4/3 Prices

I was looking forward to getting the GH3 to complement my GH2 (wife has a g3). Not a real "need", but more of a desire to have the "latest and greatest" (gear lust). From the reviews, I gather there are no dramatic improvements over the GH2, but I just wanted it.

I must say I used to be a Nikon guy for at least 25 years and switched about 2 years ago to the GH2 because I wanted to experiment with video (my first grand daughter was born - I'm 52) and the GH2 was excellent at it. So, I switched and have learned to cope with a few limitations, but nothing critical. Still happy to be a 4/3 user.

Now, my point is that with the recent lenses and  cameras released for the Micro 4/3 format, we are quickly approaching Nikon/Canon DSLR prices! The GH3's body alone is US$1300 plus tax. Lenses are reaching similar high prices.

At this pace, the advantages (other than size) of the Micro 4/3 system will be negated and we might as well invest in full-frame systems, unless gear weight/size is the main consideration. If I'm going to spend $6.000.00 on a decent setup, I might as well get the better (optically) equipment. Why live with the limitations at the same price?

What do you guys think?

I think you are mistaken to have thought there was ever a significant overall price savings to be had in m4/3 vs. cropped DSLR and that a comparison to pricing on full frame DSLRs is on its face pretty odd.  When new m4/3 bodies have rolled out, their pricing was comparable to simiilarly specced cropped sensor DSLRs.  The same is true on lenses.  The main advantage of m4/3 has always been size/weight/form factor, never price.  Price has factored in only as the m4/3 makers have discounted older models when newer models have rolled out.

--
RaymondR

It is a bit of a rip off.

--
A solution looking for a problem !

Irvin,

There's always a point where we say, "For me, this is enough."

Perhaps the deciding factor is price, perhaps it's weight or size, functions, or availability of parts.

It's always a compromise — but a camera's ability to get the shot/video when you want it... with satisfactory quality, has to be a key factor. If you're shooting professionally, your considerations have to keep the customer in the forefront.

I don't know all your requirements but I'm a few years ahead of you. I'm in good physical shape, but I'm tiring of routinely carrying about 10 pounds/ 5 kg of gear in my bag. That's one body (Oly E-5), two lenses, an FL-50r flash, extra batteries, cards, cables, reflectors etc. I'd like to get a kit that could take that weight and volume down to a more manageable level for everyday use.

I plan to buy an Oly µ4/3 camera in the next few days and hope I'll be saying, "For me, this is enough."

--
Barry

Perhaps I did not express my thoughts clearly. Let me give you an example: I paid about $700 for a basic GH2 kit, far less than I could pay for a Nikon offer of similar quality (say, D7000). today, I can get a GH2 body for 500/600 bucks. The GH3 body is $1300 (more than twice) with no dramatic improvements (other that a sealed body). The decent lenses are running very high prices, too.

It's important to notice that the image quality and general usability of a GH2 (as much as i love it) is clearly inferior to a D7000-and-above Nikon counterpart. Even my old D300 shot better pictures, to be honest. I love my Micro 4/3 equipment and can live with the limitations, but if I have to spend a lot of money, I'd be willing to deal with the extra weight/size in exchange for the better quality.

And yes, I'd expect the Micro 4/3 format to offer incentives in terms other than size/weight. Because there are compromises with have to live with - like lower quality pictures, fewer lenses to choose from, equipment not retaining much of its value, etc.

Excellent points, Barry.

That's exactly the way I felt when I switched from Nikon to my current Pana GH2. I do NOT regret the move (and I put a couple of thousands in my pocket when I sold my Nkikon gear). I'm an amateur shooter (all my life, practically, with my first camera being a truly great Pentax K1000).

I think you will not regret the "simplification". I even bought my wife a G3 to keep things simple (she is not into photography, but wanted something a bit better than a point-and-shoot).

Good luck to you!

I'm not so sure that's a fair assessment of the GH3. It seems the GH3 may have the same sensor as the E-M5, which offered noticeable improvements in image quality over the GH2. The GH3 also has a new image processing engine, which some are saying is delivering improved results compared to those of the GH2. I think the jury is still out on exactly how much of an improvement the GH3 is over the GH2, but I have a feeling that your characterization isn't really based on the reality.

