GH3 Time for a new camera. GH3?

Zim

Zim

Veteran
I think it is about time to get a new one. (I will keep the DVX100b). I'm really thinking about the GH3. It would be way under my budget which would be nice. If I can use my Nikon 2.8 lenses then I'll only be looking at $1,200. Can someone point me to some good adapters?

I was looking at a few of the Canon video cameras or the Panasonic ones, but you jump up to $3,000 of $4,000 pretty fast.


I'd use my DVX100b but I'm just really tired of tape and the time it takes.
 
A good MFT adapter for Nikon glass runs about $200-300. At that total price, have you considered the Nikon D600? The Nikon would allow you to use all the auto features of your lenses. AFAIK, no extant MFT-Nikon adapter allows any electrical communication from lens to body.

Downsides are 30 minute recording limit, with other differences such as shallower DOF (possible positive or negative, depending upon use); not certain the D600 has a headphone jack, either, but for most serious use you'd likely go dual-system with either camera.

None of this is to knock the GH3, I think it'll be a swell camera, but if you've already got quality fast glass that's good forever, you may be best off getting a body to make full use of it.
 
I'm still looking at the D600 and the D800. For sure on the photography side but still need to know more about the video. The GH3 might be better.
 
mcbob said:
A good MFT adapter for Nikon glass runs about $200-300. At that total price, have you considered the Nikon D600? The Nikon would allow you to use all the auto features of your lenses. AFAIK, no extant MFT-Nikon adapter allows any electrical communication from lens to body.

Downsides are 30 minute recording limit, with other differences such as shallower DOF (possible positive or negative, depending upon use); not certain the D600 has a headphone jack, either, but for most serious use you'd likely go dual-system with either camera.

None of this is to knock the GH3, I think it'll be a swell camera, but if you've already got quality fast glass that's good forever, you may be best off getting a body to make full use of it.
Click to expand...

Looking at a D600 isn't a bad idea, but you don't need to spend anywhere near $300 on an adaptor!?
 
Will Turner said:
Looking at a D600 isn't a bad idea, but you don't need to spend anywhere near $300 on an adaptor!?
Click to expand...

The GH3 will be $1200 and the D600 is $2,000 so it is still cheaper. I need to see more about the video from all of these cameras
 
here is the skinny on these cameras from my personal perspective. ALL the canon and nikon DSLRs have some degree of propensity for morie. all cameras DO, but the GH cameras have far, FAR less of a problem with it.

the GH line also does not have clip length limits. the canon and nikons do

it is FAR easier to achieve a "filmic" looking video right out of the box with canons. to get that with the GH cameras i have found more success using old lenses with an adapter. the down side of that is you wont have ANY of the IS or AF features. but when youre shooting "filmic" you probably dont want that anyway, right?

i've owned two GH2s in the last couple years and i didnt care for ANY of the LUMIX glass. the only native m4/3 lenses i liked at all were some of the olympus ones and of course the voigtlanders. the voigtlanders, though native m4/3 are fully manual.
 
$200-300 on a Nikon adapter? I bought a $16 Nikon G adapter that works wonderfully on my GH1. Also bought a Minolta MD adapter from the same place Rainbowimaging on ebay. Both have worked great for over a year now.
 
Last edited:
Next camera for me will be the BMCC, but that probably won't be for about 6 months in all likelihood. Until then, the GH2 genuinely feels like the best "dslr" form factor camera around even today. I think the only DSLR I might consider over the GH2 would be the 1DX. Having shot with it- was very impressed. However the BMCC would walk over the 1DX any day of the week for less than half the price. We still don't know how good the GH3 will be. I sure hope it exceeds my expectations, because right now they're kind of low. The features are incredible, especially the wifi. But in terms of image... the GH2 has a unique look that hasn't carried over to the GH3 as far as I can tell, but lets hope I'm wrong.
 
L1N3ARX said:
Next camera for me will be the BMCC, but that probably won't be for about 6 months in all likelihood. Until then, the GH2 genuinely feels like the best "dslr" form factor camera around even today. I think the only DSLR I might consider over the GH2 would be the 1DX. Having shot with it- was very impressed. However the BMCC would walk over the 1DX any day of the week for less than half the price. We still don't know how good the GH3 will be. I sure hope it exceeds my expectations, because right now they're kind of low. The features are incredible, especially the wifi. But in terms of image... the GH2 has a unique look that hasn't carried over to the GH3 as far as I can tell, but lets hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you, I might invest money into some lenses and gears instead of the GH3. I am MORE than happy with My GH2 and it looks like the community is strong. If I upgrade I really want to make the jump towards the BMCC or get a GH3 once they figure out the hack which might take 3-6 months.

Personally the extra $1300 I was going to spend I might just but some nice manual lenses and more than like a nice monitor that I want for my GH2.
 
