hydrospanner: When you can't (or don't want to) answer a valid, direct question...go ahead and insult the person that asked it. Wonderful.
I used Hasselblad, Rollei and Mamiya as well as 35mm in 35 years as a professional photographer. Occasionally I would use MF for someone like Athena who wanted to reproduce my stuff poster size and thus the extra technical quality was necessary.But mostly I used MF for the 'look' and 'feel' of the results. No-one seeing even a smallish 15x12 inch printed portrait would mistake the results from a Hasselblad and 150 or 250 Sonnar with those from a Nikon and appropriate lens.The main thing, though, was that clients could tell the difference. That meant extra money in my bank account.Anyone approaching MF from the point of view of simple pixel count/ sensor area is simply missing the point. And yes, it would imply that they have not used or do not understand MF.Would anyone seriously think that Ansel Adams woud have taken the same pictures on 35mm as he did on his10x8 inch stand camera? No, of course not.
The GH3 is exactly the upgrade from my GH2 I was hoping for.
I wanted a slightly larger body to make the handling a little less 'fiddly'. The body size isn't what matters with M43, it's the advantage in lens size that makes the difference.
The wifi capabilities are exciting and with the 12-35 zoom ( which I already have) and the new 35-100mm, it now has an almost pro level capability in a twin lens package. I did say almost.
I'd never done video before I bought a GH2 but now I find myself making a bit of money from Youtube with it. I'm not usually inclined to upgrade a cameras just because one comes out but this looks like a camera I will keep for years and I have pre-ordered one and the 35-100 zoom.
what_i_saw: I am not happy with the size of this thing. I might as well go and buy a Smallish DSLR instead of this one.
>I have a GH2 and it feels so fragile with its plastic body that I feel I have to baby it.
I have twice dropped my GH2 from a height of 4 to 5 feet onto a ceramic tiled floor (don't ask:( ).
It bounced, the doors on the body flew open, the SD card and battery skidded across the floor. The first time it fell on to the right side of the body, the second smack onto the lens.
In neither case was any damage done, not a mark and perfect working order. None of the Nikon f1 through F5 bodies I used during 40 years as a pro would have stood up to those falls without damage.
You may not like the feel of the plastic bodies but weak they are not!
>Users may have occurred problems
bunfoolio: Goverment shoud just not be involved in issues such as this. What a waste of time, money, and ultimetly innovation in the industry.
I have applied a small hack to my GH2 which enables you to record for as long as you like within card space limitations.
It takes a couple of minutes and can be reversed at any time. It is freely available.
CameraLabTester: I can't think of any famous Hollywood movie having a 30 minute single raw take...
... or any digital DSLR movie for that matter.
(unless you're filming growing grass...)
There may be, out there... possible.
The lack of imagination of some people is astonishing. There are many, many reasons why people would require >30min recording times.I have just cycled part of the the Olympic cycle race route, for example. I film from a chest bracket mounted camera. Such a video requires continuous shooting for more than 30 mins.
Donald Lam: Digicams are not designed to be a dedicated camcorder. The small battery will be hard pressed to record for more than 30 minutes. Heat sinking of the sensor and electronics is another issue.
>Rubbish, I've recorded continuously on my hacked GH1 for hours with no problems.
Ditto with my hacked GH2. I can also plug mine into the mains and get over 5hrs continuous AVCHD with a 32gb card.The hack is simplicity itself to apply and can be removed any time.
Bernd M: I don't understand why I'll have to pay US$ 5.700 for a Zeiss 135mm F2.1 when I could buy a Zeiss Sonnar T 135mm F1.8 for US$ 1.800. What makes the Cine Lens so much more expensiv? Can anybody tell me?
Some of the comments here just illustrate the massive gulf between amateur and professional photography.Zeiss are producing these lenses to the highest standards, tailored to the needs of professional film makers. These lenses have little value to an amateur. Their precision manufacture and imaging is important to a professional and that is what they will be paying for.What a fool you would be to make a twenty million dollar movie and quibble over a few thousand for a lens!
I already use LR4 so bundling it with the M9 is not an asset but an on-cost for me.
They need to offer a price without the bundled LR. Why should I pay for something I don't need?
Unless Leica can convince me that Adobe do not charge them for their software and there is no cost to it for the customer. But I don't believe that to be so.