Alan Ernst: By increasing size / weight (+25%) and canning "multi-aspect sensor" the GH3 loses 2 key advantages over APS DSLR's. No matter how they tweak processors / sensors, a smaller sensor size will always be a disadvantage compared to APS-C or FF sensors. Panasonic want to produce a hybrid video / stills camera, which unfortunately is becoming too video based and less suitable for stills photographers who need a feature rich camera in a compact package.
Negatives IMO: base ISO 200; (partial?) loss of multi aspect sensor; too video oriented; bulk, TOO many buttons / reduced ergonomics due to button/control placements and price. Other shortcomings of GH1/2 still not addressed.
I see positive gains with sealing, better screen, dual control wheels and a larger battery. Better DR / high ISO performance / faster processor??? Past claims in this regard were always way exaggerated, so would have to test this. In-camera HDR is clearly no substitute for a good sensor.
No GH3 for me, thanks!
GH2 was significantly better than GH1 in both stills and video, but it remains to be seen if GH3 is significantly better than GH2. I think it is too soon to judge if GH3 is a good/great camera or not, and even if it is great it may still not be for everyone.
I was a little disappointed when Panasonic moved away from the multi-aspect sensor, but hopefully they have a good reason for it and the new sensor is significantly better than the old one. If it isn't then the GH3 does not offer enough in terms of an upgrade from GH2 for me to get it, but let's wait and see.
@Alan. If you look at the weight of the body and lens combination the micro four thirds system is still significantly lighter. In terms of size, it actually isn't an issue as most of the micro four thirds cameras with even their kit lenses are not pocketable, except maybe the GF3/5 with the x kit lens. And the GH3 is ~90g heavier than GH2 with the weight of all the lenses remaining the same, so it doesn't add that much more weight.
@Alan Just curious, which of the disadvantages of the "smaller sensor size" are important to you? Are you talking shallow depth of field, high ISO shooting? For shallower depth of field the 25mm 1.4 and 20 1.7 work pretty well. In some cases the increase in the depth of field can be advantageous (macro for example). Unless you are shooting at ISO 3200 or more on a regular basis, you would be hard pressed to find a difference unless you blow your images to poster size or have your nose an inch away from the computer screen and the image at 200%.
olyflyer: Did I miss something? Wasn't the main advantage of a mirrorless small sensor camera the size and weight? This camera is larger than the D5100, in fact almost as large as the D7000, and it is as heavy as the D5100.
@Olyflyer. If you look at the weight of the body and lens combination the micro four thirds system is still significantly lighter. In terms of size, it actually isn't an issue as most of the micro four thirds cameras with even their kit lenses are not pocketable, except maybe the GF3/5 with the x kit lens. And the GH3 is ~90g heavier than GH2 with the weight of all the lenses remaining the same, so it doesn't add that much more weight.
IrishhAndy: Almost £2ooo for a crippled camera. You're having a laugh, nikon. My D700 is superior to this except for the megapixels. Most people would be better of with the nikon d7000.
Charging for megapixels is really stupid when you look at the nice mirrorless cameras at half the price. Why don't you just accept that the overpriced underperforming options are finished.
"Don't fa;; for the high megapixel counts. 12 MP is all what most will need for the max"
More megapixels can be very useful in certain situations, especially if you shoot a lot of telephoto and crop closely to get closer to your subject. Sometimes even a 600mm lens does not allow you to get close enough to wild life. For a lot of users it is may not be important, but having more megapixels is not detrimental to people who don't need it, but is very useful for people who do.
Edmond Leung: The camera size is too big.Looks nothing special when compared with NEX7.Good but not outstanding.
Nowadays the body does not really matter in terms of image quality. It would be very very difficult to see any difference in image quality among these mirrorless bodies (Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus) unless you shoot very high ISOs all the time. It comes down to which control layout / ergonomics you are more comfortable with. What does determine which system someone should go for is the lens selection. Micro four thirds wins here hands down, but Fuji has done an amazing job of releasing some fantastic lenses in such a short time (although the Fuji system is a bit more expensive than the micro four thirds). I don't know why Sony still keeps coming out with awesome bodies, but mediocre and large lenses.
qwertyasdf: Does a hybrid mean putting 50% effort into PDAF and another 50% into CDAF?
And end up with a system that is 2 times slower than the competition either way?
I'm a Canon user, and has no intention to upgrade my xti.
