GH3 Lumix GH3, worthy over a dedicated camcorder?

[dustylense]

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.

First, go to the video I linked and download it for yourself. The images I uploaded here are compressed. Then, put them in your NLE and look at the waveforms. I see that the Mk3 is actually has a bit more exposure when I look at the waveforms.
Second. I own all three cameras. The Gh3, gh2, and the 5dmk3. So I can see the results first hand without any online compressions. The Gh3 out resolves the MK3 easily for video.
Third: I'm kinda over reporting what I'M seeing, having all three cameras. I'm not second guessing the purchase of the Gh3 for even a second. Even if the image is slightly better, the body build and working with the camera is JUST EASIER. Plus, the HDMI out and the response of it on the Gh3 is wonderful.
And finally...If the price of the camera holds you back, maybe you should work a bit harder and get more work.

I use the Gh cameras for it's low profile in certain situations like stealing shots without permits. Even the Mk3 draws attention. The Gh3 is a great sniper camera and it's controls will really help in guerrilla shooting. I also happen to love the new G lenses. Pack the 12-35 and the 35-100 and you have quite a compact kit with excellent quality with a wide range of focal length choice.

 

[dustylense]

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?

I'm not defending my purchase. I'm LOVING my purchase. It's you trying not to justify the purchase. THAT IS "TRYING".
The VERY SAME argument was made when the Gh2 launched vrs the Gh1. "Why buy a gh2 when my Gh1 has the hack?" Funny, isn't it?

 

[Adamsenoj]

I'm not defending my purchase. I'm LOVING my purchase. It's you trying not to justify the purchase. THAT IS "TRYING".
The VERY SAME argument was made when the Gh2 launched vrs the Gh1. "Why buy a gh2 when my Gh1 has the hack?" Funny, isn't it?

Well, I never had a GH1 and wasn't around here when the GH2 came out, so I can't say how much of an improvement the GH2 was over the GH1.

Maybe if there was no hack for the GH2, I think the GH3 would be a more substantial upgrade. But as it is, I just don't feel it is. DR, resolution, sharpness all seem to be on pair and splitting hairs. The GH3 has more moire, but the GH2 doesn't have the great 60p features. Choose what fits you and go with it.

 

[nothing]

This thread got stupid fast.

Calm down people. Nobody is burning babies here.

OP doesn't need a new camera, period.

 

[stoneinapond]

This thread got stupid fast.

It's like kids at a birthday party after the cake is served.....:happy:

 

[sigamy]

Hi
So the question is why are folks raving so much about the GH series? Are they that much better than pro camcorders with three CCDs let alone used Canon XL1? Why not get Sony XDCAM if people are serious about the cinematography? I just don't understand peope who would rather purchase and carry stablizer accessories that are larger than life.

I somehow feel that my purchasing decision on GH1 was mostly influenced by the marketing gimmicks and the fads over the hacking phenomenon.

I still do like the GH3's practical solutions but only thing that preventing me from buying it is its history of depreciation. It seems the GH series lose their values much faster than the other well known brands that perform lesser than them. Please let me know what you think.

While I hear you, I'm not sure I see your point on resale value. If you are a pro, I'd assume that you would make up the cost of any camera within a few jobs. If you are a hobbyist, you have to evaulate the cost of any hobby vs. the value you get out of it. I don't play golf any more because it's just too expensive (for me).

I'd be confident in saying that most amateurs do not get any where near full value out of their equipment. They don't use the equiipment to it's full potential. Many people think that upgrading will yield them better photos or video. It comes with hard work, paitence, practice and knowledge.

Yes, you can make a great movie on an XL1 or Canon GL2. B&H was still selling the GL2 very recently. These are all just tools. They have certain capabilties that may or many not be of use/need for each user.

I agree that the HDSLR revolution was built on some hype and marketing. But...the results don't lie. What became important for many, many indie guys was DOF. Everyone was striving to get shallow DOF and "film look" on their prosumer 3CCD or CMOS cameras. First was the DVX100 with it's 24p mode and cinema gamma. Then came Magic Bullet for "looks". Then came the 35mm adapter years. Then, with the 5D MII, we had a tool that gave pretty darn good video with DR and the coveted shallow DOF.

So, the indie/no-budget guys went there. The GH1/GH2 showed up and the hacking community showed this was a great option for those on a budget.

I think DSLR's are not a great fit for ENG and other run and gun. I think some of the rigs are crazy and look silly. Those shooters would be much better served with a dedicated camcorder with power zoom, AF, audio, etc. But not for resale value. I don't see that mattering.

Again, these are all just tools. Pick the one that meets your needs for today and has room for some future growth. Stick with it and learn, learn, learn.

ps---I went to a book signing the other day and said to the author, "this is such a great book. What word processor did you use to write it?"

 

[FrameFarmMedia]

I think DSLR's are not a great fit for ENG and other run and gun. I think some of the rigs are crazy and look silly. Those shooters would be much better served with a dedicated camcorder with power zoom, AF, audio, etc.

