GH2 Is the Multi Aspect Ratio Sensor really that big a deal for you on the GH3?

To me it really isn't a big deal. The detail and quality is still there regardless. Really the only thing it changes for me is the crop factor. Lenses will now look like a 2.0x crop factor instead of a 1.86x crop factor when shooting 16x9 video. Not really a big deal.
 
Gary Huff said:
That doesn't make any sense to me.
Click to expand...

It may be that Panasonic is trying to simplify their programming task in order to get the camera out the door by November. ( it looks like there is a fair bit of post-sensor image processing going on with the quad-cpu Venus engine )
 
Gary Huff said:
That doesn't make any sense to me.
Click to expand...
It doesn't make much sense to me because the GH3 would need the oversized sensor for the firmware to crop into. The specs and views don't seem to indicate that the GH3 has this type of oversized sensor. I can only think that what this means is the GH3 has software capable of maintaining the angle of view with different aspect ratios, but not the sensor. In other words it would have to crop further into the sensor than standard m4/3 to maintain the same angle of view with different aspect ratios. At least that's my interpretation of what this means, because firmare obviously can't increase the area of the sensor.
 
mmmmaaaaayyyybbbbeeee...bigger pixels...lower pixel count...better low light???

Don't stone me....just sayin!!! :embarasse (as I run for the hills)
 
mmmmaaaaayyyybbbbeeee...bigger pixels...lower pixel count...better low light???
Click to expand...

Could make sense, given the noise that Panasonic are making about the low light noise reduction efforts. This has always been the achilles heel of the system, since 4/3 began and Panasonic do seem to want to address it with this camera. It's looking hopeful.

There isn;t that much of a difference in field of view between AF100 and GH1+2, so nothing to get too worked up about. Nice if they can update the firmware though.
 
Man people can keep bashing or being disappointed with the GH3 all they want, but i'm going to look to get one based on what i've seen so far. I saw smoother gradation of color and no banding and a bit more DR. The frame rates and in camera slow mo is just what I need. All of the stuff we've seen is IMO not going to be the best we see from this camera. No more than those early BMC videos really told the true story of just how good that Camera ended up being.

There are so many features in the GH3 that we asked for and now have. I could care less right now about the specs as much as the final image and how gradable the footage is. I've heard some good things about the DR and gradability of the less than perfect footage from Phillip Bloom that someone downloaded and messed around with.

Just looking at the night scene in the "Genesis" video I could tell that the GH3 is going to be better in low light and with an increase in DR. I could actually see detail in the police lights and brake lights of vehicles and normally with it being that dark and then having those bright lights of the police cars you'd see more blown out images of those lights with no chance at retaining any detail. I could make out the patterns in the plastic covers of those lights at times. The GH3 just seemed to be able to better handle that wide DR of the darkness and those bright lights. No it's not perfect but it does seem considerably better. Most of my work is done in low light, so I notice stuff like that.
 
I get a wider "look" from my 14mm on my multi-sensor GH2. I'm sure some of it gets tossed in image correction, and so on, but it looks wider to me. As far as disabled in software, that is typical for yields--they can use the sensors with dead pixels on the edges.
As far as deal breakers go, I just don't see a bump in IQ, so I would simply be careful where my money goes. I still see weird looking noise and I can't see myself buying another camera with weird looking noise.

Also, for post production, the number one feature I would like to see is 2K, simply because it gives you crop latitude. Turns your prime into a super HQ zoom with the panning motorized in post for perfect pans.
 
DrDave said:
As far as deal breakers go, I just don't see a bump in IQ, so I would simply be careful where my money goes. I still see weird looking noise and I can't see myself buying another camera with weird looking noise.

Also, for post production, the number one feature I would like to see is 2K, simply because it gives you crop latitude. Turns your prime into a super HQ zoom with the panning motorized in post for perfect pans.
Click to expand...