Doesn't look very specific where they are calculating the actual milli seconds it takes to focus. They are just touching the screen/shutter to see how fast it focusses. I am talking about measuring differences of .1 sec vs .2 sec. Maybe they are doing that as well.
I have tested the 14-140 (10X), the regular kit lens 14-42 and the pancake kit lens 14-42, 25mm F 1.4 and the 100-300mm and they are all phenomenally fast and unless you do some specific tests you won't notice a difference in real life situations. I have owned all these lenses at some point. Currently I have the pancake 14-42, 25mm 1.4 and the 100-300mm. I have owned several canon lenses when I had the Canon camera (70-200 F 4), 50 1.8, 100-400 and pentax lenses when I owned the pentax system (to which I moved from Canon) and then to Panasonic. The resolution on the kit lens is better than the kit lenses (except pentax) of other companies, the 25 1.4 is amazing, the 100-300 definitely leaves something to be desired in still photography, but excels in video, but GH2 is better for video resolution than even Mark III at lower ISOs, so there is no comparison there.
Erik Magnuson: Second major flaw in this test. on p159 of the manual Canon warns that the system may have trouble when there is only horizontal detail, I.e. the Hybrid system only sees vertical detail. What did DPR use as a test subject?
Why on earth does that matter? There are clearly situations where canon is slower. You just want to find the perfect situation where the hybrid AF is faster? How many times are you going to come across a situation (object like that) in real life. Canon is slower and they are putting out technology that is old and outdated. Stop supporting canon so they start putting out real advances in photography instead of crap like this.
Gothmoth: canon has already a few new patents up it´s sleeve.it´s new technology.. it needs time to mature.
i remember the horrible AF on my Olympus E-PL1... what a useless crap that AF was.2 models later the E-PL3 autofocus is nice.
but one thing panasonic and olympus can not change in their m43 cameras is the smaller sensor... FAIL.
@Gothmoth, I have been using my pan GH2, G2 (don't have that anymore) and recently GF3, for a while, especially GH2. I have printed 30" x 20" photos shot at F1.4 using the 25mm lens and the photos look gorgeous. As a pixel peeper I find it hard pressed to find any difference between my GH2 and the Canon 7D upto ISO 1600 after which 7D gains about half a stop to a stop advantage. But if you are printing large sizes you don't shoot at high ISOs anyway. It is because of Canon fanboys like you that Canon is getting away by putting out crap like this. My friend owns the 7D and he said once the continuous AF improves with CDAF he will be switching. At the moment the continuous AF is definitely better on the PDAF, but static objects there is no way you can tell a difference in real life shooting, and the CDAF on the mirrorless cameras is light years ahead of the CDAF crap that Canon and Nikon are putting out.
Jim Radcliffe: Well, it appears to be exactly what I expected Canon to produce. No viewfinder and not really pocketable unless you are using the kit lens and have a good sized pocket (for camera and cash).
It's good they used the APSC sensor but honestly, if I were going to mount a 70-200mm on anything the body would have be more substantial than this. What is the point of a small, mirrorless camera using EF lenses other than to please those who already have those lenses?
To me this seems to have been thrown together just so Canon can say they have a mirrorless "system". The entire design seems to be aimed at NOT having any impact on their DSLR line. I think Fuji has a better concept.
I'm sure it will be "perfect" for many who already have invested in Canon glass and those who are within the Canon fold.
Apart from bringing down the price of other mirrorless cameras, this is a total waste of time, money and effort, but I am quite happy the prices of other mirrorless cameras will come down.
DanK7: The lack of a view finder is a fatal flaw, sorry Pentax. I like the fact that Pentax thinks a bit outside the box, but this camera is more about design than taking photographs. The cart is definitely in front of the horse.
I am not sure if you have actually held this camera. I did and did along with the K5. K-01 is as big as K5 without a viewfinder. It is not compact at all. In fact Pentax's lower end models are smaller than this camera. I am a huge pentax fan, but this is a very poorly designed camera. The main purpose of a mirrorless camera is smaller size and this isn't that, mainly because pentax didn't want to make lenses with a different mount.
peevee1: DPR, comparing 5D3 with D800... D800 has got lower score on "features". What features does D800 miss in comparison to 5D3?
