GH3 Lumix GH3, worthy over a dedicated camcorder?

Adamsenoj said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have used Flowmotion and a myriad of hacks, I've had a failure sooner or later on the Sandisk 95mb/s (which is formatted beforehand to avoid fragmentation). So I would only use a hacked GH2 where I had a second camera filming from a different angle or I had an opportunity for a retake. IMO the problem is more likely with Lumix lenses but can occur even on softer manual glass. The fact is it’s a greater risk to use a hacked camera for a live event, there’s risk enough with either camera only having one card slot.

The fact you haven’t had a crash so far, doesn’t guarantee you won’t in future.
 
P13 said:
I have used Flowmotion and a myriad of hacks, I've had a failure sooner or later on the Sandisk 95mb/s (which is formatted beforehand to avoid fragmentation). So I would only use a hacked GH2 where I had a second camera filming from a different angle or I had an opportunity for a retake. IMO the problem is more likely with Lumix lenses but can occur even on softer manual glass. The fact is it’s a greater risk to use a hacked camera for a live event, there’s risk enough with either camera only having one card slot.

The fact you haven’t had a crash so far, doesn’t guarantee you won’t in future.
Click to expand...

Well, there you have it. I don't do live events, and honestly never would with a DSLR.
So far so good and I don't use such fast cards. I use class 10 45MB/S with the GH2s and have never had a problem. But the only Lumix lens I have is the 14mm F2.5. The rest are all manual cine glass.
 
What's wrong with your GH1? If it does the job it needs to do, then who cares? I shot a short recently and used a hacked GH1 for a lot of the shots and it looks great. A GH3 wouldn't have made it look any better.
 
Fresno Bob said:
I don't think there's a GH1/2/3 user in the world who isn't aware of 'Musgo'!!!
Click to expand...

Well, I wasn't aware of it till the thread was brought back up yesterday. And I'm amazed by the quality he got out of the camera, with minimum lighting and crew. I don't think I have seen better footage that has not come out of a RED, Alexa or film. Honestly. Not saying it's not possible. Just saying I haven't seen any. Anything I have seen that looks better will either be a Hollywood production or at least RED and Alexa.
 
Fresno Bob said:
I don't think there's a GH1/2/3 user in the world who isn't aware of 'Musgo'!!!
Click to expand...

Lol...I am going to post that link until the cows come home as a reminder to all of us! It's like Barry Green said a year and a half ago - we have long since passed the threshold of "good enough". If you are an aspiring narrative film maker with limited funds get the GH2, if you are a film maker making a good living from your work and want the extra abilities/build quality...go for the GH3. You'll be able to get AMAZING quality from either one.
Note to those with limited funds: The GH2 is definitely enough camera to do the work, don't go broke trying to stretch another $1000 bucks. After all, if you get the glass...you'll be able to move to the GH3 soon enough, when it's a bit cheaper and readily available.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
Note to those with limited funds: The GH2 is definitely enough camera to do the work, don't go broke trying to stretch another $1000 bucks. After all, if you get the glass...you'll be able to move to the GH3 soon enough, when it's a bit cheaper and readily available.
Click to expand...

Great advice really. With limited funds, an used GH2 plus using the difference to buy some good glass will make much more difference than burning all your money on a GH3 or even BMC body and be left with a mediocre lens.
 
A camera is definitely an investment. It is just that it is a bad investment.

The GH3 is so clearly better than the GH2 or GH1 for stills that those other two shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence. For 1080p @ 24 FPS video all three of them are really good. For 1080p @ 60 FPS the GH3 is the only one that can do it so again it stands out on its own.
 
If you are in this business to make money and you are making money, then get a camera upgrade. You will make the investment back with no problems. If you are not making money, or just experimenting as a cinematographer, or a hobbyist, enthusiast, amateur then keep what you have and be happy. The GH3 is obviously a much better camera than the GH2 out of the box, but if you can't afford it then stay with the GH2, it is a pretty cool camera too. And don't worry about Panasonic, it will sell plenty of GH3 along the way.
 
mpgxsvcd said:
A camera is definitely an investment. It is just that it is a bad investment.

The GH3 is so clearly better than the GH2 or GH1 for stills that those other two shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence. For 1080p @ 24 FPS video all three of them are really good. For 1080p @ 60 FPS the GH3 is the only one that can do it so again it stands out on its own.
Click to expand...

Is the GH3 better for stills...don't doubt that at all. But go to flickr and anyone can see great stills can be taken with all of them as well. I took a ton of pictures with my GH1. Was it as good as my D90? No...but it's not this gigantic leap. It's more about certain shots being better or easier to get than a world of difference results wise (not pixel peeping)
 
pulpfiction007 said:
Is the GH3 better for stills...don't doubt that at all. But go to flickr and anyone can see great stills can be taken with all of them as well. I took a ton of pictures with my GH1. Was it as good as my D90? No...but it's not this gigantic leap. It's more about certain shots being better or easier to get than a world of difference results wise (not pixel peeping)
Click to expand...

The GH3 is leaps ahead of the GH2 for stills. Good photos can be gotten with an iphone it doesn't mean its a good camera for photos. The GH2 was horrible for photos. The Jpegs just plain sucked.
 
Its been said before (probably even by me), if you can get double system audio sorted out, there are significant advantages with HDSLRs for lots of things. If the GH3 manages to slip in to the BBC approval envelope with the higher in-camera bit rate codecs its going to become a very popular camera.
 
LyleGorch said:
If the GH3 manages to slip in to the BBC approval envelope with the higher in-camera bit rate codecs its going to become a very popular camera.
Click to expand...

First, it won't because it's not 4:2:2. Second, does it even matter? People need to stop harping on BBC approval specs because it's cliché now and a misnomer at the same time. If the BBC wants your footage, and you render them out an XDCam 50Mbps 4:2:2 file, do you think they're going to sit there and go, "Ooooooooooo, you shot at that 4:2:0 24Mbps didn't you! You naughty, naughty, boy!"

No.

If they want your footage, they'll take your footage. Just render out what they need and hand it over. Done and done.

Stop with this nonsense.
 
I think it's mostly a matter of personal style. If you like customizing vintage gear and enjoy hacking, there's never been a better time to buy a GH2. If you want the latest and greatest out-of-the-box experience, you're right on time for the GH3. And if you want a bleeding-edge taste of the future, the MFT BMC is just around the corner.

As for me, I'm something of a contrarian. I bought the GH1 the moment it hit the stores, but resisted the GH2 up until it was finally hacked. I insist on high-end Nikon glass, but am perfectly happy with a D5100. When faced with a choice between the GH3, the D600, and the BMC, I went with... a second-hand AF100 (because what I most wanted was a built-in waveform monitor and a synced-sound recorder with XLR inputs).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top