Even when I shoot with an EX1 I still put it on rails. Pretty much any camera under the full size ENG XDCAMs and Panasonics (that cost many times more) I put on rails with my shoulder rig.

 

[Rolf Silber]

ps---I went to a book signing the other day and said to the author, "this is such a great book. What word processor did you use to write it?"

About cameras there is a saying over here (probably from around 1897): If you need it - buy it. If you want it - buy it. If you can not afford it - rent it. If not, not.

A DoP/photographer I know and worked with told me today what his solution to the problem of technological progress in film/photography was: When he heard that Kodak might go down, he bought 1.000 rolls of tri-x..... ;-)

 

[wgzn]

you know the thing i find most interesting about this thread? a bunch of people got heated over somebody else's problem. and the OP never even commented.

 

[J.F.R.]

The funniest thing about this thread is people commenting who have never used the GH3..... By looking at some compressed videos online you simple don't understand what makes the GH3 better than the GH2..... Being able to finally grip this camera and look at the beautiful display and button layout you would understand..... Honestly it feels wonderful and I love the camera. The GH2 in comparison always felt very cheap and small buttons made it not comfortable to operate.

Like I said earlier people should just rent a GH3 and then you will see why so many love it. GH2 with the hack provides a great image and for those purposes alone might not be a reason to upgrade. What the GH3 is, it's a refinement a polished GH2 mastered. More detail in the shadows cleaner iso (much cleaner) and just overall solid and better feel. Personally no doubt about it, it's my favorite slr camera I have ever owned.

 

[dustylense]

The funniest thing about this thread is people commenting who have never used the GH3..... By looking at some compressed videos online you simple don't understand what makes the GH3 better than the GH2..... Being able to finally grip this camera and look at the beautiful display and button layout you would understand..... Honestly it feels wonderful and I love the camera. The GH2 in comparison always felt very cheap and small buttons made it not comfortable to operate.

Like I said earlier people should just rent a GH3 and then you will see why so many love it. GH2 with the hack provides a great image and for those purposes alone might not be a reason to upgrade. What the GH3 is, it's a refinement a polished GH2 mastered. More detail in the shadows cleaner iso (much cleaner) and just overall solid and better feel. Personally no doubt about it, it's my favorite slr camera I have ever owned.

+1

Getting back to the original question.

Let's level the costs of the camera and look solely at build, user interface, and image.
Is the Gh3 as good a choice as a 3 chip CCD like the XL-1?

I say yes. It can be anyway. What will the XL-1 give you that the Gh3 can't? Where the Gh3 can give you great low light, a more detailed image, excellent auto focus if you use the G lenses, and great stills. You will get more DR out of the Gh3 and a very sharp detailed image. Or, dull it down with -5 sharpen and use lens that is maybe softer? Easier to go soft than sharp.

Have yet to test the audio, but another member her posted a great piece and used a Rode on the gh3 and it sounded fantastic.

The advantage though is the GH Lumix is a stealthy camera. It can go anywhere and not stick out like an XL-1 type camera, or even a 5D Mark III. Everyone that owns the Gh1 or 2 understand it's compactness and the power they hold. Now imagine a 5Dmk2/3 quality in that compact size. That is how I feel about the camera. It's built and performs like a mini 5Dmk3 would but with that GH Lumix image detail that everyone is used to. Good power under the hood with a very low profile.

The OP states that he is an enthusiast and mentions photographer and cinematographer. THe Gh3 has both those worlds. Great stills and great video, and at a pretty good price. It's M4/3's. You can mount almost any optic to it. But the 12-35 and 35-100mm G's are really nice lenses. F2.8 constant with a range of 24-200 and both lenses take a 58mm thread. Add a 25mm of your choice, a decent sound solution, a couple filters and you have a powerful kit. Oh yeah, and nice images...

 

[ex1r777]

Keep your gh2 and wait for 10bit 422 dslrs if you are in doubt.

 

[Adamsenoj]

The funniest thing about this thread is people commenting who have never used the GH3..... By looking at some compressed videos online you simple don't understand what makes the GH3 better than the GH2.....

I know somebody who owns a photography shop and the day he got the GH3 he gave me a call to meet. I brought along one of my GH2s. We shot some stuff around his store downtown using my 14mm F2.5 on both cameras. We also shot some focus charts with both cameras. I was just not impressed with it. Granted my GH2 had Flowmotion loaded and wasn't stock. But I didn't really see more detail or DR in the buildings and shadows, sorry.

Being able to finally grip this camera and look at the beautiful display and button layout you would understand..... Honestly it feels wonderful and I love the camera. The GH2 in comparison always felt very cheap and small buttons made it not comfortable to operate.

If this mattered to me I would never have sold my 7D and bought the GH2 in the first place. Not even the GH3 holds any candles to the 7D and 5D when it comes to that. But yes, the GH3 definitely feels more solid in the hand than the GH2 and it should, because well, it costs the double.
Haha, I have been hanging out too long in these forums. I'm already picking up expressions I dislike.

 

[J.F.R.]