I just don't think both cameras should get the gold award. They are competing against each other and one of them has to be picked as a winner. This whole euphemistic politically correct scoring is bulls**t. DPReview needs to grow a pair of balls.
malcolm82: For the amount of light it gathers this is not a compact lens at all. The new canon 24-70 f/2.8 gathers 4 times as much light and is only 113mm long. If this lens had the same size in proportion to its sensor size it should be only 57mm long not 74mm. This is also a simpler design with only 14 lens elements instead of 18 for the canon which should make it even more compact. It just goes to show how much worse these small sensor lenses are compared to full frame lenses.
if at a given focal length at F2.8 you are using the same shutter speed for both the lenses then those are the lenses that need to be compared, not the 24-70 5.6.
get the canon G1X then, or the panasonic gf3 with the x kit lens. you can find one on ebay for $500. Since you don't care about fast lenses (or wrongly perceived fast lenses according to you), it shouldn't matter that the tiny kit lens is 5.6. Don't get the lens by itself, you will find it too expensive.
I can't believe you spent so much time arguing about a system that you don't own and have probably never used. I should have known this before so I ddin't have to spend this time. You need to use one to know the how much more value this system offers over compact point and shoots and in some cases the advantages it offers over DSLRs.
Good luck in getting your dream camera of a tiny body with a full frame sensor with a 24-1000 zoom f 5.6 that is the size of the panasonic x lens for 200 dollars or whatever currency you use.
Again as I mentioned in a different section, micro four thirds manufacturers never claimed this system to be a cheaper alternative, just a smaller alternative (how small is small is subjective). It is small enough for me, AF on still subjects is as good as the best PDAF system and nothing beats my GH2 and my "video" optimized lenses for Video. No system is perfect and the only people who can answer your questions as to why the system is larger and more expensive than it needs to be (according to you, I am fine with their offering, pricing and size) are the panasonic and Olympus people. Try contacting them. Our discussion here is pointless as (at least) I don't work in a camera design or manufacturing dept. For the time being, the system is here, deal with it. You are not going to get a FF mirrorless from these guys, get the Leica if you can afford it.
By the way what systems do you own and have used. I am trying to figure out where your frustration is coming from.
How can you have a problem with the size and cost of the micro four thirds lenses while you don't seem to care that much about the stupidly priced leica lenses. I would love to see an 8X10 print from an equivalent leica lens that resolves more detail than my 25 1.4. Leica is made for a bunch of nostalgic idiots who seem to live in this delusional world that thier optics are out of this world. They haven't made a single decent digital camera that would AF in less than ten seconds, and how much do they charge for their cameras?? You should really be getting upset at them, and not at micro four thirds.
But one thing you fail to take into consideration is almost all of the pana lenses are video optimized, which is a huge value for me as I shoot a lot of video as well. Even if optimizing lenses for video may not add extra cost at the manufacturing level, it is still added value for these lenses which to me at least is worth more.
At the end of the day, the micro four thirds lenses are cheaper than the equivalent lenses in most cases. the lens in question is cheaper than the canon 24-70 version. It remains to be seen what its performance is like.
20 (40 1.7) and canon 50 1.4. Would love the link which shows a direct comparison of the two and which shows that the 50 1.4 is better at every equivalent aperture. I haven't used the 20 1.7, so can't comment on that, but I have used the canon 50 1.4, and 50 1.8 both of which were horribly soft at wide open apertures. In fact the 50 1.8 was a tad sharper than the 50 1.4 but with terrible AF. I can compare them to the 25 1.4 and I can tell you that this a phenomenal lens which is super sharp at 1.4. I don't have direct comparisons, but the fact that the 25 is tack sharp at 1.4 tells me that this is a better lens. Do I have a problem paying the $200 more for the pana 25 1.4, absolutely not. The 20 1.7 is 10 bucks cheaper than the 50 1.4 by the way.
What does it matter in the end if the micro four thirds lenses are bigger than they need to be, they are still smaller than FF and APSC lenses and if the optical quality is good then there is nothing wrong in them being charged as much as a similar performing FF/APSC lens. A good example is the 25mm 1.4 lens. It is as good if not better for resolution and contrast compared to a canon 50 1.4, so why should it be cheaper. The depth of field is shallow enough that it does not bother me that it is only the equivalent of FF 2.8. If it bothers you then don't buy the system, stick with your massive system. Since I gave up my APSc system (have owned both Canon and Pentax), I have taken a lot more pictures because I don't have back breaking equipment so I carrry my GH2 and lenses everywhere.