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!

GH3... the one to get?

Tesselator

New member
Most mirrorless cameras can do that, but what was special with the GH1/2 was that the 16 : 9 and 3 : 2 aspect ratios had more pixels, longest side, so that they were still 16MP (12MP for the GH1).
I could be wrong but I don't think so. Unless there's something I'm missing. I thought so too (without ever checking) until I got the GH2 and noticed the menus:



GH2 Aspect Ratio Settings - Notice the MP number. :facesmack:
It says the same thing for RAW too.



So they might have been bigger-ish... but I guess not the full MP rating? I think it was more about the image circle and keeping the frame corners on the perimeters of it?
 

Annna T

Active member
So they might have been bigger-ish... but I guess not the full MP rating? I think it was more about the image circle and keeping the frame corners on the perimeters of it?
The GH1/GH2 sensors were never using the whole sensor. The different formats were using the longest diagonal possible with the lens coverage.

At the maximum file size, the longest side of the 16:9 format was longer than the longest side of the 3:2 format, which itself was longer than the 4:3 format.

So the 16:9 and 3:2 weren't only crops of the 4:3. The difference was less important for the 3:2 format, but quite important on the 16:9 format.
 

jnewell

New member
I am also interested in buffer size and write speeds/buffer clear rate.

The body looks just about perfect IMHO! They've molded it in every way I would have had I the ability; so size and shape are looking right!

The continuous speed is severely lacking tho! What, only 6fps? Not 12 or 20? I usually tell myself 8fps is the lower limit for usability - although so much depends on the buffer size. If that's 6fps with only 15 or less RAW frames then I'm like WTF?!?!? but if it's around 30 or so that could be useful. Of course all that said it actually says 20FPS on page two ( Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Hands-on Preview: Digital Photography Review )... so ummm, which is it I wonder? Maybe that 20fps is like the GH2's 40fps?

I'm glad they kept it at 16mp - which I think is already edging toward too much. Just my opinion - and based on diffraction limitations and file-size.

The three buttons across the top behind the shutter release look ill-placed but I guess the proof will be in the use of the thing.

Sore points, surprises, and stupidness IMO:
Still no IBIS,
Still limited to 1/4000s
Still a 128s limit on bulb (no matter what)
X is still too low at 1/160s.
USB 2.0 - Not 3.0? Really?
EC is still ±5 EV and not ±7

The weather sealing, increased body size, the now adequate video recording rate, and the built-in intervalometer are all welcome additions tho! :)

I wonder if and by how much the DR will be improved?
 

biglouis

Well-known member
GH3 € 1200 - G3 € 388

Can I ask where you got the EUR1200 price from?

WEX in the UK are offering this camera at a whopping GBP1549 (approx EUR1930).

I'm sorry but at that price I would definitely think about turning in my lovely PanaLeica glass and going with the X-Pro 1 - despite what I previously wrote.

LouisB
 

dhsimmonds

New member
Can I ask where you got the EUR1200 price from?

WEX in the UK are offering this camera at a whopping GBP1549 (approx EUR1930).

I'm sorry but at that price I would definitely think about turning in my lovely PanaLeica glass and going with the X-Pro 1 - despite what I previously wrote.
LouisB
Louis, you would be better advised to get the Olympus OM-D now coming down nicely in price......you already have the glass to fit! I think that you might be disappointed in the XP1. The IQ of the XP1 is great but ergonomically the m4/3 is superior in focusing speed and general handling.

The GH3 has a nice spec. but the size would put me off, regrettably.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
how much opinions differ .... for me the GH3 seems to be exactly the right size - finally after all that plastic small sized Panas and the still to small (for my hands) OMD.
 
Last edited:
I like everything about the GH3... except for the one important omission I was hoping for.. Focus Peaking. For those using legacy glass this is very important.. especially if your Mark I Eyeball is over 50 years of age. Hope it can be added via firmware.. I can't understand how they left this out of the GH3.. it is important for video guys as well as still photographers.
 

R. Bowman

New member
I'm wondering if Shoot Without Lens is an option for legacy lens use and if Olympus-branded flash units are compatible.
 

jnewell

New member
Buffer is reported to be 18 frames raw+jpeg (Imaging Resource) - haven't seen any indication of how fast it will write to the card and clear the buffer. In theory, and hopefully, a lot faster than the GH2 or even the G5/GX1.
 
Last edited:

clay stewart

New member
Can I ask where you got the EUR1200 price from?

WEX in the UK are offering this camera at a whopping GBP1549 (approx EUR1930).

I'm sorry but at that price I would definitely think about turning in my lovely PanaLeica glass and going with the X-Pro 1 - despite what I previously wrote.

LouisB
That is a brutal price, for M4/3 body, specially now that the 3:2 ratio is smaller than it used to be. I know it's only a little loss in pixels, but it's enough to make me reconsider using a small sensor that has just got smaller. Fuji is starting to look a little better, if they can just get their act together on the focus speed.
 