I know somebody who owns a photography shop and the day he got the GH3 he gave me a call to meet. I brought along one of my GH2s. We shot some stuff around his store downtown using my 14mm F2.5 on both cameras. We also shot some focus charts with both cameras. I was just not impressed with it. Granted my GH2 had Flowmotion loaded and wasn't stock. But I didn't really see more detail or DR in the buildings and shadows, sorry.



If this mattered to me I would never have sold my 7D and bought the GH2 in the first place. Not even the GH3 holds any candles to the 7D and 5D when it comes to that. But yes, the GH3 definitely feels more solid in the hand than the GH2 and it should, because well, it costs the double.
Haha, I have been hanging out too long in these forums. I'm already picking up expressions I dislike.

You my friend are a liar.... I shoot with a team of people who shoot religiously with the GH2, each and everyone of them commented how much better the camera is. No reason in the world for any of them to say this. This is coming from users who use all different hacks such as myself. No way in the world you or anyone who has used the GH2 and Gh3 can say they do not notice the difference. GH3 with the hack is better than the GH2 with any hack.


No point in convincing someone who simply does not want too. Waste of a thread and comment, let me get back to work......

 

[Adamsenoj]

You my friend are a liar.... I shoot with a team of people who shoot religiously with the GH2, each and everyone of them commented how much better the camera is. No reason in the world for any of them to say this. This is coming from users who use all different hacks such as myself. No way in the world you or anyone who has used the GH2 and Gh3 can say they do not notice the difference. GH3 with the hack is better than the GH2 with any hack.


No point in convincing someone who simply does not want too. Waste of a thread and comment, let me get back to work......

Why would I lie? I'm just reporting what I saw. The GH3 is so cheap that if I wanted I could buy two. I didn't say the GH2 was better. What I have been saying is that whatever difference there is doesn't seem worth it for me. I would rather buy me a new lens for the GH2 with the money instead. Do I have to lie? Can't you just accept it's my opinion? Are you telling me that the difference is night and day? Because it's not. If it was I would upgrade in a heart beat. Why wouldn't I if I felt the camera was better and if I can easily afford it? Funny guy, calling people liars just because people don't share his opinion.

 

[P13]

As an owner of both a GH2 and the GH3, the latter is better and to such a degree my GH2 will only be used where I need more than one angle (in future I'll replace it also with another GH3).

I can’t understand why anyone, especially for paid work would risk losing footage due to using a hacked GH2 when the GH3 can deliver at least (I’d argue better) quality and with 100% stability.

 

[nigelbb]

Don't worry guys there is always one dissenting voice. There is a guy over in the 5D forum who continually insists (contrary to what everyone else tells him) that the 5D2 is better than the 5D3.

 

[Adamsenoj]

As an owner of both a GH2 and the GH3, the latter is better and to such a degree my GH2 will only be used where I need more than one angle (in future I'll replace it also with another GH3).

I can’t understand why anyone, especially for paid work would risk losing footage due to using a hacked GH2 when the GH3 can deliver at least (I’d argue better) quality and with 100% stability.

I have been intensely shooting with Flowmotion for a couple of months now and have never had a problem. Nada.
When and if a hack is available for the GH3 maybe it will elevate the performance to a level where I feel makes enough difference and I will then buy a GH3.

 

[Adamsenoj]

Don't worry guys there is always one dissenting voice. There is a guy over in the 5D forum who continually insists (contrary to what everyone else tells him) that the 5D2 is better than the 5D3.

I'm not saying the GH2 is better. I'm saying I can't see enough difference in image quality to make me upgrade and I don't care for the other features. But better and worse is in the eye of the beholder and it depends what you are comparing. The GH2 apparently has an edge on the GH3 when it comes to moire for example. But the GH3 will be better in most things of course, it's the newer generation. I don't think people are arguing that. They are arguing just how much better it is and if it's worth it upgrading or not for them. But GH3 owners don't seem to think they have the right to make this point, for some reason.

 

[BobbyMurcerFan]

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.
View attachment 63683
View attachment 63684

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....

I think the GH3 looks amazing, but I don't see any DR advantage over the 5DM3. In fact, it looks like the Canon may have a tad more DR, but it's hard to judge from this test. That's because none of the shots have blown out areas that should have obvious detail. The best comparison, IMHO, is the first one with the sun coming through the bridge. You can see how the sun is less blown out by the 5DM3 than it is by the GH3, but that could just be a result of how the sun lined up with the structure of the bridge, so it's hard to make a judgement.

On the other hand, the picture you uploaded clearly shows the GH3 used a gamma curve that emphasizes shadow detail. But the exact same level of shadow separation could be shown in the 5DM3 footage by increasing the gamma. The GH3's image will still appear to have more shadow detail b/c of the combination of extra real detail (and, IMHO, in camera sharpening) but those have nothing to do with dynamic range.

I came to the conclusions above by downloading the .MOV and opening it in Avid Media Composer. I looked at the RGB Parade, Waveform and Y Waveform monitors. I also did a grade that matches the 5DM3 to the GH3.

On a down note, my love hate relationship w/ MC continues as MC crashed on me before the project was saved. So I haven't posted screen grabs, but I think what I'm saying should be pretty apparent.