GH3 Lumix GH3, worthy over a dedicated camcorder?

[ironsceptor]

Hi
I bought the GH1 as soon as Panasonic introduced it. The famed camera that cost over $600 ($1,400 with a lens) can now be had for less than a third of its original price. Few years later there came GH2 and now GH3.

I was thinking about buying GH3 but with a proper lens the package could cost close to $2,000. The cost can be much higher if I decided to sell my GH1 package and swallow a loss.

What I really like about GH3 is its small form factor and its weight. I wouldn't mind carrying it outdoor everyday and it won't feel like a yoke over my neck. It's much smaller than a comparably equipped camcorder and can produce good quality photos and videos without causing ripples on the crowds.

But then when I considered its depreciation value, I realized I would be better off buying a comparably equipped camcorder or a camera that could retain its resale value much better than the Panasonic GH series such as Sony A77/99. Even Samsung NX20 has much larger sensor and a far superior EVF for a fractional cost.

I'm no professonal photographer nor cinematographer but I suppose I could at least value a product from a financial perspective. Apparently it shows that even the hacked GH1 which is only two years older isn't worth a third as much as the GH2. My 24 year old walkman has much better value than this.

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.

 

[Rolf Silber]

Some thoughts about that: Cameras will become "throw away sensors" more and more. Their life spans will get shorter. The question is if you want to invest in a system because you believe this system will also in the future do what you want it to do ... and you can keep your other gear.

I personally like the idea of the MFT-System - open to a wide range of old and new glass, comparably small, not too expensive. My lenses will work with the GH and the Olympus cameras, the AG-AF and now with the BMC.

But, the thing with a hybrid camera is ... well: That it is a hybrid camera. If you will not do any stills and if you do not need to shoot "stealth" probably staying with a pure video camera is a good idea then. But if you want to have the freedom to have an at least semi-pro stills and a semi-pro video camera in your hand at the same time ... buy a hybrid.

And: History of depreciation? It will become faster and faster in future in next to any segment of the market apart from the upper pro-levels.

 

[Fresno Bob]

I won't invest in any rigs etc as I just find the prices ridiculous.
So you bought a cage for the GH2 and spent hundreds on it - guess what? The GH3 won't fit it.

 

[P13]

I personally think the GH3 is an excellent all-rounder, I’ve actually sold my Canon XF300 camcorder which was a nice piece of kit and did the job very well but was always more weight and whilst fine for live or documentary recording didn’t allow me to be really creative, admittedly it would be a bit easier to get a clean key in green screen but I’m sure I’ll manage. I prefer manual glass of which there’s some great m43 examples, plus plenty of vintage glass you can use too, plus with the Lumix G lenses I have something that goes some way to filling the specific void selling the XF300 left, albeit you’d need a parfocal with power zoom to really provide the best of both worlds.

I think the GH3 is more than a mere step up from the GH2 and if it only had peaking would be almost perfect. I get around the lack of peaking by having a SmallHD DP4. For the GH5 when we get that, one day, I’d like dual card slots for backup purposes.

 

[Adamsenoj]

Hi
I bought the GH1 as soon as Panasonic introduced it. The famed camera that cost over $600 ($1,400 with a lens) can now be had for less than a third of its original price. Few years later there came GH2 and now GH3.

I was thinking about buying GH3 but with a proper lens the package could cost close to $2,000. The cost can be much higher if I decided to sell my GH1 package and swallow a loss.

What I really like about GH3 is its small form factor and its weight. I wouldn't mind carrying it outdoor everyday and it won't feel like a yoke over my neck. It's much smaller than a comparably equipped camcorder and can produce good quality photos and videos without causing ripples on the crowds.

When it comes to this, it's really hard to beat a GH3 or GH2. If you want small, light and discreet, a DSLR is the best option and when it comes to DSLRs for HD video the GH cameras are king.

