We all understand that jpegs are in camera processed but how often do you hear any photographer referring to an E5 as their preferred RAW processor. LOL you are being needlessly pedantic making it not really possible to carry on much of a worthwhile discussion in this thread. Too bad.
Man, that made me laugh. Reading anything takes some intelligence, and some attention to detail AND keeping context (set by previous comments) in mind.I did not ignore this, it was the basis for my comments.
A. E. Houseman once wrote, "Three minutes' thought would suffice to find this out; but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time." Now, it's about three seconds.
I can easily see how you would call the camera a RAW converter and I can see how certain cameras/manufacturers have better converters than others. However there are plenty of reasons to not want to start with a jpeg.
That was not the point - the point was that you can't make the judgement about the quality of a sensor (raw files) based on the output from a raw converter (in camera in this case) if there is a reason to believe that there were improvement in that raw converter between cameras (between G3 and previous models from Panasonic)... Take some raw files (high ISO) from the camera that was supported when for example the very early versions of ACR (ACR is used just an example) and process them with that early version of ACR and then with ACR v6.4 for example... you shall see a very drastic improvement, but the raw files are the same... and this is the case w/ G3 - I bet it is the same technology as in GH2, just improved firmware that produces more pleasing JPGs (which is good of course)... now are GH2 raw files that much better if you are using "off camera" raw converter (ACR/LR/DxO/C1/Aperture/whatever) than raw files from 12mp Panasonic sensors used for example in E-PL2 or G2 or from prev. generation of Panasonic multi-aspect sensor used in GH1 ? G3 has many other virtues of course - but any statement that "raw files are very good" is a wishful thinking (if that implies that they are "very good" vs the state of Panasonic sensor technology represented by GH2 sensor)
We will have to agree to disagree, hopefully agreeably.one more time - I am only disputing the statement from OP that "this implies that the RAW itself is very good."... OOC JPGs do not imply anything except the quality of the raw converter implemented in camera's firmware... that's it.
Of course the converter is incredibly important. I would contend though, that no matter how good the chef, there is a better opportunity for a good dish when the raw ingredients are of high quality. Similarly, a good jpeg engine will deliver better good when it has excellent data to work on.
Anyway, as long as everyone is able to get what they need to make the photographs they desire, we should, as photographers, be delighted.
@ Pelao: the Houseman quote was misquoted in Neil Postman's truly excellent book, "Amusing ourselves to death". "Three" became "A minute's thought..." which works even better! Cheers, KL
Um...never said that. That wasn't my point.you - raw files (G3 sensor) are "better" than what Panasonic managed to achieve so far (pre G3)
Let's just say you are right, and all will be well with the world.
I added Panasonic to the pages I'm a fan of on facebook and went through their FB page to get to their website. I added the G3 and kit lens to my basket and it showed as being $559. I went to check out and put in my zip, shipping was $4 so the total should've been around $600 including tax. For some reason after I entered my CC the total they were going to charge me was the original price plus shipping and tax (somewhere around $760). Did anyone else have this issue?
looking at some pix. do you guys think it's possible to fit the contax g lens with metabones adapter in the new g3? it looks a bit tight up top on where it curves. i ordered mine and that would suck if i can't use one of my fav lens/adapter.