Just Posted: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 review: Digital Photography Review

Folks, anybody here making real pictures...I mean something else than brick wall for pixel fans? You are given one more great camera (as in many cases these days) but reading through comments one could conclude that it is yet another piece of rust.There are also "interesting" comment regarding use of JPEG (especially from one Nikon rep. here on this forum..."I thought only newbies and P&S users were concerned with JPEGs." ..poor man.
In reality those "experts" would not be able to differ a picture made as JPEG and that one from RAW (on a typical monitor, and not magnified to 400%).
There are different cameras but none is miles ahead of the other (comparing similar class).
Surely modern mirror-less tools like this , or OM-D or X-series can perform better than many DSLRs from CANICON and others (but they are not miles ahead...). So we can make our choices per something other than just picture quality these days...that is cool.
Apologize for my poor English. Have fun with your toys!

1 upvote

checkout : https://plus.google.com/photos/113865064683867423186/albums/5864002969312557185 :)

0 upvotes

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?

0 upvotes

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.

1 upvote

Thank you for your detailed report, however it would be nice if you'd specify to which video parameter should we apply exactly the unit "miles better". I guess, you mean the Dynamical Range? Sure, it's important but GH3 is good enough for most of the lighting conditions. However for example, the rolling shutter of BMCC is about 1.6 times slower than one in GH3 leading to a more pronounced "jello effect". How about the BMC's limit to just 30fps? IMHO, the GH3 deserves the Gold in hybrid, still-/motion-pictures, camera category.

0 upvotes

Is that 1.6 true for the new BMCC's or just the old one?
I've ordered the pocket version, all that DR in your shirt pocket was just too tempting and at £635.0 there will always be a use for it.

0 upvotes

The latest BMCC has a global shutter

0 upvotes

@DPR: The handheld video at http://s3.amazonaws.com/movies.dpreview.com/panasonic_dmcgh3/P1110002-50p.MOV is very jittery.
It is seen that OIS is trying but makes panning only worse. What lens was used for that?

0 upvotes

@DPR: your performance page is awfully incomplete. Namely, in 20 fps mode, you should evaluate the quality of the shots obtained. I suspect the 4 mpix are obtained from line-skipping, not using every pixel of the sensor, and image quality, especially in low light, will suffer accordingly.
Also, how come 6 fps (Continuous High) mode can shoot 81 JPEGs before slow down to 2.5 fps, and 4 fps (Medium) mode shoots only 38 JPEGs before slowing down to 2 fps? Either it is a mistake, or something fishy is going on. Is it possible that the JPEGs are compressed differently, or some lens corrections are not applied in 6 fps mode, or both? Because RAWs behave as expected, with fewer RAWs being able to clear the buffer in high speed mode. Can you make a comparison?

4 upvotes

it's a massive camera for the small sensor but many customers don't even know the sensor size. many may think a heavier camera will worth more, why Pana made it excessively big.

btw, for lenses, average street price for Canon and Nikon lineups should be about 1 USD per gram.

0 upvotes

Massive is a relative term.

The Olympus E5 also uses a 4/3 sensor and is 800g vs 550g, and quite a bit larger in every dimension. Even the E30 is 695 grams.

The Panasonic GH3 is around the size of an Olympus E520, which wasn't a large DSLR by any means.

1 upvote

the original 4/3" DLSRs were not meant for small sizes but saving some pennies on the sensor at the body side. it's behind us anyway, a shameful history of camera industry.

0 upvotes

I had a "bridge" camera with a tiny sensor that was as big as the GH3 with it's much larger sensor. Just because the sensor is a little smaller then a crop SLR and can fit into a tiny body doesn't mean everyone wants that. I have a lens system that works on the comfortable to hold GH3 as well as the easy to carry GF3 and I'm very happy to be able to use them interchangeably.

1 upvote

very impressive with the video capability, not so with the image quality though. Anyway, I think it is a very good camera

0 upvotes

I had a GH2 for almost 2 years, and had gotten it adjusted for pretty reasonable JPG output, so I expected to have to do a little bit of work to get the GH3 output to my liking, too.

What surprised me most was the settings I had used for my GH2 gave me terrible JPG output on the GH3. On the GH2, I used the Nature setting with a small color balance tweak, and did pretty well with that for general use (got the red/green color balance reasonable). On the GH3, the Nature setting left everything washed out and with an odd red palette. Even on Standard, I was not getting the kind of contrast or color punch that I was expecting; things still seemed a bit washed out. So, I went with Vivid (normally would never touch a Vivid setting), and have been using it with Contrast 0, Sharpness -1, Color -1, and NR -5 (I prefer to do my own NR). I've been much more impressed with the JPGS from this setting.

DPR-could you do a JPG comparison shot with this setting, for the heck of it?

0 upvotes

Panasonic has been tweaking their jpeg engine, and each new version gets a little bit better. So it stands to reason that the settings you used on your GH2 probably won't get the best results on a newer GH3.

