GH3 I'm skipping the GH3 and sticking with my GH2 (for now). Anyone else?

Yes I just bought a GH2 after having lost my GH1. As much as I would love a GH3 and definitely wanted a slightly bigger body and all those controls, I cannot justify spending nearly three times the price for one of those compared to a used GH2. I will probably wait until I can get a used GH3 for around $700.
 
Phenixone said:
BlackMagic Cinema Camera? Anyone?
Click to expand...

Me thinks the GH3 will be a really cool camera, and I am mad that I haven't gotten to play with one yet!

On the other hand, I did my Blackmagic testing last week and I believe my GH2 will be retiring to slow mo option, and unless I can afford/justify a GH3 later I won't be getting one.

Only thing Blackmagic needs is MFT mount for some SLRMagic, yet even in its EF form... well, yeah.
 
BMCC is on the buy list - but is going to wait a revision or two.

This Blackmagic company is fast. Really fast
The first iteration of the Hyperdeck Shuttle came out in January of this year. They are on v2. The way they incorporated BMCC firmware requests, and put together a m4/3 mount version even before releasing the first camera impresses.
It won't be long before the profits from this breakthrough device spur this company to issue new cameras - different sensor sizes, frame rates, and robust firmware feature set that'll be bug free. Can't wait.
 
I think Sage is correct. There are a lot of cameras out there now and the GH2 is no slouch. Might as well wait for the one you really want which I am sure BM is designing right now. Just a guess now but to me, the GH3 does not look like a game changer.
A BM APS-C camera with a better ergonomic design for under $5,000 would be though!
 
I'm going to be the contrarian. Can't wait for the GH3 although I will need to be patient while finances catch up. For me (and I reiterate for me) it appears to be as close to the perfect camera as such a thing exists.

Can't come soon enough. :birthdays:
 
stoneinapond said:
I'm going to be the contrarian. Can't wait for the GH3 although I will need to be patient while finances catch up. For me (and I reiterate for me) it appears to be as close to the perfect camera as such a thing exists.

Can't come soon enough. :birthdays:
Click to expand...

I am in the same. The GH3 fixes my biggest complaints with GH2 and doesn't give up much in the things I liked about GH2. I can give up some resolution/crop for better DR, LowLight, Buildquality, headphone jack, HD slowmo and other added goodies.
 
My biggest issue is there really doesn't seem to be an improvement in DR. It's also is adding a bit too much aliasing for my taste, and the image has a general sony aesthetic that I'm not sure if I like yet. It may just take time to get use to, but for now this isn't the camera for me.
 
If one shoots narrative, the question becomes: "what time to purchase the bmcc?" Perhaps v3?
 
Sage said:
If one shoots narrative, the question becomes: "what time to purchase the bmcc?" Perhaps v3?
Click to expand...

For low-budget M43 users, the answer is when they release the BMCC with an active M43 mount, right? Because none of those Lumix lenses will be usable on the passive mount BMCC. Of course, if you're only using manual lenses from Voigtlander, etc., this isn't an issue. But the BMCC with the Lumix 12-35 and 35-100 lenses would be an amazing, relatively cheap option (especially when those lenses are available used sometime next year).
 
Gerson said:
For low-budget M43 users, the answer is when they release the BMCC with an active M43 mount, right? Because none of those Lumix lenses will be usable on the passive mount BMCC. Of course, if you're only using manual lenses from Voigtlander, etc., this isn't an issue. But the BMCC with the Lumix 12-35 and 35-100 lenses would be an amazing, relatively cheap option (especially when those lenses are available used sometime next year).
Click to expand...

In regards to Blackmagic, 2.8 is great if you've got plenty of light.

It is too slow a combo for interiors or lowlight situations in my opinion, having done that test.

Ideally you really would still have some SLRMagic glass and/or 0.95 Voigtlanders, anyway.
 
Kholi said:
In regards to Blackmagic, 2.8 is great if you've got plenty of light.

It is too slow a combo for interiors or lowlight situations in my opinion, having done that test.

Ideally you really would still have some SLRMagic glass and/or 0.95 Voigtlanders, anyway.
Click to expand...

