Panasonic G3: My hands-on first impressions

[dennisgibson]

Just wondering what the price is you are seeing on the panasonic site? I'm registered and the price is the same on the panasonic site as on amazon.

 

[Diane B]

Dennis, I had $480 for black body only in my basket yesterday. I registered through Facebook.

 

[dennisgibson]

Thanks Diane! Maybe that's my problem

 

[Pelao]

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

I don't think I expressed myself well. What I mean is this - the jpegs from the G3 appear to be very good, with most observers seeing that they are much better than the G2. Since the source material for those jpegs is a RAW file, this implies that the RAW itself is very good.

 

[Diane B]

Thanks Diane! Maybe that's my problem

I followed this posters' instructions and it worked. Maybe it will for you. I tried this same method a month or so ago and it never would let me register but it worked fine this time.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=38437303

 

[Diane B]

I don't think I expressed myself well. What I mean is this - the jpegs from the G3 appear to be very good, with most observers seeing that they are much better than the G2. Since the source material for those jpegs is a RAW file, this implies that the RAW itself is very good.

That's my assumption. BTW, i hadn't heard that the Canon jpeg engine is particularly "bad". I always shot RAW but many many Canon shooters, 60D and other bodies, shoot jpeg and are happy with the outcome AFAIK.

 

[deejjjaaaa]

I don't think I expressed myself well. What I mean is this - the jpegs from the G3 appear to be very good, with most observers seeing that they are much better than the G2. Since the source material for those jpegs is a RAW file, this implies that the RAW itself is very good.

you completely ignore the fact that quality of raw conversion depends a lot on a raw converter... compare E5 vs G2... or ACR 3.x vs ACR 6.x on the same raw files

 

[Diane B]

You do realize there will be a RAW conversion via new upgrades of LR and PS (and others like Aperture, etc). You can never go back to LR2 for instance and convert a new camera's files unless you use dng. I will use LR3 to convert and process using the develop module to the best I'm able and expect to be able to get a very good file from it. I've shot RAW since 2001 using many RAW processors and though I appreciate review sites comparing jegs I can do a better job myself with the RAW files.

I don't quite get comparing E5 and G2 as they are cameras, not RAW processors.

 

[Pelao]

you completely ignore the fact that quality of raw conversion depends a lot on a raw converter... compare E5 vs G2... or ACR 3.x vs ACR 6.x on the same raw files

Um, no - that is exactly the point that started all this. I don't feel I will be able to fully judge the G3's RAW files on their own or against other cameras until RAW converters are updated to handle the files. Of course I know the converter makes a difference - that's the whole point. I did not ignore this, it was the basis for my comments.

Sigh.

 

[deejjjaaaa]

I don't quite get comparing E5 and G2 as they are cameras, not RAW processors.

any digital camera is a raw converter, Diane... how do you think you are getting all those JPGs ? any $1 cell phone w/ some ugly 640x480 camera has a raw converter inside... and point to compare E5 vs G2 was that they have pretty much the same sensor (noise/dynamic range wise - CFA/AA of course are different), yet if you will compare in camera JPGs from E5 vs in camera JPGs from G2 (you can mount the same lens on both if that is an issue) most people will find Olympus much better... now do you really believe that E5 has that better raw files (in terms of noise/DR) ? no - just Olympus put much more effort into the code to get good JPGs that are more pleasing to the eyes of many... the same thing is happening w/ G3 in camera JPGs, some people here want to believe that Panasonic made an leap and outdid GH2 sensor by a stop (then - why stop high ISOs @ 6400 when G3 is a stop better than GH2 where you have ISO12800, shouldn't a better sensor in G3 in this case allow for at least the same high ISO as GH2... simple question) - while such beans counting company like Panasonic just put some extra NR code in its firmware, that simple... but in any case - we shall wait for DxO to test the camera or something like DPReview to post the full review with ACR raw conversions w/ NR disabled

 

[deejjjaaaa]

I don't feel I will be able to fully judge the G3's RAW files on their own or against other cameras until RAW converters are updated to handle the files. Of course I know the converter makes a difference - that's the whole point. I did not ignore this, it was the basis for my comments.

Sigh.

well, then I did not understand your statement "this implies that the RAW itself is very good."...

"very good" implies some comparison with some other raw files, right :watch:?

 

[Diane B]

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.

 

[kit laughlin]

I did not ignore this, it was the basis for my comments.

Sigh.

Man, that made me laugh. Reading anything takes some intelligence, and some attention to detail AND keeping context (set by previous comments) in mind.

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.

 

[deejjjaaaa]

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.

as often as any photographer that is using in camera JPGs and there are many of those, specifically w/ Olympus cameras and exactly because they have good in camera raw converter... it seems that actually you are "needlessly pedantic" here oke: by insisting that somebody must exactly say "I am using my E5 as my preferred RAW processor"...

 

[Terry]

as often as any photographer that is using in camera JPGs and there are many of those, specifically w/ Olympus cameras and exactly because they have good in camera raw converter... it seems that actually you are "needlessly pedantic" here oke: by insisting that somebody must exactly say "I am using my E5 as my preferred RAW processor"...

Which then means that you must live with the controls that the camera allows, doesn't give you the option for local adjustments, you are baking in a jpeg at native size regardless of how you are going to print.

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.

 

[deejjjaaaa]

You do realize there will be a RAW conversion via new upgrades of LR and PS (and others like Aperture, etc). You can never go back to LR2 for instance and convert a new camera's files unless you use dng.

I missed that piece.

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)

 

[deejjjaaaa]

Which then means that you must live with the controls that the camera allows, doesn't give you the option for local adjustments, you are baking in a jpeg at native size regardless of how you are going to print.

yes, but I am not arguing that in camera JPGs are better than what you can get by putting some effort in raw conversion and postprocessing (I do not use in camera JPGs myself) - I am saying to Diane that there are many photographers that are using in camera JPGs + any camera is essentially a raw converter + the quality of that "in camera" raw converter can make a big difference - you can have perfect sensor and barely usable OOC JPGs or less than perfect sensor and very good OOC JPGs... so the quality of OOC JPGs proves nothing.

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.

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.

 

[Pelao]

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.

We will have to agree to disagree, hopefully agreeably.

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]

Man, that made me laugh. Reading anything takes some intelligence, and some attention to detail AND keeping context (set by previous comments) in mind.

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.

Like the Houseman quote. I was not familiar with it. So true!

 

[Pelao]

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.