I would just warn against making too much of the image quality issues this early. It seems to me that there were some things that didn't look great in the promo videos, but there were also a lot of really impressive scenes and that too me could be a combination of issues from having a pre-production camera that isn't all there and tweaked yet, lack of familiarity with the camera from the DP's, how it was graded, quality level of the footage and compression, use of various lenses which can easily change up the look.

There were just so many issues with that footage. Not to mention that they tried to use a little added lights as possible. This was not a video that was done to put the camera in it's best possible scenario, but rather to show it's range under less than optimal circumstances. it was a bit of a torture test for a camera that wasn't even final product. A lot can change between that camera and the final shipping model.

I'd agree that i'd like a 2k mode for the reasons you mentioned. It's one of the things I like about the 2.5k BMC, aside from the RAW.
 
This is slightly annoying to me since m4/3rds already crops so much I would like to get every bit I can, especially when using the excellent 7-14mm.
 
Lack of a MAR sensor is not huge but it is one more reason not to upgrade. I like to shoot 3:2 stills as well as 16:9 video so I really appreciate the GH1 & 2 as hybrid cameras that deliver this use case better than other m43 cameras.

It seems strange to me that any company would remove a unique, almost identifying, feature while trying to increase the price for a product, especially when the nature of the feature means that removal will cause customers to wonder if they have lost capability. Why create uncertainty when the goal is to make any upgrade appear to be a "no brainer" or "must have" item?

As far as improved IQ, lets assume the GH3 offers improved IQ for any shooter. Assuming the sensor is still from Panasonic (by no means a sure thing) is it not reasonable to speculate that the presence of an improved MAR sensor on the GH3 would yield an even bigger improvement for non-4:3 shooting? Why lose it?
 
Last edited:
I don't know if this is logical, but presumably it's safe to assume that Pana wanted the GH3 image to be an improvement over GH2. If they could get that just by improving stuff around the GH2 sensor, they'd do that - why go for a Sony, or more generally a different sensor? Seems to me, the only reason to go for a different sensor is if it is an IMPROVEMENT over the GH2 sensor... so it should be that the GH3 sensor that's non-MAR is *superior* in image output to the MAR-GH2 sensor. Otherwise why do it? To make the GH3 image worse than the GH2 image? How would that be any better as a selling point: "now provides a worse image than before, come buy!".

My only conclusion is that clearly GH3 must provide a better image than the GH2 despite having a non-MAR sensor. Now, I can accept that for many (most?) users, the FOV of a bigger (MAR) sensor is better - and in that sense the GH3 sensor is a downgrade, but presumably there must be a compensation in overall image otherwise why do it? So, if the GH3 provides me with superior low-light performance and more DR, less jello, moire and noise, all at the cost of a slightly worse FOV, well, I'm willing to take it (which really is some of what the AF100 does compared to the GH2 - smaller FOV but better jello, DR and moire).

Now, it's possible that the GH3 sensor is simply cheaper than the GH2 one and that's why they went with it, but that seems highly unlikely, as the GH3 represents a bigger bump in price and is supposed to have a superior image, at least in the DR department.

Of course, again, it's possible that the stills image is improved and the video image is worse compared to the GH2, but again, that seems unlikely.

So you gotta ask yourself - how likely is it that Panasonic made the GH3 image worse than the GH2? Clearly, the MAR sacrifice was in service of a better overall image on balance - and I'll take that (pending testing, of course!).
 
I have seen absolutely no evidence that the GH3 sensor is from Panasonic. I have seen a ton of statements that lead me to believe that it is the OMD sensor from Sony or a close variation of it. That being said I think Panasonic simply didn’t think multi-aspect ratio was a big selling point.

They have stated that their main goal was image quality. From everything I have seen they have accomplished that. Not in every aspect. However, they seem to have accomplished it in the areas that really matter(DR, High ISO, Color, Bit Rate and Frame Rate).

I have a GH3 + 35-100mm on order and I will sell my GH2 + 14-140mm as soon as I finish a comparison video between the two. The GH2 was great but the GH3 is the camera that I don’t feel that I will want to upgrade from when the GH5 comes out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top