Getting the jpegs right must be harder than we think. Canon and Fuji do pretty well, Sony and Pentax are OK too, and Nikon is downright awful.

I just don't understand why Olympus can get such good jpeg results and no one else can seem to match them. It really must be easier said than done.

1 upvote

for one time only Canon can do the job right that people went mad to tear down DIGIC chips which are only digital processors. but now everyone can do it well and some have gone too far to do it "super". think Nikon cameras are quite good turned on by Nik.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Marty,

I don't know how Olympus does it either.

I have found it fairly easy to imitate Panasonic jpegs starting from raw. I can shoot raw + jpeg, then play around a little bit with the raw file, trying to figure out what the jpeg engine did, and I can get it very close, if not identical.

Not so with Olympus. I can maybe save some highlights that the jpeg engine missed, but as far as a good-looking picture, the Olympus jpeg engine gets me every time. They are really good at what they do. It's surprising (well, I guess it isn't when I think about it...) that people don't value that much on these forums.

0 upvotes

I downloaded RAW files from review and I find them pretty interesting. Resolution is incredible (weak or no AA), DR is unfortunately pretty limited (and not much to recover). Noise ok for m4/3 camera (ISO 1600 usable in daylight isnt bad). Tho as usually, noise is there on every ISO (maybe except that sub-base 165 or how it was). Colors seem much better than was in most m4/3s before.

Except poor(ish) DR, it should be nice camera for taking photos aswell. If one can/want to live with bit of NR, but truly base ISO clean cams are scarce anyway. That and polarizers/graduated ND always with you. :D

I wonder how DxOmark came to those 12 eV, it really doesnt seem that way..

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

I've been using a GH3 for a couple of month and found that the dynamic range is really good. No complaints here.

0 upvotes

I am not impressed by the GH3. It has been on and off in terms of inventory in the US. Panasonic may have production problem to quickly fill all orders.
The review pretty much conclude that there is no perfect, even near perfect camera on the market. If a camera could have
* GH3 video performance.
* OM-D5 picture quality at high ISO
* Nikon 1 system AF, continuous AF performance.

That probably is a near perfect mirrorless camera. I am not sure if the next generation GH or OM-D will get there. Certainly Nikon 1 system will not because its sensor size is just too small. Perhaps, the rumored Nikon APS-C mirrorless.

0 upvotes

The GH3 and OMD should have the same picture quality in RAW at high ISO. Over 3200, neither camera is great, but few crop sensor cameras are great at ISO 6400, so no big deal.

If the Nikon 1 had the sensor from the RX100, Nikon would not be able to keep them on the shelf.

2 upvotes

Oly use Pana sensors to beat APS-C cameras that Pana cannot do? doesn't sound right. Penta use Sony APS-C sensors to beat Sony full-frame? very interesting.

btw, I don't think the analog gain will go beyond ISO1600, so comparing at ISO1600 should be more than enough.

Nikkor 1 lenses are very expensive compared with the little work they can do. Nikon have been watching 4/3" carefully and decided to go further in cheating the customers.

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Lagging only in jpeg quality behind the OMD (true), not having IBIS (true, but some lenses are stabilized), being too big for a M43 format (not really true). How about video quality? A class leading video, a wish of many that become true in this GH3 model (nothing to compare in OMD). How about the Wi-Fi? OMD does not have it, nor have others at this level (agreed, there are still to be improved, but when it works it gives gh3 a super advantage to this model). How about design? Well done Panasonic. Many may not agree, but most will. Summary: this review underscores the GH3 as a hybrid cam. IMO, it is much better than the OMD; but, only time will show where people put their money, thus preferring this or the other model.

My choice is GH3!

DP is not ready for evaluation of hybrid cams, the current evaluation system prefer only cams that takes pictures, and the video part is like unloved child.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting

5 upvotes

GH3 - best hybrid camera, but no IBIS and expensive for just stills.

E-M5 - best compact still camera, but tiny buttons and weak ergonomics.

It would be great if there is something in the middle, a slightly bigger OMD, so we get better ergonomics, built-in flash, microphone socket, and of course IBIS, for those caught in the middle who just want an even better still camera than either.

1 upvote

Besides IBIS OM-D has also these advantages for still photography :
Flash sync 1/250s vs 1/160s on GH3
Continuous shooting 9 ftp vs. 6 fps

For ergonomics I don't find OM-D weak, except for play and Fn1 buttons.

1 upvote

I am not impressed at all with the video samples on this review, from what I saw it does not even come close to DSLR HDvideo quality. I have seen way better sample videos from GH2 so maybe the reviewer used weird settings or YouTube messed up the quality? Though good tonalities tend to show even when you downsample videos. My personal opinion is... I have seen better video and photos from cheaper compact cameras.

