Panasonic G3: My hands-on first impressions

[peterb]

Re: Haute Shots

Enjoyed visiting your site.

Thank you Michael. Much appreciated. Stay tuned for a new technique about to emerge.

 

[ustein]

>I too don't see a role for touch-screen in my photography.

Thought the same. But setting the focus point with the GH2 by touch is nice and direct.

 

[greypilgrim]

I got the ordering error as well. Went back later and the site was down for maintenance. Now my order went through. Surprised the on line prices is discounted. With the EPP plan, it is even less. Surprised this camera came at such a good price. Feeling the pressure on pricing from the EPL and Sony's.

Well, I always got the error when trying to order the body only. Ordering with the lens went through, so I took the plunge. Silly thing claims it is shipping May 15th, 2011 (today ).

I really do not need yet another 14-42...

As I've said, hopefully the raw IQ is significantly better.

Doug

 

[greypilgrim]

>I too don't see a role for touch-screen in my photography.

Thought the same. But setting the focus point with the GH2 by touch is nice and direct.

I found the touch focusing to be more annoying that not given the way I work... I would want to set it while looking through the evf, but couldn't, so I would have to take the camera away from my eye, switch to the evf, focus, then go back to looking through the evf.

I also found the touch screen to not be accurate enough. I had problems getting it to respond to my touches unless the screen was tucked into the camera.

Doug

 

[Godfrey]

I too don't see a role for touch-screen in my photography.

Thought the same. But setting the focus point with the GH2 by touch is nice and direct.

As I said, in certain very specific situations, the touch screen control is useful. But such situations account for very little of my photography. For instance, I manual focus most of the time and find I obtain more precise, accurate focus that way ... spot AF use like this is most useful for me when I'm doing table top work that has the camera fixed in position on a tripod or stand, allowing an easier way to get the focus in the ballpark quickly.

Diff'rent strokes.

 

[ggibson]

I found a site that had a couple pictures of the G3 with 20mm pancake mounted:

http://en.akihabaranews.com/94368/icon-cat/press-conference/hands-on-panasonic-lumix-g3

Looks small, not still not too small compared to the GF2! It looks like a really nice camera, but I'm concerned about early reports saying the dynamic range is even slightly narrower than the 12MP sensor. I find that to be a big weakness of m4/3.

 

[allan]

Touch screen controls on cameras don't really interest me, based on what I find trying the G2 and NEX models, except in certain very specific situations.

I wasn't aware that Sony's NEX cameras had touch screen controls.

 

[Godfrey]

I wasn't aware that Sony's NEX cameras had touch screen controls.

Not the touch sensitive but the style of the controls on the NEX is what I was referring to.

 

[Pelao]

I found a site that had a couple pictures of the G3 with 20mm pancake mounted:

http://en.akihabaranews.com/94368/icon-cat/press-conference/hands-on-panasonic-lumix-g3

Looks small, not still not too small compared to the GF2! It looks like a really nice camera, but I'm concerned about early reports saying the dynamic range is even slightly narrower than the 12MP sensor. I find that to be a big weakness of m4/3.

I had not read about the dynamic range being poor. Do you have a link?

 

[ptomsu]

As I said, in certain very specific situations, the touch screen control is useful. But such situations account for very little of my photography. For instance, I manual focus most of the time and find I obtain more precise, accurate focus that way ... spot AF use like this is most useful for me when I'm doing table top work that has the camera fixed in position on a tripod or stand, allowing an easier way to get the focus in the ballpark quickly.

Diff'rent strokes.

I think all of us understand - if you do not want to use the touch screen you do not have to !!!!

Cannot understand this debate Just a nice feature to have if you like it, so why should one complain ?????

 

[Godfrey]

I think all of us understand - if you do not want to use the touch screen you do not have to !!!! ...

Not exactly true. Many functions are only available via the touch screen, and the touch screen puts another element of uncertainly in place regards where your hands on the camera can be safely without changing settings.

BTW, I wasn't debating anything: I was stating my preferences. Others who like a touch screen should enjoy using it, it's not a problem for me nor am I philosophically opposed to touch screen technology. I don't find it to my preference as camera control, that's all, so I buy other cameras that have controls more to my liking.

 

[ptomsu]

Not exactly true. Many functions are only available via the touch screen, and the touch screen puts another element of uncertainly in place regards where your hands on the camera can be safely without changing settings.

BTW, I wasn't debating anything: I was stating my preferences. Others who like a touch screen should enjoy using it, it's not a problem for me nor am I philosophically opposed to touch screen technology. I don't find it to my preference as camera control, that's all, so I buy other cameras that have controls more to my liking.

I do neither like nor dislike a touch screen. I simply do not use it!

Same as a TV programs - if you do not like you are free to switch off!

And I was not going to debate your preferences. Simply cannot understand the long elaborations (from others) about TOUCH SCREENS

BTW - I manage to NEVER touch the screen of any camera when I work with it - at least almost never, so this is another no issue for me.

