GH3 GH3 or GH2 for B Cam?
- Thread starter awomias
- Start date
dustylense
Veteran
Gh3 and ditch both canons.
Bern Caughey
Veteran
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
Even though I gripe at the GH3 shortcomings and crappy CLUT (compared to Olympus) . Two GH3's are going to be the smart bet. I'm pressing hard for a package deal too. 2XGH3 bodies, 12-35, 35-100, 2X grip battery packs, ONE low price.
They might well be saying that, but they sure aren't showing it. If anything, I'm seeing downgrades over hacked GH2 footage.
dustylense
Veteran
Do you have the Gh3? If not, all you're seeing is compressed online footage. Most stuff is users getting familiar with the camera.
This!
To the OP, if you need stills, I would keep the 7D. GH2 or GH3 can't really match it (yet). Then sell the T3 and get a GH2, which can be had for a steal these days. They will match fine. I constantly match GH2 and AF100 footage which are even more far apart.
Per Lichtman
Well-known member
Forgetting any differing opinions about the relative values of the GH2 vs GH3 and other cameras for a moment, it actually really depends a little bit on the criteria you are using to pick it.
The GH2, GH3 vs T3i/7D all have different crop factors, color handling, etc. By using more than one GH3, you would get more footage that would grad similarly and have fewer variables to account for in terms of shooting. Conversely, you would have fewer ways to shoot with the same lens than with a combination of a GH2 and GH3 (and even fewer options than with a GH2, GH3 and 1.6 crop factor Canon body like the ones mentioned above).
So it partly depends in part on whether you want consistency or variety and I would think about that before starting to evaluate the specifics of the cameras. Also think about whether you are happy with the way you are currently handling your EF lenses on the GH3. If you aren't happy with the way they are working right now, would getting a slightly wider shot out of them (GH2) or getting a much wider shot out of them (1.6x crop Canon) make a difference? Also, do you need AF/IS out of them and is that working well for you on the Canon bodies at the moment?
If you're satisfied you have the answers to all those questions, then here are my thoughts on the GH2 vs GH3.
The GH2 is closer to maxing out it's potential at this point than the GH3 (which people are still finding the best approaches for and no one has attempted to hack it quite yet).
It has a different crop factor (as mentioned above) and supports shooting in Ex. Teleconverter mode in all shooting modes (while the GH3 limits it to certain shooting modes).
The GH2 has a lower resolution electronic shutter for stills with a 40 fps 40-shot burst mode that has less rolling shutter than the GH3. The GH3 features a higher resolution electronic shutter with more rolling shutter and a lower framerate that has the potential to easily used in a wider array of situations.
The GH3 supports uncompressed audio recording - the GH2 records to lossy compressed AC-3.
The primary advantages the 7D has over the other cameras are in stills mode. Here is a sampling of some of them.
- Superior sustained burst shooting rate.
- Superior shot buffer.
- Superior bit-depth in RAW mode (though this does not normally affect my work).
- Better native support for extra features (IS, AF, etc.) on Canon lenses.
- Somehwat better noise performance in RAW mode compared to the GH series.
- Support for specialized accessories that are not supported by the GH series (the Promote Control Promote being one of my favorites).
These are just some of the many things to think about. I have various Panasonic and Canon cameras and each of them has its strengths. But for the 1.6x Canon crop-bodies you mentioned, I would mainly only keep them for crop-factor/lens options or for stills. They don't handle video-compression or video moire/aliasing as well as the GH cameras mentioned but they have the many strengths for stills I mentioned.
So the answer is, it really depends on what is most important to you and what you want to do. Hope the extra data helps you figure that out, though.
The GH2, GH3 vs T3i/7D all have different crop factors, color handling, etc. By using more than one GH3, you would get more footage that would grad similarly and have fewer variables to account for in terms of shooting. Conversely, you would have fewer ways to shoot with the same lens than with a combination of a GH2 and GH3 (and even fewer options than with a GH2, GH3 and 1.6 crop factor Canon body like the ones mentioned above).
So it partly depends in part on whether you want consistency or variety and I would think about that before starting to evaluate the specifics of the cameras. Also think about whether you are happy with the way you are currently handling your EF lenses on the GH3. If you aren't happy with the way they are working right now, would getting a slightly wider shot out of them (GH2) or getting a much wider shot out of them (1.6x crop Canon) make a difference? Also, do you need AF/IS out of them and is that working well for you on the Canon bodies at the moment?
If you're satisfied you have the answers to all those questions, then here are my thoughts on the GH2 vs GH3.
The GH2 is closer to maxing out it's potential at this point than the GH3 (which people are still finding the best approaches for and no one has attempted to hack it quite yet).