0 upvotes

YouTube severely compresses the video - download the original files (linked after each sample) and you'll be able to see the difference.

6 upvotes

"And, of course, it also has to stand up to its Micro Four Thirds peers, such as the Olympus OM-D E-M5 and it simply doesn't have the JPEGs or outright charisma to do that, either."

I'll take far better handling over "charisma" any day. Indeed I did: I gladly sold my EM-5 and I'm much happier with the GH3 as a stills camera. As a raw shooter I'm not concerned about any minor shortcomings in the camera's jpeg engine.

"Which isn't to say it's a bad stills camera - it's actually rather good - but there are some excellent stills shooters around for the money." Certainly. But if you're primarily attracted to Micro Four Thirds for the substantial lens system size and weight advantages, there's only the E-M5.

0 upvotes

"JPEGs and Charisma". DPR does a great job, but that's got to be one of the most ridiculously silly sentences I've ever read in a review of a high end camera.

I thought only newbies and P&S users were concerned with JPEGs.

And "charisma", don't know what to make of that one at all.

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting

3 upvotes

"I thought only newbies and P&S users were concerned with JPEGs."

Well, you were wrong. Use of RAW is strictly voluntary as long as photography is a hobby. And many pros use JPEG since it keeps a deadline.

"And "charisma", don't know what to make of that one at all."

Most people on this site pursue photography as a hobby. Hobbies are supposed to be fun. A camera with charisma is more fun, meaning it has a lot of potential for hobbyist use.

While the overall package (including sensor quality) may very well be part of charisma, the form factor and looks will no doubt influence it a lot. As such, there will of course be some photographers who focus on image quality, and justifiably won't care. But for others every part of the photographic process matters.

6 upvotes

Do I count right? The camera has 5 dials (2 fixed function), multi-position focus switch and 15 buttons (5 customizable), not counting ON/OFF switch and the lens release button?
How is that count compared to Pro DSLRs like 1D X and D4?

1 upvote

Oh, wait I forgot direction buttons around the Menu/Set button. So it is 19 buttons.

1 upvote

I find the video features amazing. Very well implemented and class leading.

What I wonder is that they cannot get the still image quality on par. Maybe I am traditional, but either I have a good photo camera or use a video dedicated one.

This “all-in-one” considerably lacks the IQ in still image power. Nevertheless, this Lumix camera is quite good like a Swiss Army Knife, but not more.

0 upvotes

I don't think it lacks IQ at all, in fact as soon as I read DPRs "Pro" of "Good IQ" I knew that people would take that to mean the opposite. The GH3 has much, much better IQ than the GH2 due to the significantly better Sony sensor, the same one that's found in the EM5.

I'm not sure what caused DPR to conclude that the EM5 was so great for stills and the GH3 was not good for stills, but this is incorrect. I will never understand being worried about JPEG quality with a high end enthusiast or prosumer camera. That just sounds newbish of DPR or anyone else to make a big deal about JPEGs. Most cameras, even the beloved EM5, have poor JPEGs (too much NR and artifacts) in comparison to their RAW files. Who cares? These are not P&S, convenience cameras, they are designed for serious photography, not an archive of 8-bit JPEG snapshots.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting

6 upvotes

ThomasSwitzerland,

How is still image quality not on "par"?

Do I misunderstand the word? To me, par means "equal to its peers", which these jpegs most definitely are. They are fantastic. Have you looked at the sample gallery?

If by "par" you meant "better than any other camera in existence, including the latest full frame models released this year", then I guess you're right, they're not on par. Actually though, they still would be in most cases, just not all, such as ISO 12,800 (which nobody shoots in expecting good IQ anyway).

0 upvotes

@ marike...I have Gh2 and EPl5 and the EPL5 IQ, with that same Sony sensor is better. But certainly not "much, much" better. Just better, the kind of step you would expect from a next generation sensor. I appreciate it, but one time my EPL5 fell in 40 cm deep snow without the lens or lenscap on. So it had to dry at home etc. Cound't use it. Had to use the Gh2 virtually all f the day. I went out to shoot winterwonderland scenes so to speak and especially took the day off to do that. I found the GH2 a joy to use and I found the IQ actually very good. Very satisfactory and barely different (in RAW) from EPl5. Difference between G1 and GH2 is much bigger than GH2 to EPl5.

0 upvotes

@Jorginho

I'm a (sadly) former GH2 owner, so you don't have to sell me on what a fine camera it is. Hacked or un-hacked, the GH2 is capable of professional level video quality. But the GH2 still IQ is a step or two behind the newer Sony sensors, and way behind something like the D7000 or D7100. The GH3 seems to have brought the Panasonic's flagship closer to the Nikons for still IQ.