L1N3ARX said:
Next camera for me will be the BMCC, but that probably won't be for about 6 months in all likelihood. Until then, the GH2 genuinely feels like the best "dslr" form factor camera around even today. I think the only DSLR I might consider over the GH2 would be the 1DX. Having shot with it- was very impressed. However the BMCC would walk over the 1DX any day of the week for less than half the price. We still don't know how good the GH3 will be. I sure hope it exceeds my expectations, because right now they're kind of low. The features are incredible, especially the wifi. But in terms of image... the GH2 has a unique look that hasn't carried over to the GH3 as far as I can tell, but lets hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
Sorry but what is the BMCC?
 
wgzn said:
here is the skinny on these cameras from my personal perspective. ALL the canon and nikon DSLRs have some degree of propensity for morie. all cameras DO, but the GH cameras have far, FAR less of a problem with it.

the GH line also does not have clip length limits. the canon and nikons do

it is FAR easier to achieve a "filmic" looking video right out of the box with canons. to get that with the GH cameras i have found more success using old lenses with an adapter. the down side of that is you wont have ANY of the IS or AF features. but when youre shooting "filmic" you probably dont want that anyway, right?

i've owned two GH2s in the last couple years and i didnt care for ANY of the LUMIX glass. the only native m4/3 lenses i liked at all were some of the olympus ones and of course the voigtlanders. the voigtlanders, though native m4/3 are fully manual.
Click to expand...
I just finished a film with the DVX100b and not one person has said anything about the image. I can and most people on DVXuser could but not most people, so some of the very slight morie problems are not a big deal. The bigger problem I have with any DSLR is audio. But my very top budget is $3,000. Maybe the Canon XF100. Not sure which Panasonic falls into that price range.
 
I just finished a film with the DVX100b and not one person has said anything about the image. I can and most people on DVXuser could but not most people, so some of the very slight morie problems are not a big deal.
Click to expand...
have you ever shot video with a canon DSLR with things like a shingled roof, a car grill or guy in a houndstooth jacket in the frame? THAT'S the moire im talking about.

for $3,000 and under i have two suggestions:
1. if you want to stay with a video camera, look into a used hpx170. for a dvx owner it wont be a huge culture shock, has a great image and is about the most flexible camera ive ever owned. as ive said many time on the forum 'they can have mine when they pry it from my cold dead hands" - and if you want to get the whole DOF thing going a la DSLR, you can pick up a letus, redrock or shoot35 adapter for a song these days.
2. hold out for the GH3. as it stands, i find the GH2 to be the most issue-free DSLR going
 
wgzn said:
have you ever shot video with a canon DSLR with things like a shingled roof, a car grill or guy in a houndstooth jacket in the frame? THAT'S the moire im talking about.

for $3,000 and under i have two suggestions:
1. if you want to stay with a video camera, look into a used hpx170. for a dvx owner it wont be a huge culture shock, has a great image and is about the most flexible camera ive ever owned. as ive said many time on the forum 'they can have mine when they pry it from my cold dead hands" - and if you want to get the whole DOF thing going a la DSLR, you can pick up a letus, redrock or shoot35 adapter for a song these days.
2. hold out for the GH3. as it stands, i find the GH2 to be the most issue-free DSLR going
Click to expand...
No the only DSLR I have with video is the Nikon D300s which I just use for pictures. I did make a train video once for the fun of it.
I'll look at the HPX170 but I don't think I want a P2 card. thanks
 
Last edited:
Check out the Panasonic AC90 you might be able to find an AC130 (Not AC160A) those both fit your budget and they are AVCCAM's they record to SD Cards.
 
Interesting question. Here's a small fact - and a very funny one, in view of all the comments here - neither the BMCC nor the GH3 are out as yet. We've seen some footage from both, but always with the caveat that these are not final products, but betas still being tweaked. There are the specs on paper, and then there's real life footage. If you just want to judge by specs on paper, that's fine, but experience suggests, that it's best to wait for the actual cameras to come out and fall into the hands of real-life users. Only then can you find out all the plusses and minuses of the product - because whatever the specs say, it's up to your own eyes to decide what you like, and it only then becomes clear what you are dealing with in workflow and additional gear you'll need to make the camera operational for your very particular needs. When you buy a camera, you are buying just the body, but that's hardly enough to make it a usable product for all purposes. For example, the BMCC is $3K, and the GH3 is $1.3K, but what about lenses, filters, monitors, sound solutions, post prod gear etc., etc., etc.? It may be quite different in each case, and far outweighing the initial camera cost.

I would not make any hasty decisions yet. Wait until the products you are considering are out, and only then make the decision. I used to think that image quality was the #1 consideration, but I've slowly been coming around to the view that image quality from a camera is actually pretty far down the list these days - I say "these days", because pretty much all pro or semi-pro cameras can produce image quality that's within a broad band of "acceptable to 99% of the audience", as in "acceptable, meaning they either can't tell the difference, or the difference is immaterial to their reception of the work". What differs widely is how much work it takes to get the footage - as the recent Zacuto test showed - and that's what's become more important to me. I'd rather not have to spend 10 times as much time and additional gear to get acceptable footage - to take a random example, if we were to postulate that the AF100 footage is equivalent to GH2 footage, but it takes 10 x more work to get the GH2 footage, I'd rather go with the AF100... which would actually hold, even if the GH2 footage was slightly "better" - because nobody except for pixel peepers will care about the image, and meanwhile I have to put out 10 x as much work and trouble.

