GH3 Nikon D7100 or GH3 for stills?

If you're just going for stills then I'd go with the D7100. If you wanna save some bucks though you can pick up a used D7000. Look up reviews for both the GH3 and D7100 on dpreview and compare. If you're doing some pro photography though go Nikon, more support for that. If you have tons for m4/3 lenses though don't forget about the OMD EM5, IIRC off hand it is the best m4/3 still cam out.
 
I can only vouch for the GH3 that it takes beautiful stills like you see here. But I'm sure the D7100 does as well, it is all up to the person behind the camera.
 
So is there a MASSIVE jump in image quality with the D7100 vs the GH2/GH3 or is it minor?

I couldn't find any head to head comparisons online so I'm a little lost, haha.
All I want is better image quality for portraits and quick autofocus for events.
 
Both will produce outstanding pics, but what I found from working with a D90 and a GH1 is that I much preferred the D90 for photos based on ergonomics and the optical view finder. For videos it was of course much better on the GH1.
Nikon has some very nice inexpensive portrait lenses, not sure about Panasonic's line up. Lenses are an x factor when buying a camera, so make sure to take a look at the line ups in the focal lengths you want and add it all up.
 
I'm using a D7000 right now and all I have to judge from was the GH1. I can say it is WAY better imo. I'd say grab the D7000 or 7100 and pick up a nifty 50 (50mm 1.8 D). You can get a cheap one off ebay for under a hundred and use the D7k's internal af motor. Then you could pick up a 80-200mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8 and be set! :) All pretty cheap lenses with the 80-200 costing under 500 if you get the old style. Everything will have af.
 
Two major differences between the D7100 and the GH3:

* 14-bit D7100 image sensor versus 12-bit GH3 sensor - this counts at high ISO
* 24Mpix D7100 image sensor versus 16Mpix GH3 sensor - this counts when cropping into a pic

That said, the D5200 is a closer alternative to the GH3, since it has the articulating LCD that the D7100 lacks. Both Nikons, however, lack the GH3's real-time histogram and viewfinder focus-assist features.
 
It is the lens and the person behind the camera that matter most. The D7100 is slightly better at higher ISOs and is 24MP, but with a sharp lens the GH3 displays similar detail. Anyway, I would worry about lenses first.
 
spydercam said:
I know my work looks much better behind the D7000 vs my GH1
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between the still photos the GH3 takes versus either of the previous GHx cameras.

Coming from a background of 25+ years in professional photography, I don't see any problem shooting stills with the GH3, provided you are using good glass.

...If still work was my main goal today ( it's not anymore ), I would be shooting with a Nikon D800.
 
TheDingo said:
There is a big difference between the still photos the GH3 takes versus either of the previous GHx cameras.

Coming from a background of 25+ years in professional photography, I don't see any problem shooting stills with the GH3, provided you are using good glass.

...If still work was my main goal today ( it's not anymore ), I would be shooting with a Nikon D800.
Click to expand...

You are correct there. I remember reading about it using a Sony sensor IIRC and still quality has gone way up. I had the chance to pick up a new cam and passed on the GH3 for the D7k. I've never shot with it before but I don't feel like I made a bad choice, and if I picked GH3 I doubt I'd feel any different. I agree though, I'd get a D600 and save some bucks though. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top