Assuming the GH3 has as good or better IQ than the E-M5, its IQ will be closer to that of the D7000 than the GH2 's IQ was, by a noticeable difference. The E-M5 has basically halved the IQ difference between the GH2 and the D7000.

Have you seen any review or sample picture/video shot with the GH3 that makes you think it's significantly better than the GH2? I haven't.

I haven't seen many full reviews, as of yet, but yes, I have seen a number of reviewers and owners who compare the GH3 IQ to that of the OMD, and that would be a significant improvement over the GH2.

As I said, the GH3 would make up for half of the GH2's IQ disadvantage as compared to the D7000, if the GH3 has equaled or bettered the IQ of the OM-D.

Seems to me you're making a judgement on the camera before it's really been widely reviewed or tested.

Or, let me turn your question around - have you seen reviews or sample pictures/videos shot with the GH3 that make you think it's not significantly better than the GH2? I haven't.

tex

Yes, I have:- here is a list.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3Bcqn%2Ccconf%3D1.2%2Cmin_length%3D2%2Crate_low%3D0.035%2Crate_high%3D0.035%2Csecond_pass%3Dfalse%2Cnum_suggestions%3D2%2Cignore_bad_origquery%3Dtrue%2Conetoken%3Dfalse&gs_rn=0&gs_ri=hp&cp=11&gs_id=16&xhr=t&q=gh3+reviews&pf=p&newwindow=1&sclient=psy-ab&oq=gh3+reviews&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ&fp=bdce2956cc287f2f&bpcl=40096503&biw=1920&bih=1075

This is a review:

http://www.43rumors.com/must-read-new-gh3-review-by-provideocoalition/

" “All in all the GH3 is an incredible successor to the GH2 and a better camera in most ways – even when compared to a hacked GH2. With that said it does potentially suffer from more moire than the GH2 and the jump in image quality isn’t drastically different.”

*************************

Now, please note that my original post is not specific to this camera. My original post is directed at the scalating prices of 4/3 gear - and mention the GH3 as an example. It's becoming a bit of a ripoff...

you price a laptop, see if you can find one for less than a desktop unit with similar features and performance.

If size isn't a determining factor, but ultimate IQ is, then yes, you should be looking at a larger format.

--
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

I'm not going to belabor the point, but 'drastically' is not a synonym for 'significantly' where I come from. Do you consider the D7000 to have drastically better IQ than the GH2? One other point, I don't know any of the listed reviewers, and I hesitate to take amateur testers' conclusions at face value. I'd prefer to wait for someone professional like Imaging Resource to review the GH3 before I make any wide-ranging conclusions.

I'd also like to point out that a number of other features have either been added to or improved on the GH3. The electronic shutter, the wifi connectivity, the improved touch screen. I'm not a GH3 expert, so I'm not going to attempt to list all of the improvements or new features, but I think it's clear that more has been improved on or added to the GH3 than just the weather sealing.

Right, but if one of your main examples that are supposed to offer proof for this assertion doesn't really stand up to scrutiny, where does that leave us?

tex

Price increase paralles performace improvements in darn near everything.  There isn't some magical M43 conspiracy going down.  If you came to M43 because it's cheaper you will find nothing but heartache.  That goes for any camera format really.

I can't debate with you the use of the word "drastically" by SOMEONE ELSE. Go ask him.

As for my example, not "stand(ing) up to scrutiny", we will have to agree to disagree. I think the evidence is there for everyone to see.

I did not come to 4/3 looking for cheaper gear. But that doesn't mean I will see prices higher than they should be and I will be silent. Even if I throw all my equipment in the garbage and buy Nikon only, the 4/3 gear will be overpriced. It's not about me or my reasons - it's about the ripoff going on.

End of debate for me.

"Disclaimer" - I own Panny, Nikon, Canon and Pentax: And no stock in any photo company.

They (lenses and bodies) still seem to be significantly less (to me at any rate) than considering a C/N FF or even High End APS C - Crop Sensor body.  In the last example, you can argue that the lens qualities are not the same or equal - but one could also argue that N/C don't even make an equivalent (and if they did, it would require a tank to carry around.....