Of course, there's the budget question. If all you have or can afford is the GH2, then it's useless to talk about the AF100 - though keep in mind, in order to actually get footage, you'll need to add a bit of $ to the GH2, such as f.ex. ND filter solution etc., so even the budget can be deceptive.

Meanwhile, I'd wait. That's what I am doing, fwiw. I'm very excited by the GH3, but await it's arrival in real user hands.
 
OldCorpse said:
Interesting question. Here's a small fact - and a very funny one, in view of all the comments here - neither the BMCC nor the GH3 are out as yet. We've seen some footage from both, but always with the caveat that these are not final products, but betas still being tweaked. There are the specs on paper, and then there's real life footage. If you just want to judge by specs on paper, that's fine, but experience suggests, that it's best to wait for the actual cameras to come out and fall into the hands of real-life users. Only then can you find out all the plusses and minuses of the product - because whatever the specs say, it's up to your own eyes to decide what you like, and it only then becomes clear what you are dealing with in workflow and additional gear you'll need to make the camera operational for your very particular needs. When you buy a camera, you are buying just the body, but that's hardly enough to make it a usable product for all purposes. For example, the BMCC is $3K, and the GH3 is $1.3K, but what about lenses, filters, monitors, sound solutions, post prod gear etc., etc., etc.? It may be quite different in each case, and far outweighing the initial camera cost.

I would not make any hasty decisions yet. Wait until the products you are considering are out, and only then make the decision. I used to think that image quality was the #1 consideration, but I've slowly been coming around to the view that image quality from a camera is actually pretty far down the list these days - I say "these days", because pretty much all pro or semi-pro cameras can produce image quality that's within a broad band of "acceptable to 99% of the audience", as in "acceptable, meaning they either can't tell the difference, or the difference is immaterial to their reception of the work". What differs widely is how much work it takes to get the footage - as the recent Zacuto test showed - and that's what's become more important to me. I'd rather not have to spend 10 times as much time and additional gear to get acceptable footage - to take a random example, if we were to postulate that the AF100 footage is equivalent to GH2 footage, but it takes 10 x more work to get the GH2 footage, I'd rather go with the AF100... which would actually hold, even if the GH2 footage was slightly "better" - because nobody except for pixel peepers will care about the image, and meanwhile I have to put out 10 x as much work and trouble.

Of course, there's the budget question. If all you have or can afford is the GH2, then it's useless to talk about the AF100 - though keep in mind, in order to actually get footage, you'll need to add a bit of $ to the GH2, such as f.ex. ND filter solution etc., so even the budget can be deceptive.

Meanwhile, I'd wait. That's what I am doing, fwiw. I'm very excited by the GH3, but await it's arrival in real user hands.
Click to expand...

?
The BMCC is out and in the hands of users unlike the GH3 even if it is still in it's infant stages. The GH3 though no one has a close to finish working model. FInally the BMCC is no different workflow than any other Raw camera. When you work with these files and see the quality, people PAY for this, if not Red, Alexa etc. would not exist....

Monitors, computers, tripods etc. you should all have anyways so you cannot add that cost to any camera you buy. The BMCC shoots in raw or straight Pro Res as well so that would even make it faster for me regarding encoding times. I can go on and on, the point is what kind of work you do and what you need the camera for. Broadcast camera with smaller chips and super long zooms will always exist just like Cinema camera styles as well, it's all about what ind of work you do....
 
OldCorpse said:
...if we were to postulate that the AF100 footage is equivalent to GH2 footage, but it takes 10 x more work to get the GH2 footage, I'd rather go with the AF100... which would actually hold, even if the GH2 footage was slightly "better" - because nobody except for pixel peepers will care about the image, and meanwhile I have to put out 10 x as much work and trouble.
Click to expand...
I recently bought a used $2800 AF100 and it plays brilliantly with my hacked GH2 and MFT-compatible lens collection. While I wouldn't describe the GH2 as "10x more work", it's missing some important workflow features that the AF100 provides in a professional, self-contained package:

* Synchronized audio recording with XLR's, headphone jack, and fingertip level controls.
* Waveform monitor and numerical readouts of focal length and focus distance.
* Electronic aperture and follow-focus with Manfrotto 521PFI remote controller.
* Built-in hinged viewfinder with eyecup.
* Built-in ND filters.

The AF100 works well and looks impressive mounted on a large video tripod, serving as a stable A-cam for static and slow panning shots. With the AF100 covering the basics, I can freely use the GH2 as a highly mobile B-cam, grabbing handheld action shots with superb motion picture quality. The only thing I need for stability with the GH2 is a monopod with a quick-adjust ball head, no shoulder mount or steadicam required. The ability to share lenses and recording media between the two cameras is a dream come true. I'll look forward to when the GH3 and BMCC are ready for prime time, but until then my needs are fully covered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top