It has a different crop factor (as mentioned above) and supports shooting in Ex. Teleconverter mode in all shooting modes (while the GH3 limits it to certain shooting modes).
The GH2 has a lower resolution electronic shutter for stills with a 40 fps 40-shot burst mode that has less rolling shutter than the GH3. The GH3 features a higher resolution electronic shutter with more rolling shutter and a lower framerate that has the potential to easily used in a wider array of situations.
The GH3 supports uncompressed audio recording - the GH2 records to lossy compressed AC-3.
The primary advantages the 7D has over the other cameras are in stills mode. Here is a sampling of some of them.
- Superior sustained burst shooting rate.
- Superior shot buffer.
- Superior bit-depth in RAW mode (though this does not normally affect my work).
- Better native support for extra features (IS, AF, etc.) on Canon lenses.
- Somehwat better noise performance in RAW mode compared to the GH series.
- Support for specialized accessories that are not supported by the GH series (the Promote Control Promote being one of my favorites).
These are just some of the many things to think about. I have various Panasonic and Canon cameras and each of them has its strengths. But for the 1.6x Canon crop-bodies you mentioned, I would mainly only keep them for crop-factor/lens options or for stills. They don't handle video-compression or video moire/aliasing as well as the GH cameras mentioned but they have the many strengths for stills I mentioned.
So the answer is, it really depends on what is most important to you and what you want to do. Hope the extra data helps you figure that out, though.
Don't feed Jim, I don't think he even owns a camera......
GH3 is better inside and out, we have stated this countless times. Even if the image quality is the EXACT as the GH2, the GH3 design and feel makes it worth the price of admission.
*Weather Sealed body
*Larger, more professional
*Button layout
*1080 60 fps
*Oled display
*Codec
The list goes on..... Now to the OP personally those Canon's are first gen technology , if you cannot afford a Mark III I would suggest GH2's or GH3's. More importantly though is if you can Rent these cameras as see what works best. Many people are creating beautiful images and their cameras are not holding them back.
Per Lichtman
Well-known member
Just a note to a couple of the people that posted recently.
Keep in mind that the OP already has a GH3. They know that part of the equation - it's the other cameras they need more info. about.
Keep in mind that the OP already has a GH3. They know that part of the equation - it's the other cameras they need more info. about.
goodgoings
Well-known member
I'm also considering adding another GH2 or stepping up to a GH3 as a A or B cam. I've also considered adding to my GH2 a Nikon D800/D600 for the "FF" look and low light capabilities that can go beyond a GH3. Any thoughts on this?
Per Lichtman
Well-known member
Well, my earlier post gives a good starting point for some thoughts on the whole thing.
But to address the new aspect (the going FF with D800/D600 option) I would mention a couple things.
1) Yes, you can get the FF look. If your primary concerns relate to DOF or you would like to get a wider crop out of your lenses, then those cameras present that option.
2) The lowlight capabilities on those cameras are outperformed quite noticeably by the 5DMkIII (I haven't looked into the 6D yet). On the other hand, the lowlight performance of the D4 and 1DX are much, much closer to each other. In other words, don't get a D800/D600 if lowlight is your main concern.
3) The D800 gives sharper video than the 5DMkIII. It also has more moire/aliasing. It also lets you use an external recorder.
Personally, I often find dynamic range to more of a killer feature than DOF. Depending on what you are doing, you might want to consider either getting a 5DMkIII for video (if you need to shoot a lot each year) or setting the money aside to rent or buy a BMCC or Red Scarlet, since those cameras have much more dynamic range (and in the case of the Scarlet a usable sensor area much larger than M43 though smaller than full-frame).
If video is the main concern, I would say GH series, BMCC and 5DMkIII are all good cameras for different applications (though the 5DMkIII is really there almost purely based on the FF-look, not codec quality, etc.) If those don't do it for you, you might want to look into dedicated video cameras like the FS100.
If your heart is set on the D800, it should do fine as long as you 1) shoot with enough light 2) avoid shooting situations that are prone to moire and aliasing (watch lines and fabric patterns) and 3) look into whether you are happy with the codec.
Not sure what else I can add at the moment.
goodgoings
Well-known member
Per Lichtman, thanks for your answer. The reason I prefer to go with Nikon over Canon is because I have a set of Nikkors already.
kostas here talks about the differences between the 5D MKIII and Nikon D800.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?299207-5Dm3-vs-D800-dealing-with-the-limitations
He mentions that ISO on the D800 is one stop brighter so maybe the Canon advantage is lost. Also he mentions better detail and dynamic range over the 5D. In so many ways it seems as the D800 beats the 5D and he is a Canon owner.
I had a chance of using C300 on a short and the low-light capabilities was amazing, but in reality only about 5% of the shoot required this capability.