But then when I considered its depreciation value, I realized I would be better off buying a comparably equipped camcorder or a camera that could retain its resale value much better than the Panasonic GH series such as Sony A77/99. Even Samsung NX20 has much larger sensor and a far superior EVF for a fractional cost.

I'm sorry but no camera will retain it's value. DSLR or camcorder. Specially at this point in time. The tendency is for cameras to depreciate faster and faster now, as already stated.

I'm no professonal photographer nor cinematographer but I suppose I could at least value a product from a financial perspective. Apparently it shows that even the hacked GH1 which is only two years older isn't worth a third as much as the GH2. My 24 year old walkman has much better value than this.

For the record a 24 year old car would most likely cost more than a 10 year old car. Because the only reason anybody would even keep or have a 24 year old car in good condition to sell is because it's probably a classic. While the 10 year old car is still just an old car. Makes sense? Your 24 year old walkman is a collector's item. Nobody really walk around listening to tapes anymore.

So the question is why are folks raving so much about the GH series?

Because it produces better results than cameras costing several times more and weighting several pounds more.

Are they that much better than pro camcorders with three CCDs

Depends how you define better. It is sharper than most if not all low end large sensor camcorders for example. It makes overall better images than them too.

let alone used Canon XL1?

A XL1? That's 15 years old technology. An iPhone is better than a XL1 in terms of image quality.

Why not get Sony XDCAM if people are serious about the cinematography?

Well first, XDCAM cameras will most likely be much more than a GH3. Second, the cheapest XDCAM camera with a large sensor is the F3 for $13K. For cinematography you would want a large sensor. Third, I wouldn't say a XDCAM camera is better just because it is XDCAM.

I just don't understand peope who would rather purchase and carry stablizer accessories that are larger than life.

By that you mean rigs? Honestly, most cameras these days require some sort of rig for efficient handheld work. Even the XL1 did. It was a nightmare to handhold. RED requires, F3 does, AF100, C100/300/500. Not only DSLRs.

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

The hack is no fad. It truly improves the camera capabilities and turns the GH2 into a camera well above it's intended use. If you are having buyers remorse, I fear it's nobody's fault but your own for not having thought it through.

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.

If the only thing that matters for you is depreciation, do not buy any camera. None!

You should choose a camera because of what it does for you now and will continue to do. Not based on how much you can sell it down the road. You should base it on how much money it can make you or if you are a hobbyist, based on how much fun it will give you. Do you buy a TV thinking about how much you will be able to sell it for in the future?

 

[nothing]

Why in the world would you want to buy a GH3? If you have to be talked into buying a camera, you don't need it (and likely wouldn't be capable of taking advantage of it's advantages). Keep that GH1 and use it until it dies.

Yes, you are being influenced by marketing gimmicks. Save your cash and put it in the bank. Cameras are not investments.

Not meaning to be rude here, nor am I trying to slight the GH3, but from what you have written you are not somebody who needs a new camera at all.

 

[J.F.R.]

My GH3 purchase is simple......

1080 60fps and better than an Canon dslr or most cameras under $2000.....
Coming from using a 5d, 7d, t2i, 60d, GH2 and several other cameras I can say the GH3 is the best. If you make money with your camera then this conversation shouldn't even be happening........

 

[wgzn]

but I suppose I could at least value a product from a financial perspective.

absolutely and completely untrue.

camera gear isnt an investment in itself. never has been. never will be. in most cases, think of a camera like a new car. in that it loses arguably half its value when you drive it off the lot. now there are occasional exceptions (usually based on supply vs demand at a given moment), as well as some components that hold value better or even appreciate in value - like lenses or microphones. but thats a whole other discussion.

a camera is an investment in what you can do with it - either renting it out or creating product (be that billable or simply for personal pleasure)

Are they that much better than pro camcorders with three CCDs let alone used Canon XL1?

first of all, an XL1 is a standard definition camera. and can probably be had for free these days. so it shouldnt even be in this discussion...