2 upvotes

Yes, the IQ is quite far behind OM-D5, especially the JPEG at high ISO, and continuous AF is also not top notch. I think there is still no perfect mirrorless camera on the market now. It will be near a perfect mirrorless if a camera have
* GH3 video performance
* OM-D5 picture quality at high ISO
* Nikon 1 system AF and continuous AF performance

That will be a really hot one.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

@ Marike. well..a step behind..agreed. two steps (to take your words literally) nope. It is rather close. What I do miss in the EPl5 bar the ergonomics is that multiaspect sensor. Liked it a lot. Swiveling screen...Much more manual control. I hope G6 is a) affordable and b) has that Sony sensor (yes...would like that in that faux DSLr shaped cam). Might be interesting. Of course, OMD has IBIS...but the video....is not good enough for me.

@playforever...well....the IQ of the GH3 is pretty much identical to OMD I think. "Quite far behind" well not from what I have seen. But JPEGs of Ply are nice. What really is a dissappointment is that AF tracking. I read it was much better. We need that Nikon kind of stuff. I noted that E7 or OMD-1 is expected to have PDAF on sensor on a german rumours site. If it also works (!) than it is a big step forward.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Great quality review, that OLED display is must have for my next camera!

1 upvote

Really impressive. A reeview after a few months. Great quality in your view as usual....but way to late.

0 upvotes

Since the GH3 hasn't really shown up in the USA market until relatively recently, the review is more timely here.

1 upvote

I am disappointed by image P1000033 in the samples. This is the only useful image provided for my purposes, and it's good that DPR have actually started providing images of moving subjects. However, the shadow cast by the board onto the runner has poor details and there is also a loss of detail in the sand, especially as it approaches the water line, and in the leg extended posteriorly.

I don't know if it's the camera, the lens, or the photographer, but I'd hesitate to consider the GH3 and Panny lens combo used vs. my existing Canon lenses -- now that there is an SL1 option and size of a second body isn't an issue, Panasonic (or DPR? I can't tell) will need to do better for the price.

Please, more moving subject shots. Thanks!

0 upvotes

What a price !!! And what a fast publication... It deserves quoting a post by Cane (2 hours ago):

"Well that was about the fastest turn around for a review. All the older camera's stuck in the pipeline are wondering who the GH3 slept with to get to the front of the line?" Amen.

PD: ¿And the D4 review? Maybe a conspiracy theory explains the erratic publication of reviews...

0 upvotes

$1500 for this camera !! ?? Is this a joke ?

0 upvotes

Since pretty much it doesnt have opponent, why not? Small sensor doesnt matter that much in video industry (not at all in fact).

0 upvotes

search for the price of the lens. if you buy the kit and sell the body and lens separately, even below the street price you stand to make a nice profit. i'd say it's a good business opportunity.

0 upvotes

Too much confusion surrounding the EVF resolution. When I first skimmed the review, I could swear that I read them saying that it is a field-sequential display. Unless I was dreaming, they realized this was a bogus inference, and edited the text. They now say that they "know" it has resolution of 853x500 pixels. How? Panasonic claims 1.7 million dot equivalent. Display resolution is ordinarily spec'd as full-color pixels. Dot-equivalent is compliant, albeit counting full-color pixels that are virtual owing to time-sharing. An OLED with 1.7 million dot equivalent has 1.7 million full-color pixels (full time). It is stated as "dot equivalent" only to facilitate comparison with field-sequential LCD displays. The improvement in resolution, compared GH2, is less than 15%, which is not significant IMHO. The advantage of OLED is blacker black, and thus vastly improved dynamic range. This advantage is significant. Too bad about the hue being off, but I wonder if it occurs in all situations.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I don't know what to make of Panasonic's claims, but other past displays have made 'equivalence' claims, like PenTile. I wouldn't be surprised if this display uses a matrix something like that, with more green than red or blue dots. It does give the appearance of greater resolution and could explain the unfortunate shifting of the display towards the green.

0 upvotes

Thanks for the thorough review!

I don't agree at all that the EVF is improved over the GH2. To my eye it's slightly smaller, dimmer and softer than the GH2 EVF especially shooting stills in 4:3 crop mode and to make matters worse, there is no focus peaking when shooting video. Pity.
I also agree with comments that argue the whole point of m4/3 is to make a smaller camera than DSLR's. The GH2 works because it's small but easily operable with one hand.

0 upvotes

I have the GH3 with 12-35mm for a while and it´s a nice combo, GH3 is the camera the GH2 should have been.
However there are some issues that could need improvement:
- cuts around a half second of video when stopping recording
- gain limiter for audio is a good idea but it should be possible to switch it off for some mics
- still the same cheap clattery strap holders - I think I will cut them off next time
- internal mic is just bad, muffled sound and not sensitive enough, prone to background noise - maybe due to weather-sealing, GH2 mic was better
- MP4 recording is just useless, who needs MP4 at 1080p50 with 128kb/s audio and otherwise same datarate as AVCHD?