I don't shoot for a lot of clients so a more expensive alternative is out of the equation. But I still am wondering if someone recommends a FF camera and a GH2 as a good combination, or should I just go double GH series and rent a FF during low-light shooting.
kostas here talks about the differences between the 5D MKIII and Nikon D800.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?299207-5Dm3-vs-D800-dealing-with-the-limitations
He mentions that ISO on the D800 is one stop brighter so maybe the Canon advantage is lost. Also he mentions better detail and dynamic range over the 5D. In so many ways it seems as the D800 beats the 5D and he is a Canon owner.
I had a chance of using C300 on a short and the low-light capabilities was amazing, but in reality only about 5% of the shoot required this capability.
I don't shoot for a lot of clients so a more expensive alternative is out of the equation. But I still am wondering if someone recommends a FF camera and a GH2 as a good combination, or should I just go double GH series and rent a FF during low-light shooting.
Per Lichtman
Well-known member
@goodgoings In terms of pairing the cameras, I would simply say what I said to previous poster before you.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...-B-Cam&p=1986255227&viewfull=1#post1986255227
In essence, it depends on whether you want flexibility or consistency. With multiple cameras of the same model, you have the same shooting considerations for each one. With multiple different cameras, you have more options in terms of strengths to capitalize on.
I would rent for whatever you would shoot with least often. The D800 tends to be better for natural light and backgrounds than in highly artificial environments.
Now, if what kostas said in the comment you mentioned were consistent with the other testing I've seen demonstrated, then I would agree with you about the D800 and the 5DMkIII lowlight. But it is simply not consistent with what is being shown in some other places.
First, take a look at these pictures at the same RAW settings.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio scene&headerSubTitle=Standard studio scene comparison&masterCamera=canon_eos5dmkiii&masterSample=5d3_5224.acr&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=canon_eos5dmkiii&slot0Sample=5d3_5224.acr&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=nikon_d800&slot1Sample=dsc_0264.acr&x=-0.02243066163159096&y=0.8626708884336004&extraCameraCount=0
Then note that DXOMark shows the 5DMkIII with a higher measured ISO than the D800 at every ISO setting. Note that whenever people accuse DXOMark of any bias, it's essentially against Canon, not for it.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Ca...brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/792|0/(brand2)/Nikon
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...-B-Cam&p=1986255227&viewfull=1#post1986255227
In essence, it depends on whether you want flexibility or consistency. With multiple cameras of the same model, you have the same shooting considerations for each one. With multiple different cameras, you have more options in terms of strengths to capitalize on.
I would rent for whatever you would shoot with least often. The D800 tends to be better for natural light and backgrounds than in highly artificial environments.
Now, if what kostas said in the comment you mentioned were consistent with the other testing I've seen demonstrated, then I would agree with you about the D800 and the 5DMkIII lowlight. But it is simply not consistent with what is being shown in some other places.
First, take a look at these pictures at the same RAW settings.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio scene&headerSubTitle=Standard studio scene comparison&masterCamera=canon_eos5dmkiii&masterSample=5d3_5224.acr&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=canon_eos5dmkiii&slot0Sample=5d3_5224.acr&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=nikon_d800&slot1Sample=dsc_0264.acr&x=-0.02243066163159096&y=0.8626708884336004&extraCameraCount=0
Then note that DXOMark shows the 5DMkIII with a higher measured ISO than the D800 at every ISO setting. Note that whenever people accuse DXOMark of any bias, it's essentially against Canon, not for it.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Ca...brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/792|0/(brand2)/Nikon
Buy a GH3 and some fast lenses. You can use iso all the way up to 3200 and shoot almost anything. No need for FF. GH3 up to iso 1600 is as clean as iso 800 on the GH2. If you need more light a simple led light or ring light on your camera and you're fine.
Per Lichtman
Well-known member
As an aside, I'm a bit of an ISO freak. The advantage of the D3s over the 1DMkIV was what made me start looking into switching over from Canon to Nikon. The 1DX remedied things in large part for stills, though the lack of six-digit ISOs (which the D4 has) is frustrating. In fact, even the 1DMkIV had it (as did the D3s) so I am not sure why they left it out.
Per Lichtman
Well-known member
As an addition to what J.F.R. said, I would mention that I just love shooting with the Nokton 25mm f/0.95 and that it does indeed go some way towards addressing the lowlight gap.
But I would NOT shoot ISO 3200 on the GH2 for normal narrative work, just documentary-style stuff, etc.
I almost always wish I'd shot anything that's at ISO 2,500 or above at a lower ISO.
But I would NOT shoot ISO 3200 on the GH2 for normal narrative work, just documentary-style stuff, etc.
I almost always wish I'd shot anything that's at ISO 2,500 or above at a lower ISO.