a gh3 (nor ANY DSLR) isnt by definition, any better or worse than a "dedicated camcorder". they are different tools for different uses. anyone who tries to tell you one is across the board "better" than the other is a fool. and NEITHER holds their value if you're talking about the devices themselves as investments.

looking at my hpx170. it cost me $6000 five or so years ago.
today, it has a street value of maybe $2500. so looking at it like that, it's a loser of an investment.
but considering it as a tool, it's made me well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

if youre not actively making money with your camera. you need to consider it a financial loss right out of the gate and just put that out of your mind.
and if you bought something based on a fad or marketing hype and that product no longer delivers what you need it to - sorry, thats just how that ball bounces : (

i ALMOST bought into the HDV format at one point and i ALMOST sold my hpx170 rig for a 5Dll. but i did proper research beforehand and realised that neither would have suited my needs.

and in that respect, again using my hpx170 as an example. it still produces as good an image today as it did five years ago. and until widespread delivery mechanisms move to something like 2k or glasses-free 3D (wich will be no sooner than the next 3-5 years - if even that soon) it will continue to be a very viable tool.

so, as other have said. if a camera of $2000 is a financial "investment" for you. you'll be better off with that sony or samsung and putting the rest of the money into an IRA or something.

 

[John Caballero]

The GH3 is for somebody who has money to throw around or for a person who will earn money with it. Otherwise keep using your GH1 and don't even talk about the GH3. It is that simple.

 

[Gary Huff]

The GH3 is for somebody who has money to throw around or for a person who will earn money with it. Otherwise keep using your GH1 and don't even talk about the GH3. It is that simple.

Please. There's enough improvement over the GH1 with this third iteration that it's definitely worth looking at upgrading too, especially if you want more power in the stills department. Leave your FUD elsewhere, thanks.

 

[John Caballero]

Please. There's enough improvement over the GH1 with this third iteration that it's definitely worth looking at upgrading too, especially if you want more power in the stills department. Leave your FUD elsewhere, thanks.

Take the time and use the brain matter necessary, if possible, to really understand the OP's "dilemma", then comment.

 

[wgzn]

ok boys, lets be nice. you're both right.

the reality is that the GH3 is a monumental improvement over the GH1 for a number of reasons. and its not, by definition a direct replacement of a dedicated camcorder.

its either something the OP can justify financially or it isnt. thats really as far as it goes.

 

[Gary Huff]

Take the time and use the brain matter necessary, if possible, to really understand the OP's "dilemma", then comment.

I did...I still think your response was uncalled-for snark.

 

[John Caballero]

I did...I still think your response was uncalled-for snark.

It is real life. You can't afford the cam and you are an enthusiast then buy a G5 then. I hear is a pretty good camera.

 

[Gary Huff]

You can't afford the cam and you are an enthusiast then buy a G5 then.

I agree with that. Just saying that all the GH3 is for is people who want to throw their money around is insulting. If I read your post wrong, then I apologize.

 

[John Caballero]

Just saying that all the GH3 is for is people who want to throw their money around is insulting.

What I meant was that an expensive camera is either for people that have money to spend and don't care about it, which this days there are not many, or for serious users that will use it as a tool for their work. If the person is an enthusiast or amateur they should keep using what they have or buy a camera that they can afford.

 

[FrameFarmMedia]

What I meant was that an expensive camera is either for people that have money to spend and don't care about it, which this days there are not many, or for serious users that will use it as a tool for their work. If the person is an enthusiast or amateur they should keep using what they have or buy a camera that they can afford.

$1300 is an expensive DSLR camera now?

 

[John Caballero]

$1300 is an expensive DSLR camera now?

I don't think so myself but a lot people will consider it very expensive. And if you don't own lenses you will have to get those too.

 

[Jim Simon]

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?

There are many different aspects to image quality, but I would argue that overall, a hacked GH2 produces a better image than any other camera under $5,000.

 

[Jim Simon]

you’d need a parfocal with power zoom to really provide the best of both worlds.

Pleeeease let a lens maker hear you and fulfill that desperate need affordably.