Fresno Bob
Well-known member
I see it as too much to spend when I already have a GH2.
GH3 Lumix GH3, worthy over a dedicated camcorder?
- Thread starter ironsceptor
- Start date
I see it as too much to spend when I already have a GH2.
dustylense
Veteran
Do you have a gh3? Because I find your comment utterly false.
The Gh3 is a great leap forward from the Gh2. In every way.
1st: Its a better stills camera (what they are designed to do). A MUCH better stills camera.
2: It's a much better video camera. It's just the truth. Far more detail and range in the shadows. Grades better. 1080/60p. More codecs. and my bet is it will get hacked. (remember when the gh1 was better than the Gh2 because the hack?).
3: It's built better and has FAR more tools in the camera. Better screen. Better grip. better battery. better buttons and functions.
4: WAY better in low light.
5: While I think it will get hacked, I don't think it needs it. Gh2 does.
6: A true progessive camera.
7: The Gh3 auto focus feature is maybe the best I've seen. Better than my Canon xf300. It's quite amazing.
8: Headphones out and audio levels. The sound quality is far better than the Gh2. Proper 3.5mm jacks.
9: HDMI out is outstanding! Feeding to my external monitor is a JOY! Gh2 hdmi out blows!
10: The Gh3 has the best boot to shoot time I've ever seen.
11: Better DR than the Gh2 by FAR! The Gh2 has the DR of a Bat (stole that from Noel Evans dvxuser and he's right).
12: The Gh3 has the Wi-Fi feature. ANd there are whispers that it will be updated to work with video better.
13: More choices of color control, scene selection.
14: I could go on but you can google it and see for yourself that the camera is more advanced.
Now @ Jim. Give me 13 reasons the Gh2 is a better camera? Just because it has a hack, where half of them fail or you need a titanium SD card from the moon to use, does not make the Gh2 superior. I have the Gh2 as well. It makes a darn good image, but only when you hack it. THe rest of the camera really does suck. The build is that of a toy. The LCD feels like it should load a classic arcade game. Battery life SUCKS on the Gh2. THe Mic SUCKS. THe inputs and outputs SUCK. ISO 800 is the max most will go on the Gh2.
I see it as a great improvement when I make money with My tools.... If one is not making money then I would say GH2 is fine, heck I was just on a recent Music video where they shot all GH2's..... I mean GH3 is just an overall improvement. If I had $3k for a new video camera hybrid I chose GH3 and a nice lens for about $2k. I'm fortunate enough to make money shooting and editing so I always want the latest gear when possible.
Also $1300 is not a lot. I remember the 7d was at least $1500 less than a year ago and the GH3 imo is a lot better. Regardless this is my final topic on this, GH2 is a great camera, but GH3 is simply more refined and better. It might not be worth it for people who may not be making money with it, for those that are though the improvements warrant the small price. $1300 is nothing when I can make that money back 2x in a month on a small project or two.
Fresno Bob
Well-known member
Reminds me of xbox vs Playstation fanboys bickering. Embarrassing.
Good for you that you had the extra cash to drop on a GH3. But for me, it just isn't enough of a boost in the picture department from what I am seeing. I would LOVE to be convinced otherwise.
11: Better DR than the Gh2 by FAR!
People keep saying that, but again I have seen no proof. How many stops better is it?
Good for you that you had the extra cash to drop on a GH3. But for me, it just isn't enough of a boost in the picture department from what I am seeing. I would LOVE to be convinced otherwise.
11: Better DR than the Gh2 by FAR!
People keep saying that, but again I have seen no proof. How many stops better is it?
dustylense
Veteran
DUDE. It see's and records better detail in the shadows than the GH2 night and day. In fact, it see's into the shadows better than most cameras I've used. It records highlights very well. But its that shadow separation that makes the difference. There is detail there. Nice smooth gradations too through out the entire range.
What are you seeing? Maybe a handful of compressed vimeo test shoots of the Gh3? I'm seeing it on my monitor. But hey, if you don't want or can't afford it, I'm asking myself why I care. But all of a sudden, there are Gh2 fanboys that think because they can tweak the firmware of the camera that it makes it better. Still has the DR of a closet with the door shut from the inside. I'm sure there will be plenty of examples coming down the pipeline when Panasonic sells 3million units of the Gh3.
stoneinapond
Veteran
16,000
You think it's only about image? That's your problem....... Furthermore just rent a GH3 and you will have all of your questions answered.
dustylense
Veteran
+1.
THe build alone makes the camera better.
Fresno Bob
Well-known member
Surely if you are a GH2 fanboy then you will be a GH3 fanboy? Where is this split in loyalties everyone is talking about?
If I didn't have a GH2, I'd get a GH3. It's like FIFA 11 to FIFA 12. It's the same game, but with a few polishes and runs a bit better. Not revolutionary, but refined.
