GH3 Great Comparison Video with GH3, GH2, BMC, Nex, etc

I'm really interested in the GH3's internal audio quality. It would be great to record direct to camera as opposed to a external device. I know it will always be better quality but for a lot of my shoots having the audio recorded in camera with a good mic would be great.
 
Last edited:
Thomas Smet said:
Once you put a BMCC on a rig or tripod I see no reason why it wouldn't be able to handle it.
Click to expand...

I can. Just a couple of the Bloom criticisms I recall from his video review are a lack of audio meters on screen and the ISO setting just doesn't go anywhere near high enough for reception work. (Hell, with these damn slow lenses Panny makes I need 3200 for the comparitively well lit ceremony!) There were several more though. And don't forget that once the toasts are over, reception work is all hand held for the rest of the night. Revision 2 may have what we event shooters really need (fingers crossed), but for now, it'd be a very unpleasant experience (for me, at least) shooting a wedding with the BMCC.

What frustrates the hell out of me is that having my weddings look as good as a Hollywood movie has always been the goal. With these new cameras, the image quality part of that equation is finally coming down to the affordable range, but camera makers are leaving out the important features needed for event work, features that every other camera in this price range have always had, so I still can't take the next step closer to my goal.
 
Last edited:
Thomas Smet said:
I'm surprised nobody is talking about the GH3 samples in this video. The GH3 at least to me seems to cover some of the minor limitations the GH2 currently has. Cleaner gain at 1600 ISO which may mean cleaner at every ISO and the ability to dial the detail down to make a more organic looking image. My take away with this video is just how much the GH3 actually builds on the GH2 even though it isn't hacked yet. Perhaps it is harder to see the difference when the BMCC is there to skew the results.
Click to expand...

Yes GH3 isn't getting much credit here but it is cleaner in the shadows and can be dialled down more. I like it.
 
I downloaded the 2.5k version off of Vimeo and dragged it into After Effects to grab a couple of the GH2 and GH3 samples at full res. Yeah I'm sold! The GH3 is SEXY! The GH3 with the detail all the way down looks almost like shooting raw. Yes of course it isn't but the creamy organic look is something typically only achieved with vintage glass. Love love love the look here. Dialed in some basic sharpness in AE and was able to match sharpness of the GH2 sample no problem.

The indoor ISO 1600 samples blew me away. The GH3 looked so much cleaner then the GH2. I would say worth the money just for the extra clean reach in dark situations. Would post some material but this is Andrew's baby. Honestly download the full 2.5k version to compare native 1080p samples from the cameras. For best results cut out the BMCC samples so you don't skew the results.

My wife may neuter me but I may have to buy a GH3. I should be able to sell my GH1 and GH2 to cover a large portion of it. I hope.
 
Cool test. But I think it shows what everyone already knows about the BMC. For many of us it will be the next logical upgrade to our GH2's. As for the GH3, still not sure yet... I'm seeing more and more well shot footage, but something's missing... just don't know what it is really (how's that for specificity? : ) As of right now, I think the GH2 still sits on top of the DSLR / Mirrorless pile as the current king along with the 1DX.

When all is said and done and 2013 is well under way... I think the most crushing combo will be a BMC as my main, and a GH2 in the holster... such an amazing duo... and for what- $3500. We live in great times.

On a side note... I think it's incredible that a camera that came out in 2010, will likely be my "DSLR" style camera of choice right up until 2015 when new bodies will likely emerge from Panny / Canon etc. Can't think of another camera that only ever costed hundreds of dollars dominating a market like this for so long. DVXuser is gonna have to nominate the GH2 for a lifetime achievement award along with other greats.
 
As far as this is understood as an GH3 vs. BMC shootout, I'd say that makes not too much sense. Two very capable cameras build for somewhat different shooting situations imho.

Picture quality: BMC seems to be the better choice. Overall capabilities and versatility: GH3 stands out.

If my wife would not already think I am not quite reasonable anymore in the camera-departement of my brain, I probably would try to have both. Nice we have such choices, btw.
 
Unless I start making a lot more money off of my video ventures, I'll be sticking with the GH2 for now.
I'm currently in the planning stages of a music video (no pay, just for my portfolio), so I'm going to push the GH2 as far as I can for this.

Would love to do it on the BMC, but don't have the cash.
 
Side note, put together a film budget yesterday, one that includes every expense. Its funny how the little things add up. :undecided
 
Thomas Smet said:
I'm surprised nobody is talking about the GH3 samples in this video. The GH3 at least to me seems to cover some of the minor limitations the GH2 currently has. Cleaner gain at 1600 ISO which may mean cleaner at every ISO and the ability to dial the detail down to make a more organic looking image. My take away with this video is just how much the GH3 actually builds on the GH2 even though it isn't hacked yet. Perhaps it is harder to see the difference when the BMCC is there to skew the results.
Click to expand...

