The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

GH-4 vs GH-3 for stills photography

biglouis

Well-known member
As some of you will know I was an enthusiastic m4rds owner for many years.

I kept my GH-2 + 100-300 specifically to have a portable long zoom capability.

Alas a few months ago I suffered some kind of brain f@rt because I stupidly sold both.

Now, I will admit the GH-2 had limitations. Above iso1600 for bird photography it was poor.

If I am going to buy back the 100-300 (which goes for silly prices on e-pray) then I also need a body.

For purely stills photography - I have absolutely no interest in video - can anyone tell me if there is much difference in IQ between a GH-3 (heavily discounted on ebay) versus the GH-4 more expensive?

Just to anticipate some responses. I have no interest in an Olympus body - too small, imho.

Thanks in advance for any responses.

LouisB
 

photoSmart42

New member
I have no interest in an Olympus body - too small, imho.

LouisB
Before you discount Olympus bodies, I can tell you I have large hands and I had the same concern. The E-M5 with the battery grip make for a nice, large camera body that fits me well.
 

Knorp

Well-known member
What about the GX8 ? Certainly not small and comes with in- body stabilisation and is cheaper than a GH4 :lecture:
 

f6cvalkyrie

Well-known member
Louis,

Bart's idea is certainly a very good one !

The GX8 will give you dual IS (body and lens working together), being practically as efficient as the Oly 5-axis.
Long exposure noise performance of the GX8 is said to be better than Oly E-M1. Important for night cq star photography ...
20MP instead of 16 might allow you to crop you wildlife photo just that little bit more, if needed.
Perfectly silent electronic shutter may make a difference when shooting shy animals ...
4K Photo mode (8 MP jpg at 30 fps)may give you the picture right at the moment the important thing happens, which is difficult to achieve even with HS
The weather sealing will definitely make a difference in nature photography !

http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2015/10/15/panasonic-gx8-review/
http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2015/09/14/gx8-4k-photo-mode/
http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2015/08/17/a-day-at-penrhyn-castle-hands-on-with-the-panasonic-gx8/


Although I am in the Oly camp right now (5-axis ibis was a game changer for me using my collection of vintage glass), I would nowadays seriously consider the GX8 as well !

Good luck with your decision,
Rafael
 

biglouis

Well-known member
The only problem with the GX-8 is cost - although some discounters are selling it for about the same price as a GH-4.

What I wanted to know was whether there is much of an IQ difference between the GH-3 and GH-4. There are many GH-3s on sale at very affordable prices at present.

LouisB
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Another thought.

It is winter and a lousy time for photography at present (for me at least).

I think I am going to wait until spring and then decide what to do.

I'm still thinking a GH-3 or 4 but also I am told the recently announced 100-400 may be available.

That would make a big difference.

Thanks for the responses.

LouisB
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Another thought.

It is winter and a lousy time for photography at present (for me at least).

I think I am going to wait until spring and then decide what to do.

I'm still thinking a GH-3 or 4 but also I am told the recently announced 100-400 may be available.

That would make a big difference.

Thanks for the responses.

LouisB
Louis,

since my 100-300 got stolen I'm dying for long glass and desperately waiting for either the Oly 300/4 or preferably the PL 100-400.
Mind you: that's over a year now of patiently waiting ...

Kind regards.
 

drofnad

Member
As some of you will know I was an enthusiastic m4rds owner for many years.

I kept my GH-2 + 100-300 specifically to have a portable long zoom capability.

Alas a few months ago I suffered some kind of brain f@rt because I stupidly sold both.

Now, I will admit the GH-2 had limitations. Above iso1600 for bird photography it was poor.

If I am going to buy back the 100-300 (which goes for silly prices on e-pray) then I also need a body.

For purely stills photography - I have absolutely no interest in video - can anyone tell me if there is much difference in IQ between a GH-3 (heavily discounted on ebay) versus the GH-4 more expensive?

Just to anticipate some responses. I have no interest in an Olympus body - too small, imho.
In addition to the GX8, there is the only slightly smaller GX7, which one might also say is going at silly prices. IMO, I like its natural grip as much as --if not a bit more than-- the E-M5's add-on (landscape) grip (the battery part of which I have but don't use). IIRC, the GX7 had a newer (also 16mpx) sensor than the GH3? (But IQ debates seldom resolve to evidence from actual prints ... .)
And the GX7 also has stabilization.

-d.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
The image quality differences between the GH3 and the GH4 are minimal, and I don't think you will notice. What the GH3 is lacking is peaking, if you plan to do much manual focusing. Since the GH4 more popular among videographers due to 4K and peaking, the GH3 is much cheaper on the second hand market, and a real bargain. Still, I'm surprised how well it's kept its value since I sold mine a year ago.

Both cameras are build from solid rock, with large batteries and ergonomics comparable to any pro camera. You can even get a vertical grip for it. Apart from the E-M1, they are the only m4/3 cameras I would consider for my own use. I used the GH3 as my main camera for a long while (2 years?), and I still miss it. It's a rock solid performer, plain and simple. Unfortunately, sensor size kills it for me, but I'm still looking for excuses to buy one :)
 

Tanngrisnir

New member
The only problem with the GX-8 is cost - although some discounters are selling it for about the same price as a GH-4.

What I wanted to know was whether there is much of an IQ difference between the GH-3 and GH-4. There are many GH-3s on sale at very affordable prices at present.

LouisB
I've shot the GH series since the 1. Sold my GH3 earlier this year (and GH2) and got the GH4, never looking back.

For someone really familiar with the GH3, yes, there is a difference in image quality between the two, w/the GH4 (to my experienced eyes) being better.

From the GH2, you'd be light-years ahead.

Get the GH4. I cannot imagine you ever being disappointed by it.
 
Last edited:

mediumcool

Active member
As an ageing and increasingly wobbly person, I am finding stabilisation to be of great utility nowadays.

For that reason, in January I purchased a very well-priced new E-M5 (just before the Mk II release) to use with my 11–22 f/2.8–3.5 Zuiko 4/3, 20mm f/1.7 Lumix, 14–54 f/2.8–3.5 Zuiko 4/3, 30mm Sigma f/2.8, and 50 macro Zuiko 4/3 (no stabilisation in any of them).

After two Lumix bodies (GF1, since stolen, and the still-with-me G3) the E-M5’s sharpness at low shutter speeds is gratifying (1/10 anyone?), though the highlight rendering is nowhere near as snappy and separated as with the G3, but this makes for better results (more latitude) in live music photography and other long tonal range stuff like some recent architectural work (samples).

I will be outfitting myself with the Lumix 25/1.7 (replacing two current lenses, the 20mm and 30mm), and later the 42.5/1.7 and the 15/1.7, to have a set of fast primes with good bokeh, and will use the zooms for everything else.

I reckon the GH series are a bit bulky so as to to cater for video work, and as such are less compelling for stills.

0.02.
 
Last edited:
Top