I'd get a GH3 all day long.
But as a GH2 owner there is not enough there. I'd go to a BMC rather than a GH3.
But I'll state again, if videos start showing me that the DR is drastically improved on the GH3, I may get it.
Fresno Bob
Well-known member
Not my problem - my NEED.
Weatherproofing etc is not important for me. For me it is 95% about the image.
John Caballero
Veteran
Do people really think that Panasonic is going to release a GH2 with a GH3 label? Really? What I've seen so far in You Tube and Vimeo from the GH3 looks excellent. And it is not built like a toy anymore. I can't wait to get mine!
dustylense
Veteran
Go to this video and watch what I'm going to show here.
Examples start at 1:53
Now look at these areas in the images I uploaded here.
Now look that the shadow separation and detail on the square metal piece attached to the concrete in both the 5dmk3 and the Gh3. Notice on the 5dmk3 it just looks like a block of metal. On the Gh3 one can see that the block of metal is actually hallow. You can see that the gh3 separates these low values and retains lots of detail. Then look at the underside highlights of the bridge and see the difference in detail.
Both these cameras were zeroed out on standard profile.
This is the part of the Gh3 image that wins for me. The ability to see into these shadows with DETAIL and gradation. No mud or blocked up low values. Just nice solid detail and separation. That is what I'm seeing....
Now look at these areas in the images I uploaded here.
Now look that the shadow separation and detail on the square metal piece attached to the concrete in both the 5dmk3 and the Gh3. Notice on the 5dmk3 it just looks like a block of metal. On the Gh3 one can see that the block of metal is actually hallow. You can see that the gh3 separates these low values and retains lots of detail. Then look at the underside highlights of the bridge and see the difference in detail.
Both these cameras were zeroed out on standard profile.
This is the part of the Gh3 image that wins for me. The ability to see into these shadows with DETAIL and gradation. No mud or blocked up low values. Just nice solid detail and separation. That is what I'm seeing....
dustylense
Veteran
Yes, the argument is, and I would say that the Gh3 is most likely the better choice. But I guess it all depends on what you intend the use for. The AF on the Gh3 is quite impressive.
well since the gh3 is rumored to have the em5 sensor , dxomark says it's got almost a stop more dr than gh2. It's a beautiful camera , just wish it had peaking. However if I already owned the gh13, and I didn't own any real video cameras, I'd go for that over just the $1300 body of the gh3. Small sensored camcorders do things that dslr's will never do. And just for stills , I'd take a canon, nikon or sony anyday. Or the em5 . Or the new fuji's. The gh3 shines as a large sensor video camera. That's why they added those codecs ! But it takes much more investment than just the body.
And dustylense...what I see in your comparison is the 5d is a little underexposed compared to the gh3...in all the shots. I don't see any dr or resolution advantage to either camera. That's not saying the gh3 is a chump, if it compares to a camera costing 3 times the price, along with all the other benefits such a m/43 mount and codecs.
And dustylense...what I see in your comparison is the 5d is a little underexposed compared to the gh3...in all the shots. I don't see any dr or resolution advantage to either camera. That's not saying the gh3 is a chump, if it compares to a camera costing 3 times the price, along with all the other benefits such a m/43 mount and codecs.
This turned out to be a fun thread. All the guys who dropped the money on a GH3 defending their actions and investment, and all the guys who didn't drop their money on a GH3 and still think the GH2 does the job defending their actions and justifying why they didn't invest. Nothing wrong with this picture at all. Because it's well, typical. 
I'm thinking of getting a hold of a GH3, shoot some 24p video with both GH3 and GH2 and put online to see who will be able to tell the difference. Those who can tell need a GH3, those who can't don't, and this is what it boils down to.
I'm thinking of getting a hold of a GH3, shoot some 24p video with both GH3 and GH2 and put online to see who will be able to tell the difference. Those who can tell need a GH3, those who can't don't, and this is what it boils down to.
stoneinapond
Veteran
And once again someone misses the point......
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
The difference will be easy to tell (I have both cams). The GH3 has a different colour then the GH2. I prefer it as I never liked the colour of the GH2 much.
The question isn't as much can you tell a difference as 'which one do you prefer'
Colors can be tweaked.
The question is, why people who have decided they need the GH3 feel the need to tell the people who think the GH2 is still the best option they are stupid? Just to justify why they spent the money? I have to say if all you ever shoot is 24p and you have a hacked GH2 with a stable hack you most likely don't need a GH3, unless you just want a new camera. I know about all the other "advantages" the GH3 has and none of them affect my decision. Am I saying the people who bought a GH3 are stupid? No. I'm saying the GH3 adds nothing for me. But GH3 buyers seem to take this as an attack and need to defend their purchase. For me it's not a financial decision. I could afford a GH3 without selling my GH2s or other cameras. But why would I when it adds nothing to MY tool box?