0 upvotes

Those strap holders. When I first took my GH3 out of the box I thought something inside the camera body was rattling around. I came close to returning it before I realized where the noise was coming from.

0 upvotes

Elaborate review of GH3.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KnFlRfhw8s

1 upvote

The GH-3 looks to be very attractive for video shooters. It's quite a great option for them.

But since I shoot mostly stills, I'll take the OM-D for it's better jpegs, 5-axis IS, and smaller size and weight.

This IBIS thing is huge for me. By going with lens based IS, Panasonic has limited its users to Panasonic lenses only (especially for telephotos). If the ability to mount legacy lenses is a plus for the GH-3, then it's an even bigger plus for the OM-D, since all those legacy lenses will now be stabilized.

When you get to be my age, you will appreciate IS a lot more!

3 upvotes

I'm with you, but I need the video.

I prefer Olympus jpegs, and IBIS. If Olympus could put together a reasonable video spec, I'd be a buyer. I used to be, in the pre-video days.

0 upvotes

not to mention stabilized primes.

0 upvotes

bobbarber look at getting the new Blackmagic as a second body for the video when it comes out. That combination will cost you a bit more but give you more options.

0 upvotes

Thanks, Stu 5. That's not a bad idea.

0 upvotes

Blackmagic for M4/3 is very exciting on paper. Look forward to seeing how and when it materializes.

1 upvote

Ibis is nice, but so are Panasonic's lenses. I personally use "legacy" lenses for studio and macro shooting where solid camera support is required anyway. The EM-5's handling is poor, and it's unfortunate that Olympus didn't commit to making the touch interface work well and rationally. The Panasonic implementation is fast, direct, and there's none of the Olympus nonsense of toggling between touch screen and physical buttons to make basic adjustments.

0 upvotes

BJN,

I agree with you too. I bought OLY DSLRs at first, then switched to m43 with Panasonic because the bodies were bigger, had an incorporated viewfinder, and handled better. I still find that I miss IBIS though, and the Olympus jpegs. The OM-D is the first Oly m43 with an incorporated viewfinder, but now I don't want to switch because of the video performance. Oly needs to give reasonable performance in video, not Panny-level but good enough, and I'll switch back.

0 upvotes

So "The E-M5 is, without question, the most accomplished Micro Four Thirds camera we've yet seen" still holds true. The GH3 may be the better camera/camcorder for those "take video seriously", however DPR rated/ranked it lower than the OMD.

No doubt, "The Panasonic GH3 is the new standard bearer for video on a consumer stills camera." And this would have factored into its close, but no cigar rating. So one can reasonably conclude that if the GH3 didn't excel at recording video, DPR would have rated it lower and the gap between it and the OMD would have been wider.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

1 upvote

DPR rated RAW IQ the same, and as the OMD and GH3 share the same sensor, it's kind of hard to pick a clear favorite as you would a sports team. Some prefer the small size of the OMD, while some photographers prefer a more robust grip/body as it balances better with telephotos and larger glass.

A hypothesis that "if the GH3 didn't excel at video" makes no sense because it does excel at video. I realize you want to take that away from it, but that's not how it works. The GH3 is a great all-around camera.

6 upvotes

Yes, sensors are being more and more monopolized => RAW IQ is similar. The distinguishing parameters are then handling and user/photographer friendly tools. Why - for only one instance - mirorrless camera does not have viewfinder in the right place - top left corner? Why this - by needlessly imitating SLR look - endangers a photographer's nose (to say nothing of the quality of EVF)? I prefer more useful range-finder-like design - not for style alone.

0 upvotes

Thanks Sony who is leading the CMOS market...

1 upvote

@ marike6

The OMD will produce better images at higher ISOs.
The OMD will meter and focus better
The OMD has a better VF and screen
The OMD has in body stabilization

These things make for a better overall camera. That is why the OMD is rated higher than the GH3. The gap would be wider if the GH3 didn't do video so well.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

3 upvotes

2 ethern1ty : Thanks Fuji who is listening to photographers wishes. Sony stays halfway between really enthusiast photographer friendly mirorrless camera and plastic electronic gadget. The smallest does not mean the best.

0 upvotes

@ Jimmy jang Boo
GH3 actually focus faster than OMD in low light/interior

2 upvotes

Jimmy jang Boo wrote (again) "The gap would be wider if the GH3 didn't do video so well."

But the GH3 does do video "so well". It's a hybrid camera, meant for professional stills and videography applications, whether you like it or not.

They both have 614 K OLED LCDs, but the GH3 is far superior because it's fully articulated. Tilt only LCDs are useless in portrait orientation.

As far as high ISO, the EM5 and GH3 have the EXACT same ISO test numbers on DxOMark.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/842%7C0/(brand)/Panasonic/(appareil2)/793%7C0/(brand2)/Olympus

As far a DPR ratings, it wouldn't be the first time DPR botched review scores (see Nikon D7000, the benchmark DX camera since it was released, with an absolutely laughable Silver Award).

