Peter J. DeCrescenzo
Veteran
My m43 lenses want new body!
(Actually, they wanted to fit on a BMCC, but alas, not until next year ...)
GH2 Why do we need a GH3? Isn't the GH2 enough? What should Panasonic do for GH3?
- Thread starter OldCorpse
- Start date
My m43 lenses want new body!
(Actually, they wanted to fit on a BMCC, but alas, not until next year ...)
Well, so here we are almost a year later, the GH3 is out, and what's the consensus - is the GH3 a "must have" upgrade? Is it a game changer? Is the GH2 still enough for our purposes, or is it an outdated and outclassed tool?
It looks like the GH1 was the real break-through, the GH2 was a nice refinement, but the GH2 was also better than the GH1 in pretty much every respect, even if not dramatically. But what about the GH3? You know you're hitting the point of diminishing returns, if the new camera improves on some things compared to the old one, but also is WORSE on other points - that becomes a much harder upgrade. At least with the GH2 you could say "it's better in every way, maybe not a GREAT DEAL better, but in every way". But with the GH3 there are slight improvements with low-light and DR, but some argue worse moire/aliasing, less resolution, loss of sensor multiple aspect-ratio, worse motion cadence etc.
So while a GH1--->GH2 upgrade was a no-brainer ("better in EVERY way"), can you say the same about GH2--->GH3?
Maybe part of the title of this thread gains new perspective after all these months:
Why do we need a GH3? Isn't the GH2 enough?
It looks like the GH1 was the real break-through, the GH2 was a nice refinement, but the GH2 was also better than the GH1 in pretty much every respect, even if not dramatically. But what about the GH3? You know you're hitting the point of diminishing returns, if the new camera improves on some things compared to the old one, but also is WORSE on other points - that becomes a much harder upgrade. At least with the GH2 you could say "it's better in every way, maybe not a GREAT DEAL better, but in every way". But with the GH3 there are slight improvements with low-light and DR, but some argue worse moire/aliasing, less resolution, loss of sensor multiple aspect-ratio, worse motion cadence etc.
So while a GH1--->GH2 upgrade was a no-brainer ("better in EVERY way"), can you say the same about GH2--->GH3?
Maybe part of the title of this thread gains new perspective after all these months:
Why do we need a GH3? Isn't the GH2 enough?
John Caballero
Veteran
It is such an easy decision, a no brainer. If an individual researches it, watches all the samples, goes to the nearby camera store and tests it when is available there, watches some more samples, read and watch what some real pro reviewers think about it, read some articles, watches some more samples, etc., etc., etc., etc., then quietly, like a real pro, he/she can decide to buy it or not. As a pro paying my bills using my gear all I care about is why I finally think about a camera. I don't care about anybody with rhetorical questions. As a pro I can clearly see that the GH3 IS a much better camera. But for people that are not pros it might not be as clear. And as a pro I know that I will recoup the $1300.00 investment even with a few little jobs. And ultimately I will have the more professional GH3 and the GH2 as a backup, because I already gave away the GH1 I had as a backup for the GH2 to a friend. You see, it is such an easy decision, a no brainer really.
LoganMackay
Well-known member
The two biggest improvements for me:
Build quality
Hardware controls for functions
Build quality
Hardware controls for functions
keylight
Veteran
The question I'd like to challenge you with, given your premiss, is will the GH3 actually make you MORE money than you could have done with the GH2? In other words, if you didn't have the GH3, would you loose $1300 in those few little jobs because you only had a GH2?
From my perspective, making the same money I would have made anyway with the equipment I already have, makes not investing in new equipment the right move (from a business standpoint). But if there was a job (or jobs) that I would have to turn down because I didn't have the GH3, and the job(s) would easilyl pay for the camera and still make me a profit beyond my operating expenses, then I'd get the camera.
Or, if using the new camera saved me time so I do more jobs and make more money as a result, I'd go for it. For example, I can see how recording natively into the .mov format might save some people some time and make the workflow a bit easier depending on their process. Or if the DR was several stops more, how I could use that to modify the way I light certain things (perhaps saving some time).
I'd love to hear your (and others) plans for how the camera will actually enable you earn in ways you can't with the GH2. Cancelling my pre-order the day before the camera came into stock was the toughest thing I've done in a while. I'm really itching to own the new camera, and if someone can help me to see how it can help me to increase my revenue, I may change my mind!
Cheers!
dustylense
Veteran
The Gh3 is just easier to work with and the image is better. Thats all I have to say about that...
John Caballero
Veteran
To me is all about growing as a pro. What is $1300.00 for a camera that will give you better quality in a body that is not a toy anymore. A pro has to evolve with the technology as it becomes available. It is also about pride as a working professional to upgrade and work with better tools. But whoever wants to stay working with the GH2 that is their priority. If you feel that you can't recoup your investment and make a profit with a much better piece of equipment then stay with the old and be happy.
dustylense
Veteran
To me it's about working with a device that provides the image you desire without having the worry of your hack giving out. The Gh3 does that. The Gh2 outputs an incredible image, we all know that. But I haven't used a hack yet that has not failed at the wrong time one time or another. Also, the Gh3 is a far better stills camera, which is what it is main function for most of the world.
John Caballero
Veteran
Exactly. Excellent quality out of the box. I am looking forward to the stills side as well.
Last edited:
keylight
Veteran
Actually, it's the still side of the camera that would most likely make me change my mind. That is, if I saw stills that compared favorably to Nikon. I'd love to be able to switch full time to Panasonic and only pack a GH2 and GH3. Anyone seen any really good still photo examples?
John Caballero
Veteran
That's exactly what I waiting for. I am a Nikon user. Some of the GH3 pics so far on Flicker look promising. Can't wait to get my camera and test it.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
That's right and wrong at the same time: On purely cost related economic terms this may be so. But having a camera that is ergonomically much better, provides high-quality 50fps with different codecs, is weather sealed (to a point) and has about another twelve functions I find very, very amazing makes economically sense that it provides me with an opportunity to get the pictures I want better and easier ..... or maybe even this decides over getting them at all. And this may be economically much more important for some than just calculating costs for acquisition of a new camera.
There are some setbacks, yes. Will miss the good old multi-aspect sensor. Still have my GH2 though.
For some it goes beyond just the camera... I have a grim outlook on the global economic situation for the next year or three, and am simply not going to buy anything that won't definitively pay for itself right away.
As I work and am currently equipped, there is not $1000 worth of immediate advantage there. If job situations change, then sure, I'll pick one up. It's just not a time to be chasing wants.
As I work and am currently equipped, there is not $1000 worth of immediate advantage there. If job situations change, then sure, I'll pick one up. It's just not a time to be chasing wants.