GH3 Is the lens mount on the GH3 rigid enough for heavier lenses?

[jackcklam]

I own two GH2 bodies and I'm looking to upgrade to GH3. The main reason why I own two bodies is because I need to work with two lens mounts. I have an excellent set of C/Y Contax Zeiss lenses and a Olympus 14-35/2.0 zoom. They are both amazing workhorses, and I frequently switch between them on the set.

However, the plastic body structure of the GH2 would not support these heavy lenses properly. Every time when I try to pull focus the lens would wobble up and down and the image shakes accordingly. I came up with a way to add additional support to the mount adapter by bolting it down with a hose clamp. This two-point-support method (one screw on the body, another on the mount adapter) works great and my setup is very rigid and reliable. But it is not practical to unbolt and rebolt the mount adapter each time when I need to change lenses on set. I need to own as many cameras as the number of lens mount I use. When I switch from prime to zoom I switch cameras.

So I am hoping that the GH3 body, with its new all metal design, is going to be strong enough to support a heavier lens (eg. the Olympus 14-35 2.0) properly without additional support. If true, I would be liberated from the two lens systems, and I can switch to any glass I want and still move fast on the set.

Any GH3 owner to confirm this?

Happy 2013 guys

Jack

 

[jackcklam]

Any GH3 owner to answer this?

 

[Viewgate Digital]

Any GH3 owner to answer this?

Hey,

First of all, excuse me for my 'bad english'

I do not own the lenses you name nor the gh2.
But I come from a canon 600d and switched to a gh3. (canon 600d is a cheap plastic body)

The gh3 has a very strong body. If you put the gh3 and the 600d on a table, the 600d would wobble a bit while the gh3 is just solid on the table without any wobbling.
It's very strong and im sure it can support big lenses without problems.

 

[Rolf Silber]

Any GH3 owner to answer this?

Got mine only yesterday - but for principal reasons I'd say rigging a heavy lens is always the preferable way to go. Because in some situations in a shoot other powers than just gravity may pull at the lens and the MFT mount of the camera. Apart from that: Yes, the body is definitely more rugged. I am rather impressed by that thing up till now.

 

[Bern Caughey]

Busted the 14-35/2 out of the archives just for you.

A bare GH3 will support it, but just barely. While racking focus the image tracked fine, but I could see the body's mount flex if I intentionally put leverage on the lens. I had exactly the same experience with this lens on the AF100's body, except there's also a shutter on it's body that closes if stressed too far.

While I never supported the 14-35/2 on the AF100, I get the sense that the GH3 should be. Handheld wouldn't be as much an issue as long as the GH3 is treated as an attachment for the lens, but on a fluid head where the lens is an attachment for the body I foresee eventual problems.

While the 14-35/2 was my favorite lens for the format, it's been supplanted by the 12-35/2.8. Unless you need the speed, &/or it's superior focus ring, consider replacing the old 4/3 with the new m4/3.