Insects may not have focal vision or perceive bokeh, but the perception of location and motion must be extremely acute.
Could the same approach be applied to laser guidance or sub-optical frequencies, such as infra-red or radar? Might result in one heckuva agile mechanical dragonfly to use for surveillance or as a drone. But the data or imaging would not resemble anything people are accustomed to "see." The "pictures" might differentiate objects and distances, but not resolve text or facial features. Just my ant-brained guess, mind you.
gandulfc: basically, when I read the video specs, this is a panasonic gh2 with slight photo improvements
Any details or support for his mention of "40fps burst mode (and rumours of a 4K / 8MP burst mode at 20fps)"?
Aleo Veuliah: Good improvements, It has all the G5 has but better.
Well done Panasonic. The G cameras line is very good and less expensive than the GH's.
I like better the G6 design.
If the price of the G5 with kit lens falls to $299, might it still not be "better"?
miketala: I've got a G3, which has a sensor that performs similarly to the GH2, and my biggest gripe with it is that it's rather easy to blow highlights. Most reviews pick up on this problem too.
The new Oly's and the GH3, I believe, hold onto highlights much better, and that's why I would like to see a better sensor in the G6.
Most cameras blow highlights, if the subject is illuminated by a spotlight on a dark stage, or a bright beach next to dark water, or a brilliant sunset over a dark landscape. Unfortunately, the studio still shot tests don't include a standard means of comparing DR or blowout performance, so the opinions tend to be anecdotal or based on situations that are difficult to compare.
agentul: in the specifications page: Lens mount: Unknown. really?Image Stabilization: Unknown. I'd guess it's still in the lens.
All Panasonic G and GH m4/3 cameras rely on in-lens stabilization. Some lenses have Mega OIS, a few offer Power OIS, and some primes have none.
mfj197: "An advantage of using the GH2's sensor is that the G6 is able to offer more comprehensive video functions than the G5."
The G5 also had the GH2 sensor, so any differences in video capabilities are not because of a different sensor.
How many GH3 purchasers have a real need for RAW video? How many terabytes of RAW would it take to shoot a tournament, ceremony, or trip? How much serious editing do the gear gurus do with RAW that they could not do with AVCHD or MP4? What difference will a viewer see in the 5mbps version they stream over YT and view on their iPhone?
A G5 or G6 offers all the video spec most people (even serious ones) can handle. Video-wise, an HC X920 (3x1/2.3" CMOS) is more versatile in practice, has less moiré, and better stabilization.
Manual customization of video, or narrow DOF, are not anyone's "best friends" if you are shooting an event you can't orchestrate or double-take. One can get very good video with very simple kit. Content is king, audio is queen, editing is the prince, camera hype is the knave, and the camera buyer is often the fool or jester.
ponyman: That one ugly mother......
Camera appearances are an aquired taste. The first sight of equines terrified the Amerindians, who later became quite fond of horses and ponys.
Dogs might prefer iPooch smart phones, and some pet lovers might spend a fortune to have a phone-camera to stay in touch with Fido while away.
A camera mounted on the back will snare in brush or get bent or tilted when the dog rolls in whatever compost pleases its nose. Any video might be rather shakey. To teach a dog to use a tripod seems unlikely. Put dogs in charge of a photo contest, and the winners would be shots of RAW stuff humans may not consider savory.
A camera mounted on the head of a cameloid might yield interesting footage, since they keep their heads so steady and erect.
focal: If movie mode requires AF then the GH3 is poor.If movie mode requires MF then the Blackmagic is miles better.And so the GH3 gets Gold for movie mode?
The GH3 (and many other cameras) allow either AF or MF in video mode. To "require" MF is a curse for casual video or video of action one cannot control or predict. MF is suitable in video only if your subject stays in the focal range or you can reshoot if you goof. For these reasons, much video must also be shot with fairly deep focus.
Cy Cheze: Is the GH3's video any better than that shot with an HC X920 or HF G30? No. The appeal of the GH3 is that it can be mounted with high end contraptions of the sort illustrated in the "GH3 in Film Mode." But it has no focus peaking, time lapse, better stabilizer, all-round lens or convenience offered by the $950 HCX920.
Gear hounds like A. Reid prefer ProRes 4:2:2 or raw video because they (or their staff) can do fancier things with it in DaVinci Resolve for short ad sequences or studio-grade projects. However, not one mere "enthusiast" in ten will want to use those modes for video of a ball game, ceremony, social event, bird feeder video, or trip. The files are just too big and superfluous. AVCHD or MP4 are fine.
The GH3 time lapse is a still photo tool. Conversion to time-lapse video must be done in the NLE. The HX X920 time-lapse yields video files at inception and allows various intervals.
Timmbits: DPR obviously is here to help it's owners sell these cameras. And the GH3 is the highest margin Panasonic they sell. Hence the Gold award.
(yes, amazon sells direct too, not just through it's sellers. I bought a printer from them)
To me, a "camera" is still a "camera", not something nuanced into a video camera. We're here to read about cameras, not video cameras. Cameras that can do video too, yes. But they're still cameras. A gold award camera this is not.