End of the day if one does not like a Gxyz then simply stay away from this brand. I for myself find the G series cameras really awesome and technology marvels. Sometimes TOO MANY functions, but I am free not to use them if I do not like.

 

[ggibson]

I had not read about the dynamic range being poor. Do you have a link?

About halfway down here:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCG3/DMCG3A5.HTM

Compared to the Panasonic G2, the G3 scored slightly higher at the "High" quality level (7.02 vs 6.68 f-stops), but lower in total dynamic range (10 vs 10.8 f-stops).

Also a quick writeup here:

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/ca...anasonic-lumix-dmc-g3-954028/review?artc_pg=5

From the second link, dynamic range appears to at least match the E-PL2 RAWs at low ISO and perform better at higher ISO.

In real world use, the G3 will probably not be noticeably different from the other m4/3 cameras in dynamic range, which is really where my disappointment lies. I was hoping for fewer blown highlights in my next camera.

 

[ptomsu]

About halfway down here:

In real world use, the G3 will probably not be noticeably different from the other m4/3 cameras in dynamic range, which is really where my disappointment lies. I was hoping for fewer blown highlights in my next camera.

Easy - just go for the Pentax K5 and you will be there

Not M43 but much better DR.

One cannot have everything .....

 

[Pelao]

About halfway down here:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCG3/DMCG3A5.HTM



Also a quick writeup here:

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/ca...anasonic-lumix-dmc-g3-954028/review?artc_pg=5

From the second link, dynamic range appears to at least match the E-PL2 RAWs at low ISO and perform better at higher ISO.

In real world use, the G3 will probably not be noticeably different from the other m4/3 cameras in dynamic range, which is really where my disappointment lies. I was hoping for fewer blown highlights in my next camera.

Thanks.

I had read those ones, and thought you had something new. For now, while not discounting both reports, I am not taking them too seriously. Imaging resource make it clear they are not able to properly judge the RAW files until ACR offers support.

Similarly, the Techradar report relies on analyzing files converted to TIFF.

It may well be that these results will demonstrate DR no better than earlier M4/3 sensors, but I will wait and see a full RAW analysis before judging. I will say though that it seems odd that it produces jpegs judged as being better than all but the GH2, and rivalling the EOS60D without having better DR. These jpegs are developed in-camera from RAW, so this would infer that the RAW files offer very good DR and resolution.

We shall see. If the RAW files are no better than the earlier sensors, then the camera is of much less interest to me.

 

[Godfrey]

I evaluate DR by borrowing or buying a camera and testing it.
Reports of others' testing results tell me little to nothing useful.

 

[Pelao]

I evaluate DR by borrowing or buying a camera and testing it.
Reports of others' testing results tell me little to nothing useful.

In the end I rely on my own results too, but I will say there are certain reviewers and testers that I trust. These are, generally, working photographers who are less concerned with with technical pixel-peeping and more with the actual output and real-world use / handling.

The other thing they have in common is that their end goal is a high quality print. This is also my goal. These people have a pile of experience, and proven output. Their judgement has never let me down and I am not prepared to discard their views.

I can't say the same for sites like dpreview. It has it's uses, but I won't make buying decisions based on it's reviews.

 

[Diane B]

I agree while I have preordered based on all I've read and seen I won't know until I have one in hand and process myself in Lightroom. The good thing is that its not a huge amount of outlay for one and I feel sure I can recoup what it costs if I'm unhappy and buy something else later. I do feel reasonably sure it will be somewhat--or more--better than my current G1 and GF1 so not much to lose.

Diane

Thanks.

I had read those ones, and thought you had something new. For now, while not discounting both reports, I am not taking them too seriously. Imaging resource make it clear they are not able to properly judge the RAW files until ACR offers support.

Similarly, the Techradar report relies on analyzing files converted to TIFF.

It may well be that these results will demonstrate DR no better than earlier M4/3 sensors, but I will wait and see a full RAW analysis before judging. I will say though that it seems odd that it produces jpegs judged as being better than all but the GH2, and rivalling the EOS60D without having better DR. These jpegs are developed in-camera from RAW, so this would infer that the RAW files offer very good DR and resolution.

We shall see. If the RAW files are no better than the earlier sensors, then the camera is of much less interest to me.

 

[Pelao]

I agree while I have preordered based on all I've read and seen I won't know until I have one in hand and process myself in Lightroom. The good thing is that its not a huge amount of outlay for one and I feel sure I can recoup what it costs if I'm unhappy and buy something else later. I do feel reasonably sure it will be somewhat--or more--better than my current G1 and GF1 so not much to lose.

Diane

I think your assumptions are reasonable. If you do decide to re-sell, you won't lose much at all.

 

[deejjjaaaa]

These jpegs are developed in-camera from RAW, so this would infer that the RAW files offer very good

no, it simply says that most in camera raw converters (like in Canon 60D) are actually very bad...