Today on B&H:

Nikon 70-200 VR II 2.8 = $2,396

Canon 70-200 IS 2.8 = $2,099

Panny 25-100 IOS 2.8 = 1,499

_______________________________

Nikon 24.70 2.8 (NO - VR) = $1,886

Canon 24-70 II 2.8 (NO - IS) = $2,299

Panny 12-35 2.8 (WITH - IOS) = $1,144

___________________________________

Nikon 200-400 f/4 w/VR = $6,749

Canon 100-400 w/IS = $1,699

Panny 100-300 (200-600mm equiv) = $499

______________________________________

GH3 = $1,298

7D = $1,799 (on sale for $1,599)

D300s = $1,699

Cheapest N/C/S FF - $2,000 ish (with far fewer features than the GH3)

_____________________________________________________________________

Again, prices are going up (on everything but FF, which still costs you $2,000 just to get started) - then FF lenses on top of that..... Canon doesn't offer the feature that Nikon does to use crop lenses on the FF bodies. Panny's offerings accept "all Panny m4/3 lenses".

Still looks like a pretty good deal to me.... (again, to "me")... YMMV.

Bob

--
Bob (formerly bobmax)

that isnt true at all
look at your argument this way
if GH3 isnt significantly better than GH2 is, cheap FF isnt significantly better than GH3

D600 is $2699, 6D is $2100, but 6D DR will prove to be a tad under GH3 if its the Sony sensor on board. If it isnt the Sony speculations to the wind.
Noting the advantage to D600 for DR, which costs a little more

Im thinking theres a mixed up bag of tricks here
what are we comparing, cheaper FF like 6D with the expectation its really 5D3
APSC with the expectation that it performs like FF ?
this against the most expensive largest mFT,

I mean fine if thats the comparison you are making
but there does seem to be some separation in performance and capability in various areas,
not all of it goes FF's way

isnt it possible to obtain something worthwhile (and a fair bit more handsome) like G5, a handful of lenses for less than $6k, which seems like a pretty high price to me

remember if you want the best out of FF you still need pricier fast glass
otherwise I suspect it isnt going to be significantly different to shooting with GH3

indeed the laudable bargain that 6D is might deliver a camera that is noisier and has less DR on the same DoF. At the performance of all these cameras that isnt by any means a bad thing as long as you play your options with some intelligence.

--
Riley
any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

I have two GH3's and had a GH2 since it came out and the bottom line is that the GH3 is better than the GH2 in every way in varying degrees. Pretty much, as you would expect given the time span since the GH2 came out. The price certainly came as a bit of a shock and to be honest if there was not a limited 30% discount on various GH3 gear from Lumix lifestyle which I was fortunate enough to take advantage of { GH3, GH3+12-35 and the flash} , I would have waited for a while till prices dropped a bit. Now none of this makes the GH2 a bad camera especially if video is a big interest as frankly the hacked GH2 is capable of excellent  results.

With regard to still images there are plenty of RAW samples available which clearly show the improvements that have taken notably with regard to DR and high ISO noise

Jim

I disagree, I think the M43 product has improved dramatically and I find the size(you minimalize this like your tossing Olympus a bone) is a MAJOR point of interest for 90% of the people here.  A good quality small system should not be limited to 'cheap' mediocrity.  The choice of top of the line technology, expensive quality lenses etc... is great to have available.  It just comes across that you want so so quality and dirt cheap prices on M43 so you won't waste your money on what you think is vastly superior full frame photography????  I'm happy with the quality and find prices for the most part pretty in line with what I am getting.

And the point people are missing is the WEIGHT of the lenses you have to carry around.

True the GH3 is slightly bigger and I must admit I am still getting to grips with it. The weather in the UK has been abysmal so I have just ordered the 12-35 so that I can walk around in the rain without a care in the world.

To me the IQ is better that the GH2 and the noise is more controllable in Lightroom.

Finally I am committed to the system, after all what for I do? put the lot on Ebay and start again.

I don't think so.

Best Regards Mike.
http://michaelgoodes.blogspot.com/
http://ekim.zenfolio.com
'Live every day as if it was your last, one day it will be'.