GH2 GH3 When?

I'll be buying into the GH2 this year, probably around August or September... and it looks like the camera for me.

Everything the fellows on Page 1 are hoping for are beyond hopeless wishing. These cameras are sub-$1000/1500 equipment, meant for soccer mums who want a good little shooter. The same to be said for the GH1... it was an entry level camera for those who couldn't afford Canon/Nikon... and those who wanted interchangable lens options.

I would personally just like to see a little extra quality in the megapixels for stills (as I am an amatuer photographer with the GH1), maybe 16...18 megapixels at the most? Clean HDMI out sounds nice... I'd like that if I ever get a HD monitor to help with focusing. Better Zebras and a more accurate histogram might come in useful, but I doubt we'll see anything there. Upgrading the sound to manual levelling and having a proper 3.5mm jack for the mic would be great, but again not really necessary as I always capture my sound externally.

One thing you would probably expect to see with a release of the GH3 is more accessories. Panasonic are realising videographers and budget film-makers alike are going for the GH2, so swamping them with more m4/3 lens choices and extra accessories like grips would be logical.

I know alot of what I personally would like to see in a GH3 could also be said as "high hopes" wishing, but I believe it would be more logical to see this stuff and less of the XLR jacks, 2k video etc that is just plain bullcrap.
 
Since you posted this twice, please let me respond.

DanielRutter said:
...These cameras are sub-$1000/1500 equipment, meant for soccer mums who want a good little shooter. The same to be said for the GH1... it was an entry level camera for those who couldn't afford Canon/Nikon... and those who wanted interchangable lens options.
Click to expand...

They are not meant for soccer mums although they are quite welcome to use them. In fact the cameras are quite unsuited to sports photography. Secondly, at close to $900 for the body (original price) the GH2 is more expensive than a similar offerings from Canon (T3i for instance). I wouldn't call the 60D entry level, and there you have price parity.

Thirdly, many of us like the aesthetics of the micro 43 system. And what a great little shooter it is. :thumbsup:
 
stoneinapond said:
Since you posted this twice, please let me respond.



They are not meant for soccer mums although they are quite welcome to use them. In fact the cameras are quite unsuited to sports photography. Secondly, at close to $900 for the body (original price) the GH2 is more expensive than a similar offerings from Canon (T3i for instance). I wouldn't call the 60D entry level, and there you have price parity.

Thirdly, many of us like the aesthetics of the micro 43 system. And what a great little shooter it is. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Agreed. The GH2 is the flagship Panasonic "DSLR." They can (and should) add all the bells and whistles they can to it.
 
stoneinapond said:
Since you posted this twice, please let me respond.



They are not meant for soccer mums although they are quite welcome to use them. In fact the cameras are quite unsuited to sports photography. Secondly, at close to $900 for the body (original price) the GH2 is more expensive than a similar offerings from Canon (T3i for instance). I wouldn't call the 60D entry level, and there you have price parity.

Thirdly, many of us like the aesthetics of the micro 43 system. And what a great little shooter it is. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Jaime Valles said:
Agreed. The GH2 is the flagship Panasonic "DSLR." They can (and should) add all the bells and whistles they can to it.
Click to expand...

Firstly, the sports photography gag was a poor attempt at a joke...
and secondly, while I haven't used the GH2... my GH1 certainly isn't for pros. When compared to a friends Lumix fixed lens (I believe the model is an FZ100) the GH1 is pretty much just one of those, with interchangable lens options and a slightly better image quality. The GH1 would then be for the "soccer mum" who wants more out of her photography, or for the poor student photographer who can't afford Canon or Nikon.

Also, it isn't an "DSLR"... to qualify as such it would require a mirror in which to gather its images. I would prefer to call it a "hybrid", although I personally would love an optical viewfinder when shooting...
A flagship camera doesn't require a company to "add all the bells and whistles". Think of it in business terms... why would you add professional features you put on your >$3000 cameras, straight onto a <$1500 camera? It's just bad business sense. Sure, they'd sell GH3's with "all the trimmings" pros want... but that'd take away sales on the AF100/101 and all their pro models.

So, I stand by my previous statement:
I would personally just like to see a little extra quality in the megapixels for stills (as I am an amatuer photographer with the GH1), maybe 16...18 megapixels at the most? Clean HDMI out sounds nice... I'd like that if I ever get a HD monitor to help with focusing. Better Zebras and a more accurate histogram might come in useful, but I doubt we'll see anything there. Upgrading the sound to manual levelling and having a proper 3.5mm jack for the mic would be great, but again not really necessary as I always capture my sound externally.

One thing you would probably expect to see with a release of the GH3 is more accessories. Panasonic are realising videographers and budget film-makers alike are going for the GH2, so swamping them with more m4/3 lens choices and extra accessories like grips would be logical.
Click to expand...
 