Oh, that's too bad. But I suppose if you worked at it, you could find a reasonably priced set of SLRMagic and Voigtlander lenses. What would you consider a good basic set in order to cover the range from 12mm to 80mm or so? That's in GH2 terms--what I really mean is the range from whatever focal length you need on the BMCC to get an equivalent to 12mm field of view, to the equivalent of an 80mm field of view.
 
Gerson said:
Oh, that's too bad. But I suppose if you worked at it, you could find a reasonably priced set of SLRMagic and Voigtlander lenses. What would you consider a good basic set in order to cover the range from 12mm to 80mm or so? That's in GH2 terms--what I really mean is the range from whatever focal length you need on the BMCC to get an equivalent to 12mm field of view, to the equivalent of an 80mm field of view.
Click to expand...

Off the top, you really won't notice the difference between GH2 and Blackmagic. But, as a fair set of glass:

11-16/2.8 Tokina
12/1.6
17/0.95
25/0.95
35/0.95
50/1.4
85/1.4

That list also kinda shows that no matter what camera you shoot, the basic lens setup never really changes haha. That's exactly what I would play it safe with on any shoot.

You MAY not need all 0.95s, but I would definitely choose a 12/1.6 and one 0.95 for good measure, likely in the 25/0.95 range.
 
Thanks! Will save that list and keep it in mind. (By the way, I have the Rokinon 85/1.4 and I've been using it for documentary interviews, and really have been quite pleased with it. I don't usually shoot wide open, but that's mostly because I want a little more DoF, not because I'm unhappy with the sharpness.)
 
Kholi said:
Off the top, you really won't notice the difference between GH2 and Blackmagic. But, as a fair set of glass:

11-16/2.8 Tokina
12/1.6
17/0.95
25/0.95
35/0.95
50/1.4
85/1.4

That list also kinda shows that no matter what camera you shoot, the basic lens setup never really changes haha. That's exactly what I would play it safe with on any shoot.

You MAY not need all 0.95s, but I would definitely choose a 12/1.6 and one 0.95 for good measure, likely in the 25/0.95 range.
Click to expand...

I would take the upcoming 42.5mm stabilized F1.2 lens over any F0.95 lens. Most of those ultra fast lenses have to be stopped way down anyway.
 
On the topic of the title of this thread, whether to choose the GH2 or the GH3, after reading this review I'm more torn than I was before.

Several months ago I was dead-set on waiting for the GH3, as it seemed to be a safe bet it would be superior to many important elements of the GH2's video performance, but I'm now looking at the talk of moire and aliasing issues in the "new" GH3 sensor, along with what seem like an awful lot of discussion on sensor compromises in a product line that was famed for it's video--not it's still performance. I've grown confused about this- I don't get why Panasonic would make a lateral move in video quality- and some say it's actually a potential backstep in some regards- to lift stills quality, which was (from my understanding) not the primary draw of this camera in the first place.
At least that's what I've seen in my research and reading over this last several months.

Am I missing something?


I have a GH3 on order, with an expected (tentative, anyway- it's been backed up once already) ship date of mid-December, but I'm starting to question if the GH3 is really worth twice the cost of a GH2 in terms of video performance? I want this camera for video 70% and stills 30%.
The more reviews I read the less sure I am. That doesn't seem like a good feeling to have for a $1200 camera.

This is my first DLSR-type camera purchase, and I thought going into it several months ago that it would surely be worth the wait for the next-gen version of the highly-praised GH2...but now I'm just not sure.
So many criticisms of the "new but oddly ambiguous" GH3 sensor and some of its seemingly inferior video attributes to the older-but-optimized multi-aspect GH2 version...
I wonder if the GH3 can substantially exceed the current hacked video quality of the GH2 by enough of a margin to double the price?

I'm starting to think I might be happy enough with a hack-upgraded GH2- coupled with the Voightlander Nokton 25mm f.95 (which I LOVE from the hundreds of pics and many vids I've seen through it).

I'm not sure this post is really useful...but I guess I'm really just doubting for the moment whether the GH3 is worth twice the price of the GH2 when I'm seeing quite a bit of video-oriented criticism...and now I read about upcoming global shutters in two years- and I wonder again, on the other side-- what can hackers draw out of the GH3? Can THEY make it shine where Panny seems unable to? That saved $5-600 could buy some wicked glass though... I've got a month to decide.


bleh. Decisions ...