1 upvote

The E-M5 (OM-D is the camera series name) does better jpegs and high ISO jpegs. Raw quality is identical.

I prefer the viewfinder of the GH3 and have actually used both cameras. The GH3's LCD is more useful with better articulation.

IBIS is nice. If you need it, go with Olympus.

In terms of handling, there's no comparison. The E-M5 is cramped, menu configuration is complex, and touch is implemented as an afterthought. The small Olympus add-on flash is comedy of cosmetic plastic parts to save and lose. The GH3's has full LCD articulation that enhances handling and versatility.

Choose the strengths that matter most to you.

1 upvote

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.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

5 upvotes

I'm with you Timmbitts, but I'm stuck even further in the past.

To me, a carriage is still a carriage.

I got all confused when they took the horses off them.

4 upvotes

I agree with (Timmbits). Just because the YouTube whores have successfully brainwashed the masses into the notion that there being a place for everything & that such belongs in the proper place is "horse & buggy thinking" doesn't mean that others of us don't know better. We understand that items that are geared towards a specific task tend to do it better than ones that are "jack of all trades/master of none." Advanced cameras aren't meant to be Swiss Army Knives.

I don't go to a Mexican restaurant & demand they sell Chinese. I don't go to a great Italian place & gripe that they don't sell Indian food. I have the decency to respect tradition & boundaries and to have the sense to realize that if I want the best Mexican food, I go to a place that makes ONLY THAT and NOTHING ELSE. (There's still Ryan's Buffet for those that want a place that has it all, quality notwithstanding.) That isn't being a dinosaur or "stuck in the past," it's called actually possessing a BRAIN.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting

1 upvote

With Larrytusaz, me, and Timmbitts, that makes three of us now!

We can start a movement.

Another of my pet peeves is typewriter keyboards. It used to be, you would type, and it would be attached to this mechanical thingey, and make the letter "a" on paper, or something like that. But then they had to attach the keyboards to a computer, and all of a sudden the quality of the keyboards went downhill. Pure plastic, and they didn't last but three or four years. They should have just stayed with typewriter keyboards as typewriter keyboards!

And yes, larrytusaz, it is positively INDECENT of Panasonic to have included a high video spec in a camera. Postively SCANDALOUS! When I read about it, I slapped my knee so hard that my falsies fell out.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

5 upvotes

Wish i could partake in that slapping BB.
Sarcasm can be very elegant. You're just trolling.

Both Tim & Larry make an excellent point. Stick to your guns.

0 upvotes

Now there's four of us!

Hey look, since Panasonic, Nikon, Canon, and a few others have it ALL WRONG, we can start our own camera company!

We'll call it the "No-vid" camera group. We'll steal into the Nikon and Panasonic headquarters by night, steal their plans, and make the SAME cameras that they do, but without video, as God intended. Then all of the decent people in the world, with brains of course, will storm B&H and Adorama, demanding our equipment! No more fancy GH3s and D800s with video capability, no sirree bob. We'll be millionaires!

Really, adding video to a camera is so ILLOGICAL. Where does it all end? Will there be a feature on the cameras where you push a button and it makes you a cup of coffee? I mean, adding video to a camera just comes out of LEFT FIELD, without any consideration of what the device is intended to do, i.e., TAKE IMAGES.

I'm glad that SnapHappy32 joined in, and we're four strong.

4 upvotes

Yo Larry, where would I go to get the mexican pizza in town?

0 upvotes

You're a resilient one, aren't you?

The point they were making is quite simple really. Cameras were once (post-critacious) intended for photography. Technological advances allowed for extended functionality. Including the ability to shoot continous, lower resolution images for as long as retarded legislaterswould allow it (30 minutes or so in my neck of the woods - YMMW). Enter video.

No worries so far. The thing is, all companies exist to create profit. Gross margins. If a substanial sum of the cost is tied up in man hours, I'd prefer for the engineers to spend their time on either improving the PHOTO quality (for which the product was intended) or giving me a cheaper product. Not working on video codecs, redesign of the body for improved heat dissipation and the likes. Give me a better tool for photography or a cheaper product. For video I'll use a dedicated video camera.

0 upvotes

SnapHappy

What exactly are you missing in the current crop of DSLR/MILC cameras, in terms of IQ?

I just ordered an Oly E-410, in part because of price, and in part because I have Olympus legacy lenses.

And you know what? I am REALLY looking forward to getting the E-410 (this week probably), because it makes FANTASTIC images, up to 13x19 and beyond. The E-410 is an older 10 Mp model.

So what are you missing from these new Canikon/Panny 16+++ Mp cameras that do video? I mean, look at the portrait of the woman in the GH3 sample images. I don't see how a better image could be made with the most expensive Canons and Nikons out there, armed with the most expensive lenses. What is the GH3 missing by having focused on video?