DanielRutter said:
The GH1 would then be for the "soccer mum" who wants more out of her photography, or for the poor student photographer who can't afford Canon or Nikon.

Also, it isn't an "DSLR"... to qualify as such it would require a mirror in which to gather its images. I would prefer to call it a "hybrid", although I personally would love an optical viewfinder when shooting...
A flagship camera doesn't require a company to "add all the bells and whistles". Think of it in business terms... why would you add professional features you put on your >$3000 cameras, straight onto a <$1500 camera? It's just bad business sense. Sure, they'd sell GH3's with "all the trimmings" pros want... but that'd take away sales on the AF100/101 and all their pro models.
Click to expand...

I can afford a Canon or Nikon DSLR but don't want one. I am neither a student, professional, or a soccer mum. I want my GH2 precisely because it doesn't have a mirror.

And once again, the GH2 and AF100 have nothing to do with each other, save for the sensor size and lens mount. They are from completely different divisions of Panasonic. If you don't believe me, go to NAB and ask at the Panasonic Professional booth about the GH3. You'll get a far less polite response.
 
stoneinapond said:
I can afford a Canon or Nikon DSLR but don't want one. I am neither a student, professional, or a soccer mum. I want my GH2 precisely because it doesn't have a mirror.

And once again, the GH2 and AF100 have nothing to do with each other, save for the sensor size and lens mount. They are from completely different divisions of Panasonic. If you don't believe me, go to NAB and ask at the Panasonic Professional booth about the GH3. You'll get a far less polite response.
Click to expand...

Show me where I said they were the same thing? And in saying that, you've just made my point for me. The AF100 is a PRO camera, for serious PRO's. The GH2, and hopefully the GH3 will be targeted at semi-serious pros and those without a neverending hole in their pockets. I'll say it again, maybe it'll stick on a third times reading... Panasonic will not stick $4000 pro features on a $1000 camera body. XLR on a mirrorless SLR... you're kidding right? Expect slightly better video quality, maybe some bug fixes and maybe some new features like 1080/60p (if we're lucky).

I'm going to risk shooting myself in the foot here by saying the GH1 was an ugly mess, targeted more towards those student photographers I mentioned earlier. It picked up interest from the budget video/film crowd, and Panasonic sniffed out an opportunity with this by bringing out the GH2.

Man, you guys are acting like a pack of rabid fanboys. You can all dream about these features, but until they become consumer standards... you'll never see them on what is considered a consumer camera.
 
DanielRutter said:
Show me where I said they were the same thing...
Click to expand...

Sure, they'd sell GH3's with "all the trimmings" pros want... but that'd take away sales on the AF100/101 and all THEIR pro models...
Click to expand...

I agree with you that XLR inputs are a fantasy and anyone with even a hint of audio knowledge would know that the space required inside the camera for two of those....not going to happen.

But you came down on people rather condescendingly for their wish lists. Not cool. That's all. No fan boisism or any other ism.

I say let people dream.......
 
Just improve the build, the LCD and EVF, some of the IQ, the sensor read speed to curb jello and then improve the image quality however much they want. Then, give the firmware to Vitaly. Headphone jack would be nice. I'm sure the Gh3, when if arrives will make waves. But Panny, if you are reading this, you will sell millions of units more if you accidentally updated the firmware a week after launch. Screw it, just give it to vitaly right now.
 
The main thing I'd like to see is to get jello in line with the af-100. What is the point of a video capable camera that small if you can't just pick it up and shoot it.

What I'd really like to see is a camcorder similar to the HMC-40 at that relative price point, with af-100 video quality. Let the xlr pack be an optional accessory so that if I'm setting up a steadi-cam b-cam I don't need to pay extra for it. I have zero need for SDI at my market point and don't feel I should have to pay extra for it.I can put up with menus rather than buttons, as long as the menus can do all I need.

I don't buy the argument of protecting the higher product, as moving more products with the same guts allows for more economies of scale.

There are always people that need and can justify the higher product, and many that can make due with less. I know that this is a GH2/3 thread, but I fully expect
once canon is up to speed on the c300 chip there will be a c100 type product, and it will have very little bearing on the sale numbers they want for the 300, because the high end studio market and rentals will get it just because it costs more. SDI and Genlock would likely be absent.

Back to Pany, the AF-40 is the camera I want. Please make it.
 
What I want to see industry-wide is a greater focus on higher image quality/codecs as a standard function rather than something you pay more to get the higher you go up the line.

15 years ago you could go out and buy a $400 SLR camera or a $3000 SLR camera and get the same image quality out of each, using the same lens. What you paid more for were better AF systems, tougher bodies, faster film drives, better OVFs, etc.