Animosity towards video is about as well founded as painters going ape mad over photography. 'Fess up fellows: yer skared yeller 'cause ye can't git the hang of video and it humiliates y'all.As a general rule, people oriented towards video have kind words for still photography: anyone, sooner or later, can take a picture worth a compliment like, "Hey, nice picture," and a reverent 5 second glance. To make a 3-minute video worth 3 minutes of attention, on the other hand, is a mighty tough task, and owes (too often!) to music the viewers like or want to "rip."
Is the GH3's video any better than that shot with an HC X920 or HF G30? No. The appeal of the GH3 is that it can be mounted with high end contraptions of the sort illustrated in the "GH3 in Film Mode." But it has no focus peaking, time lapse, better stabilizer, all-round lens or convenience offered by the $950 HCX920.
Joe Braun: That is a ridiculous amount of gear to get rather average out-the-window shots. REALLY? Where's the cappuccino dispenser in that monstrous rig? :) Did this article only make the cut because it's a Rube Goldberg machine? An article about holding your camera out the window just wouldn't be that exciting.
Don't plenty of people spend fortunes on "low riders," lawn furniture, or cameras they don't really need? What about the people who go on "safaris" (or the zoo!) and bring back altogether unremarkable pictures of animals and "savages"?
StevenE: I would not be comfortable doing this.
More importantly, I think you get better photos from co-operative subjects, and you find many more opportunities and stories by going up and talking to your subject first.
"Excuse me, Ma'am. Can I take your picture?"
"I'm a 'street photographer.' I want to win an award and make money from sales of prints at auction. You remind me of a Munch painting."
"Eeeeek! Heavens no. With my hair like THIS? How about if I take YOUR picture? For the COPS to see!"
Cooperative subjects: dogs, ducks, flowers, ants, grave markers, or clouds.
atlien991: Ah, so THIS is how suburbanites do street photography when they move in to the big city!!!!
More innocent than pictures of casualties of war, floods, storms, and quakes.
SKPhoto12: This gets curiouser and curiouser! Can someoneexplain to me where the art enters the picture (no pun intended) and where the Hollywood Bling leaves? I cannot understand how this gets space at DPR, but, it is true, I find that more and more material totally lacks interest on this site, which is why I watch it less and less. Please get back to what brought you here; good reviews of new material, good comparisons of existing material, material meaning quality photographic equipment like cameras, lenses, accessories, lighting, etc. But not this junk!
Objective study of web browsing data probably says otherwise: people follow the sensational. This certainly whetted your attention. Don't blush.
Artists of note are invariably wild or daring. If they don't skirt rules, there will be nothing to excite viewers or buyers.
Some will disagree. "Look at all the wonderful paintings and photos for sale at Walmart and Target. What lovely images! So soothing." Works of the late Thomas Kinkade are their model. Good for filling reception area wall space.
Commercial photography is something altogether different: products, posed shots, everything strickly conventional. Everything is representational, composed to suit the pixel-peeper's demands.
Advertising is something of a hybrid. It has to seduce, excite, alert, or even slightly offend. OK if low-res or off-color.
walliswizard: An observation: He's achieved what many of us will never do. Fame. Or Infamy perhaps. His photos suck. Some would say William Eggleston's suck. Some would say they are art. Whatever, most of us have heard of WE's photos and they are a topic of discussion.Johnny T here has done something nobody else has done - something different, and that has got people talking. People may refer back to this for years to come, who knows.
Somebody paid $.25m for a pic of a child's bike, didn't they?
(true though, these pics still suck)
Tell us what you like. Dog pics? Memphis Hound?
Backstage: If somebody takes a foto of mine in the street where I have at least a chance to meet him and communicate with him/her I am potentially able to decide about it.
When somebody takes pictures of me without any chance of personal reaction or simple human exchange I totally disagree. I feel like somebody is stealing someting. Fact is that the "hunter" uses me as a simple object.
For me it is part of my freedom and respect in human interactions to at least have a chance to say "no".
To follow your rules would make it very difficult to get any gallery grade or Pulitzer material. Just maybe, however, were you to nod "yes," but scowl at a rule-abiding photographer, the result might resemble Dr. Byron McKeeby, the dentist immortalized in "American Gothic." Of course, the artist took some liberties with the clothing and background.
cknapp61: As a photographer and hunter I need good optics for both hobbies.
I thought the green-weenies appreciate the trophy hunting income provided to certain economically depressed areas..oh, they have not thought that through?
There are no shortage of cattle in America because we breed them for food. With good stewardship, herds of wild animals are a manageable, renewable resource with income potential for those who see the opportunity. An animal that has commercial value will never become extinct.
Kill a few Americans using superior optics in the 20th century and your armed forces are mentioned throughout history with reverence, as honorable fighters..(as a 51 year old still on Active Duty in the United States Army, yes, I am qualified to honor the memory of past warriors of my profession, both friend and foe, by speaking reverently of them)...legally kill a few wild animals in the 21st century and you are a criminal! Not sure what this world is coming to.
Are deer terrorists? Is it brave or ethical to "hunt" unarmed civilians? So what's the relevance of the military biz here?
It may be ethical to hunt certain animals, but is it "stars and stripes" brave or sporting to bring them down with advanced guns and at no risk? A real "warrior" is the guy who can snare a rabbit with cunning, or handicap his advantage by means of rustic weaponry (musket or bow and arrow). Fly fishing is perhaps the most fare and square pursuit of all, since one must mimic (but not use) the natural food, and all small catches (and many big ones) return to the water.
Unarmed tourists probably bring more money into depressed areas.