If you want a cheaper camera with a lesser video spec, buy a new G3 or something for $275. You'll be astonished at the stills IQ. And the video too, probably.

IMHO, it is silly to argue that the GH3 has "sacrificed" stills IQ for video. Video is a win-win.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

The GH3 is a fine still camera, Timmwits. The video capability that I've yet to use is icing on the cake.

2 upvotes

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."

0 upvotes

The gh2 sold so well because of the video function... tons of productions, even big ones used them (although mainly as crash cams) and tons of indie filmmakers swear by them.

They didn't want to end up like Canon, whom everyone thought they were going to reinvent the vdslr game with the 5dmk3, so they decided to listen to their main crowd and the functions they wanted, hence, superb video...

I own a gh2, and an epm1, and I really miss the IBIS on the gh2. I'd agree the OMD takes better pictures too.

0 upvotes

Using the image comparison tool, I think this is notably below the NEX-6 in still IQ -- for JPEG more than for raw. Not really a surprise... except it is slightly worse than I expected (a hair worse than the EM-5) and the review keeps saying how great the JPEGs are.

I suppose if you like a DSLR form factor for shooting video, this is a great option. However, the level of remote control looks more interesting to me... provided that they provide a programming API, not just some magic app. Is there an API for wireless control by a program?

0 upvotes

Well that was about the fastest turn around for a review. All the older camera's stuck in the pipeline are wondering who the GH3 slept with to get to the front of the line?

3 upvotes

After reading the GH3 review, and checking the PROS/CONS, I realize this:
1. DPR is very, very kind with Panasonic. 2. The kindness is in the way the humble IQ is buried under tons of bla-bla about... the nice body. 3. Micro 4/3 is surpassing 4/3 no doubt...

1 upvote

'Micro 4/3 is surpassing 4/3 no doubt...'

... at least in camera size!

0 upvotes

Raw quality looks to be just as good if not better than the D7000.

3 upvotes

Negative. Aside from high ISO, it's all about the colors (color depth) and the green cast of the GH3 and OMD files as you increase ISO is not very pleasing. Change GH2 to D7000, and download all four ACR JPEGs at ISO 3200, and you'll see whites rendered as white on the two Nikons. The two m43s files get more green as you increase ISO.

3 upvotes

Well, at least marike6 didn't say that the two cameras weren't "in the same league", which is the phrase that many use on these forums when the results of two cameras are so close as to be almost indistinguishable.

Maybe it's me who doesn't understand what "in the same league" means. I thought that league was a unit of measurement, and that the expression "in the same league" meant that the two items being compared were close to each other, and not necessarily identical.

0 upvotes

To those who plan to get the GH3 solely for the video, here's one other model:

Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema

2 upvotes

True. Or people can pick up a D5200 and have excellent moire free video, great in low-light with class leading still IQ to boot. All for 2/3 of the price of a GH3. It's a tough call.

2 upvotes

It's not that tough a call. Most people interested in video will choose the GH3 over the 5200, including sharper image quality, better video-related features, ability to adapt more legacy video lenses, etc.

EDIT: Or they'll go for the Blackmagic Design Pocket Camera, another awesome option.

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

or they can buy this new "video camera" device that Panasonic, Canon, JVC and Sony introduced to the market recently. I hear that it has even better video features than a DSLR, is more ergonomic for the task and some even take still photos.

2 upvotes

The Blackmagic has a 3x crop sensor tho, so depending on which lenses you're planning to use the GH3 may be the better option.

2 upvotes

@bobbarber Are you sure?

GH3 vs D5200 Shootout

https://vimeo.com/59832019

5D III vs D5200 Shootout

https://vimeo.com/60135187

0 upvotes

marike6

sharper image quality, CHECK

better video-related features, CHECK

ability to adapt more legacy video lenses, CHECK

Yes, I'm sure.

Oh, the 5200 may well have better low-light performance, which you cherry-picked, but that won't stop the vast majority of people interested in video from buying the GH3 over the 5200.

0 upvotes

I guess you didn't watch the videos. That's OK, here's another from Adorama, since you think the GH3 is sharper.

GH3 vs D5200 Daylight

https://vimeo.com/61413236

By the way, I can make a list too: far better colors, DOF control, and much better still IQ. People will buy the GH3 because the GH2 was such a great camera. That doesn't mean the video world hasn't already taken notice of what the D5200 is capable of, note the Andrew Reid (the author of the above GH3 video section) made two of the three videos above. You want to base your opinion of the GH3 video quality on reputation, that's fine. I prefer to use my eyes.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting

1 upvote

Pity we don't have any/many Canon users weighing in here... Canon is known for it's video capabilities, and I wonder if these people would be giving the same rebuttals.

0 upvotes

Where is it? Have you tried it yourself? Have you tested that S16 sensor they put in the Black Magic Pocket camera, or you just assume it would be as good as much larger and more expensive Black Magic Cine Camera? So far, it is just an imaginary product which suppose to be available in a few months.