The only thing i noticed in this camera test is that the GH2 had perceived better DR than the GH3. I thought it was supposed to be the other way around..
 
Again I'm not seeing what you are PaPa at all. I will concede that what I perceive as much better dynamic range in the GH3 might just be simply higher brightness and much less muddy color. Either way the GH3 produces a way way way better image IMHO.

Here's a couple sample screen captures I took from Andrews video. They A/B the two images as a gif animation in each instance.

http://www.c3di.com/images/gh2-gh3-comparison.gif

http://www.c3di.com/images/gh2-gh3-comparison1.gif

Cheers,
Pete
 
mcbob said:
BMCC looks very very good in RAW... almost a shame I have no need, budget, or inclination to futz around with RAW workflow or any of the other foibles of that camera. Maybe in its 2nd m43 generation...

Don't want to pay for the 5D3 (and its lenses). VG900 looks just as bleh as the other VG cams.

GH3 looks like the logical step for me, if I can justify the expense vs. the time savings in workflow (shooting straight to .MOV is a big plus, as is monitoring audio). Luckily the expense isn't all that much.
Click to expand...

With the GH2 and FCP you still have to Log & Transfer….I assume that will be the case with the GH3?
In Premiere you can import the GH2 clips and edit directly - but I have not "switched" to editing with Premiere.
You can shoot Pro-Res directly with the BMC. Of course you need to set-up a work flow using the SSD from the BMC.
But this would allow instant editing with FCP. And of course the BMC comes with Resolve - that's a whole'nother ball of wax!
 
HVXguy said:
And of course the BMC comes with Resolve - that's a whole'nother ball of wax!
Click to expand...

But for the rest of us, Resolve Lite is more than sufficient. Other than 3D editing, real-time noise reduction, 1080p maximum render out, and certain output to hardware decks, this version does it all. The question is how much can one do with compressed formats in the first place? I 'm guessing that with some of the higher bit rate settings of the GH3, quite a lot (after you've spent hours studying color theory and then the software itself). :happy:

Really looking forward to the GH3 and doing some studying......

(Oh, and did I mention the Lite version is free?)
 
Have I missed the mention of which lenses were used in all of these clips?

I find it hard to judge not knowing what glass each camera was looking through...
 
c3hammer said:
Here's a couple sample screen captures I took from Andrews video.
Click to expand...

The two things I see are first that the images look to be differently exposed, and second when I look at the tree and grass in the first example, the GH2 footage looks more resolved to my eye, with more detail. The GH3 looks undesirably softer.
 
c3hammer said:
Again I'm not seeing what you are PaPa at all. I will concede that what I perceive as much better dynamic range in the GH3 might just be simply higher brightness and much less muddy color. Either way the GH3 produces a way way way better image IMHO.

Here's a couple sample screen captures I took from Andrews video. They A/B the two images as a gif animation in each instance.

http://www.c3di.com/images/gh2-gh3-comparison.gif

http://www.c3di.com/images/gh2-gh3-comparison1.gif

Cheers,
Pete
Click to expand...

Judging from these frame grabs GH2 is significantly sharper! I mean it almost looks like GH3 is out of focus compared to GH2!
Hello, why isn't nobody noticing this!?? GH3 is even more zoomed in than GH2 and it still has less detail! If nothing went wrong with
the postproduction or production proces for that matter that means that GH3 has really less resolution than GH2.

As for the DR they both look the same to me. The GH3 picture is more bright. But shadow detail looks more or less the same.
 
Feel like I'm the crazy one here, but if this video proves anything between the gh2 and gh3 it's that the gh2 retains detail in the highlights better. Unless my eyes are playing tricks on me, the scale of luminance seems wider on the gh2, however the way the colors are rendered, seems to give the illusion of a higher bit depth on the gh3. It's almost like looking at the difference between RGB and CMYK on a monitor. RGB may appear crisper and better defined (less mud). However this is a difference small enough to be bridged by grading in this particular case.

Then there's the matter of aliasing and other minor quirks. But overall, it does have a great image... Think this one really comes down to preference rather than an objective superiority on the behalf of one or the other.
 
I guessing no one caught it but Andrew stated that he dialed down sharpness to -5 on the gh3 and it was -2 on the gh2. He goes on to say that when the settings are matched on both cameras (-2 on the gh3 and -2 on the gh2 or there is a higher sharpness setting on the gh3) that they both look the same.
 
dtjohns1 said:
I guessing no one caught it but Andrew stated that he dialed down sharpness to -5 on the gh3 and it was -2 on the gh2. He goes on to say that when the settings are matched on both cameras (-2 on the gh3 and -2 on the gh2 or there is a higher sharpness setting on the gh3) that they both look the same.
Click to expand...

-2 is likely -5. Just the scale of variance on all the menu settings is a bit wider on the gh3; always nice to have options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top