out with a GH2 / GH3 combo.
 
i said this in another discussion, but the GH3 isnt even a validated rumor yet. and the bmc is only available in small pre-ordered quantities. so it seems kinda silly to even entertain the thought... not to mention that outfitted, one is at least 2x the cost of the other
 
Gary is partially right. Anyone who has been shooting with any DSLR already has a bunch of stuff like rigs, monitors, microphones, recorders, follow focus, filters of all kinds like nds, matte boxes and so on and so forth. But. As cams evolve and as accessory equipment evolves, sadly, a lot of it has to be re-bought. Of course, I'm not even talking about the penny-wise pound-foolish folks who buy cheapo stuff that breaks down, or buy cheap stuff cause they have no $, and need to replace it. No, I'm talking about the fact that sometimes slightly different form factors can force you to change your gear up - a cage that might be perfect for the GH2 might be too small if you then buy the 5D. So as we buy new cams, at least some of the equipment needs to be upgraded. I know that's true of computers for post-prod work - I'm probably unusually stupid, but it's happened more than once that I've bought what was then a top of the line workstation thinking "well, this is gonna last me a good long time!", and then be horrified that scarcely a couple of years later new NLE or other post software comes out with new requirements and codecs that are way more demanding and the effects need a lot more horsepower, and well, I need a faster computer, more memory, faster drives, faster connections etc., etc., etc.,. All very strange, because I was quite fine cutting a two plus hour documentary back in 2007 on FCP, but today, I wouldn't be able to do a short with some of the new cams on the same old equipment. At this moment I'm still rocking a 27" i7 2.8Ghz iMac from late 2009, and already I can see that if I got the BMCC - which I have no plans for - I'd need a new computer if I wanted to work RAW... my iMac has USB 2.0 and FW800; no USB 3.0, no Thunderbolt; my drives are all 7200RPM. Heck, I wonder if my equipment will be enough for the GH3 post workflow - hopefully yes.

So I am not going to be re-buying everything, but sadly, some stuff may have to, even for the GH3. I'm excited about the GH3, and have a wait and see attitude about the BMCC.
 
mpgxsvcd said:
The cons for the Black Magic sound really bad..
Click to expand...

There's one major con left off that list. The internal battery of the BMCC can't be removed and replaced with a fresh battery when power runs out. So you either plug-in for the whole shoot, or your stop shooting while you find somewhere to plug-in and recharge for a few hours.

Lack of field portability is not just a MAJOR con for the BMCC, but an actual non-starter. I need 8 to 10 hours battery time with any camera I buy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top