I'm open to advice (but please be gentle) I'm just feeling cloudy with all the stuff I've seen so far- and yes, I take into account it's been earlier firmware versions used so far...but can the remaining firmware updates/polishes make a video quality that overcomes the apparant sensor limitations? I really don't know...I am trying to make the right decision for my expected needs.

Thanks for listening...
 
aethericwave said:
On the topic of the title of this thread, whether to choose the GH2 or the GH3, after reading this review I'm more torn than I was before.

Several months ago I was dead-set on waiting for the GH3, as it seemed to be a safe bet it would be superior to many important elements of the GH2's video performance, but I'm now looking at the talk of moire and aliasing issues in the "new" GH3 sensor, along with what seem like an awful lot of discussion on sensor compromises in a product line that was famed for it's video--not it's still performance. I've grown confused about this- I don't get why Panasonic would make a lateral move in video quality- and some say it's actually a potential backstep in some regards- to lift stills quality, which was (from my understanding) not the primary draw of this camera in the first place.
At least that's what I've seen in my research and reading over this last several months.

Am I missing something?


I have a GH3 on order, with an expected (tentative, anyway- it's been backed up once already) ship date of mid-December, but I'm starting to question if the GH3 is really worth twice the cost of a GH2 in terms of video performance? I want this camera for video 70% and stills 30%.
The more reviews I read the less sure I am. That doesn't seem like a good feeling to have for a $1200 camera.

This is my first DLSR-type camera purchase, and I thought going into it several months ago that it would surely be worth the wait for the next-gen version of the highly-praised GH2...but now I'm just not sure.
So many criticisms of the "new but oddly ambiguous" GH3 sensor and some of its seemingly inferior video attributes to the older-but-optimized multi-aspect GH2 version...
I wonder if the GH3 can substantially exceed the current hacked video quality of the GH2 by enough of a margin to double the price?

I'm starting to think I might be happy enough with a hack-upgraded GH2- coupled with the Voightlander Nokton 25mm f.95 (which I LOVE from the hundreds of pics and many vids I've seen through it).

I'm not sure this post is really useful...but I guess I'm really just doubting for the moment whether the GH3 is worth twice the price of the GH2 when I'm seeing quite a bit of video-oriented criticism...and now I read about upcoming global shutters in two years- and I wonder again, on the other side-- what can hackers draw out of the GH3? Can THEY make it shine where Panny seems unable to? That saved $5-600 could buy some wicked glass though... I've got a month to decide.


bleh. Decisions ...

I'm open to advice (but please be gentle) I'm just feeling cloudy with all the stuff I've seen so far- and yes, I take into account it's been earlier firmware versions used so far...but can the remaining firmware updates/polishes make a video quality that overcomes the apparant sensor limitations? I really don't know...I am trying to make the right decision for my expected needs.

Thanks for listening...
Click to expand...


I love the GH3 form factor but as of now not really impressed with image quality. The GH2 I feel is an excellent camera and a great price point. Sure some extra dynamic range would be nice, but we can still get some very great work done on it. Heck people still shoot Canon 7d and the GH2 also imo is a better "video" camera.

I'm also thinking about selling my newly bought Rokinon 24mm lens and putting the difference towards the Voightlander Nokton 25mm f.95 myself. The GH2 with that lens will be golden. Maybe by February of next year the hackers will come up with something on the GH3, till then I believe we are good.
 
If moire and aliasing issues are worse on the GH3 thats not good, moire and aliasing is what i dislike most with my GH2,the only way i can get footage without it being noticable to poor is with a tripod.
 
Very true. When shooting for something important, I always have the GH2 locked to a tripod. With minimal camera moves too.
It's a shame that the technology is dictating my style, but you have to be aware of the limitations if you want to squeeze the best out of it.

I can't see me, as a current GH2 owner, needing to upgrade to a GH3. If I went anywhere from now it would be to the BMC.
But even then, I'm waiting to see what their next update is to that machine.

Things are moving incredibly fast in this world. Blackmagic have seen the gap in the market for a cheap indie shooter, you can bet others will build on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top