Tesselator

New member
Buffer is reported to be 18 frames raw+jpeg (Imaging Resource) - haven't seen any indication of how fast it will write to the card and clear the buffer. In theory, and hopefully, a lot faster than the GH2 or even the G5/GX1.
I'm going to guess based on the fact that they're still using USB 2.0 and say it'll be less than 10% faster. :)



I like everything about the GH3... except for the one important omission I was hoping for.. Focus Peaking. For those using legacy glass this is very important.. especially if your Mark I Eyeball is over 50 years of age. Hope it can be added via firmware.. I can't understand how they left this out of the GH3.. it is important for video guys as well as still photographers.
Yeah, that's a bit of a miss aye... But so far Vitaliy Kiselev either hasn't been able to hack this or hasn't been interested enough to try. (Probably the later). My hunch is that unless Panasonic implements it themselves in a future upgrade we won't be having it. :(



how much opinions differ .... for me the GH3 seems to be exactly the right size - finally after all that plastic small sized Panas and the still to small (for my hands) OMD.
I'm with ya bro! Honestly tho, it's not just your hands... Most of the µ4/3 cameras are too small for everyone's hands (unless they're like under five feet tall or something). I guess it's just that most people are willing to learn to deal with it because they think they're saving space or getting a lighter kit - and true or not that's more important to them than handling. At least that's my guess from following all the posts since the first µ4/3 until now...
 

Craftysnapper

New member
No in-body I.S. and the sensor will not match the E-5M's. However, the body looks like it will take and not show more hits than the E-5M and there is the video aspect.
That remains to be seen as there is some speculation that because Panny could not develop a good enough sensor in time for the GH3 and Photokina they have used the same Sony sensor as in the OMD E-5 and as yet there have been no raw images for comparing.
 

Tesselator

New member
Yeah, what's all the net-saying about being able to beat the OM-D's IQ...? In the hundreds of images I've compared directly it's not all that much better than the GH2. Honestly. It's better enough to be mentionable - thus why everyone is mentioning it - but it wouldn't be an impossible task for Panasonic to leap-frog the OM-D now that they know what they need to do. Even given the same chip. And their brochure kinda reads like that's just what they've done - on several levels too.

Shrug... I guess we'll find out soon enough.
 

biglouis

Well-known member
I must say that after seeing the Which review and getting an impression of the size of the GH-3 I am a bit disappointed.

The promise of m43rds is the smaller size and powerful, light lenses, like the 45/2.8 and the ridiculous but impressive 100-300.

If I really want a camera of the form factor of the GH-3 then I would go Nikon, or perhaps Pentax.

The impression I get is that the GH-3 is really aimed at videographers and not still photographers. Good luck to Panasonic, they really deserve to win that market because the video samples I've seen are really impressive.

But I've looked at the first high-iso samples and I would not describe the iso1600 as being anything better than my current GH-2.

Am I missing something?

LouisB
 
V

Vivek

Guest
It looks like Pana might have made the AA filter stronger in the GH-3 (compared to the GH-2). That is a pity.
 

jnewell

New member
I think your conclusion about the target user is correct. I always liked the controls and other physical attributes of the GH2, but it had a lot of features that I would never use. It will be interesting to see how the sensor performance compares to the G5/GX1 and to the OM-D when actual production cameras are available.

I must say that after seeing the Which review and getting an impression of the size of the GH-3 I am a bit disappointed.

The promise of m43rds is the smaller size and powerful, light lenses, like the 45/2.8 and the ridiculous but impressive 100-300.

If I really want a camera of the form factor of the GH-3 then I would go Nikon, or perhaps Pentax.

The impression I get is that the GH-3 is really aimed at videographers and not still photographers. Good luck to Panasonic, they really deserve to win that market because the video samples I've seen are really impressive.

But I've looked at the first high-iso samples and I would not describe the iso1600 as being anything better than my current GH-2.

Am I missing something?

LouisB
 
If I really want a camera of the form factor of the GH-3 then I would go Nikon, or perhaps Pentax.
sure, but I do not want to have a hassle of changing focusing screens (to split prism and getting troubles w/ spot metering as a result) and constant PITA w/ off sensor PDAF adjustment... so you please go, we some how stay w/ GH3 and enjoy a normal camera body w/ a lot of proper controls for normal hands and fingers
 

Tesselator

New member
Exactly! (Well, besides the "please go" bit...)

And add to that the shallow registration depth allowing us to mount everything under the Sun on our cameras! That to me was the only promise of mirrorless designs! Smaller and lighter was a sales point of some models and a potential which i think was realized by selecting certain components but not really a promise of any kind. µ4/3 users are guaranteed (aka promised) only two things AFAIK: The 4/3 imaging area 17.3 mm × 13.0 mm (21.6 mm diagonal), and the mount specs which include the 19.25 mm depth. :)

IMO it's mostly users who have assumed that µ4/3 is all about smaller size and weight. To a large degree companies have catered to those demands... But I think it's refreshing and relieving to see Panasonic stand up to them and take this position with their flagship model! And that's the first bit of praise I've had for Plastisonic in a good while. :)

The GH2 was already exceptional at low ISO and trying to see the difference between it and the OM-D (everyone including me likes so much) requires microscopic measurement and/or machine-vision. The DR of the OM-D is more easily distinguished tho. The GH3 hasn't been released yet tho right? And AFAIK there are no RAW samples on-line either... right? So we don't know about the GH3's DR yet.



--
PS: I just have to add that the Lumix 100-300 is one of the worst 100-300 lenses a person can buy. $100 models from almost all other makers beat it by my tests. Definitely a lens to avoid IMO.
 
Top