So I would like to see the same sensors and codecs on $800 DSLR's as we do on $8000 DSLR's. This idea that they are going to lose out on higher end models because of lower end models producing the same image quality is not accurate. They have decades of experience from the film era that proves otherwise.

That said, I understand the technologies are different. But if I were a betting man, I would say that in 10 years time when sensors have reached a critical point of resolution, effeciency, dynamic range, price and speed, it will probably return to the film model. Let's just hope they don't continue to hobble the codecs.
 
Its funny because when it comes to stills, like Roxics said, you can spend $500 (or even less) and get raw output, just like you get raw output from high end bodies. But with video its completely different, spend under $5,000 and you get a pretty standard run of the mill soccer mom codec... why did things end up this way?

I dont think things are about to change in the low range, maybe in the mid range since there's some hype surrounding NAB, maybe we'll see something like a vastly improved af100, but I think the DSLR revolution is pretty much dead and over. The features we are all hoping for are going to cost a lot of money only because the manufacturers have made it that way. The only thing I expect to see vastly different about the GH3 is the same codec sony is using in the nex line. Of coarse it could have a better lcd, better body, better ergonomics, but it could also be the one Panasonic decides to cripple, or make unhackable. I really wouldn't be surprised if the GH2 is as good as it gets, and I also wouldn't be disappointed. I love this camera, Its the biggest steal in the video world right now.
 
Last edited:
DanielRutter said:
Also, it isn't an "DSLR"... to qualify as such it would require a mirror in which to gather its images. I would prefer to call it a "hybrid", although I personally would love an optical viewfinder when shooting...
Click to expand...

That's why I wrote "DSLR" with quotation marks.

A flagship camera doesn't require a company to "add all the bells and whistles". Think of it in business terms... why would you add professional features you put on your >$3000 cameras, straight onto a <$1500 camera? It's just bad business sense. Sure, they'd sell GH3's with "all the trimmings" pros want... but that'd take away sales on the AF100/101 and all their pro models.
Click to expand...

The GH line has nothing to do with the video division. The GH2 is Panasonic's current top of the line stills camera. They have no other still camera models to protect beyond it, so of course they're going to put all the bells and whistles on it. Just like Canon did with the new 5DmkIII (except with crappy resolution). That doesn't mean they'll put XLR inputs on the GH3. But I do expect them to add 1080p60 and clean 4:2:2 HDMI out. The GH2 almost has clean HDMI out as it is right now! I see no reason for them not to include 1080p60 and 4:2:2 HDMI as features on the GH3 (or whatever their top-of-the-line camera will be), because that camera won't eat into sales of the AF100 at all. If anything, it will complement the AF100 the same way the MkIII complements the C300. People that need XLR, built-in ND filters, waveform and vectorscopes, HD-SDI, audio knobs, and all those features will naturally gravitate to the AF line, while those that want a "DSLR" form factor and price will go for the GH line. Not sure why this is such a hot-button topic.
 
I am on the pessimist side. I don't think we will get better codec, waveform etc. It might be their flagship but it is a $ 1000 flagship. I think its main market (photo) will still be develop without restriction, but the video side, I am dubious. I see better body, evf or backscreen, better ISO, better focusing, perhaps DR. These will concentrate on the photo side and some will directly benefit the video side. The mirror less market is maturing into a big and viable market that is breaking the duopoly of Canon and Nikon in the dslr world. Now companies see it in the long term and have to put some higher end models for those that want more. That is why we see the higher end and spec Olympus an Sony. I think the gh will also be better because of the competition. But it will still remain a compact large mirror-less photo camera first with some good to very good video for the consumer level market.

The gh1 and now gh2 are those stealth submarines which occasionally come out undetected by the marketing department directly from the engineers. The gh1 and then gh2 where never meant to be video powerhouse. The gh1 was really flawed with the mud, which made for the better gh2. But in between these the hack came about which used the hardware capabilities to its best. As at base it was really good, they became excellent. But we could see the marketing hand as from the gh3, alike what I see in the 5d mark3. I know some would disapprove that, but for me the 5d3 is too little upgrade from the 5d2 which started the whole dslr revolution. It is just too small of an upgrade to be held in any way as a true successor. If someone is purely in video, I can't understand if he invest into a 5d3 for $ 3500 when you have Sony FS-100 for 4700. I think you will see a true successor to the 5d3, but in a $ 5000 + body. Could be the 4k dslr body or a C100 type of camera.
 
My thought was for something like this..... Adding the XLR inputs to an option hand grip. Of course, we would not need Panasonic to do this if they would only separate out the jack for external mic/shutter/headphones. Oh, and they should kill AGC.

fake-GH-battery-grip.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top