Meanwhile, the GH3 is available now.
In comparison, with the BlackMagic Cameras, the GH3 supports:
both, stills and 1080p@60fps video;
Auto-Focus; OIS; ISO 6400 for video; standard MOV,AVCHD,MP4 (H.264) 50 Mbps (IPB) & 72 Mbps (ALL-I); linear-PCM Audio;
Variable Movie Mode (40%-300%);
Time Code, Time Lapse;
WiFi connectivity via Lumix Link
OLED LCD & EVF; a battery (7.2V, 1860mAh) with CIPA Life-time of about 450 shots + support for external battery-grip.

0 upvotes

marike6

That D5200 footage does look pretty good. Not better than the GH3 (or worse), but in that neighborhood. However, some (early) returns on the GH3 versus D5200 point out that the D5200 footage does not hold up as well grading (postprocessing). This may be due to the codec used and the Mbs recording. The Panny will in all likelihood be hacked (the GH1 and GH2 were), which would give it Mbs rates much higher than the D5200.

I don't know much about modern Nikon lenses. I have some older ones. Lenses which have any noise at all in autofocus are not really suited to video. Panny has a line of video-optimized lenses.

The D5200 looks good and it will appeal to a lot of people. Nikon has made good strides in video. And Canon is good too, as TimmBitts points out. However, neither mount is as adaptable to legacy lenses as the m43 mount.

1 upvote

marike6 : The video from adorama shows that the IQ is better on the Panasonic...

I guess you didn't read the eoshd review/nor the dpreview one.

Regarding Canon, I hope they will use a new ASP-C sensor soon... The one used on the 700D is old.... :( (not sure if they want to use any Sony sensor)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

Where is that cam? Not here nor there. We'll first have to see it, than see tests/reviews to draw any conclusions compared to GH3.
What it surely has not is weahtersealing, no swiveling display.So for some, like me, wjho do shoot blizzards and heavy thunderstorms, the GH3 would be the better option.

1 upvote

ethern1ty wrote: The video from adorama shows that the IQ is better on the Panasonic...

It does? The D5200 image is sharper, with less moire, richer colors, and much more latitude in the shadows and highlights (read dynamic range).

I'm not sure you looked closely or that we are even seeing the same video. :-)

https://vimeo.com/61413236

0 upvotes

Jorginho - just out of curiosity..

What kind of a weather photographer relies on the weather sealing of a camera + lens combo?

Every single one I've seen had a cover over the camera.. To keep the front of the lens dry - ie rain drop free images..

0 upvotes

Igorek7 if the Black Magic Pocket camera is an imaginary product at the moment was it also on a imaginary tripod at the recent show with imaginary people playing with it? The camera exist and it has 13 stops of DR which as we already know from the larger Blackmagic floors the GH3 on colour, detail and dynamic range. And before you say 'oh the sensor is smaller so there will not be as much detail' I am talking about detail that the GH2 and 5D MKIII burns out because of the lack of DR.

0 upvotes

@Stu_5 You, probably, have no experience of pre-ordering from the Black Magic, but some people are still waiting for the BMCC ordered in 2012. Everyone knows, that the early adopters are often among victims of delays, but I don't see how the newly announced BM cameras would be different in this respect. Also, have you noticed how you substituted 13 stops of DR with the overall video quality?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

Well, first of all dry snow is no problem at all: it mostly blows off. Thunderstorms etc: I haven't tried it yet as I do not have it. I use GH2 in thunderstorm and just wipe the drops of the lensfilter. But when rains get torrential, I of course quit. That is where Gh3 or OMd could come in....I have a sleeve etc but I don't like usiing them..

0 upvotes

We've tried out 3 Panasonics over the years for my wife who enjoys photography but doesn't enjoy dSLR weight; and all 3 of them were noisy messes that wouldn't auto-focus well.

Never again.

2 upvotes

I should add that we have had much better luck with Fuji and Olympus.

1 upvote

Wow... they must have really sucked, cause Fuji got really horrible AF (90% of time I'm better off focusing manually than struggling with this imitation of autofocus).

5 upvotes

Funny, I seem to manage just fine. User error?

1 upvote

Even the G1 performed well for me.

1 upvote

Which 3? The newer sensors (G3/GX and above) are greatly improved, and I've always found the autofocus (even the G1) to be considerably better than my previous DSLR.

1 upvote

I don't know right off hand. We purchased them for zoom capabilities first and quality of image second. I keep explaining the difference, but my wife has nostalgic memories from her Olympus C700. Still, the quality was so bad in the Panasonic cameras that we ended up selling them. We're currently on the FZ100 shooting only RAW (and it's a pain in the ass to have to bother with converting them because I'm so used to having both the JPEG & the RAW). But the real frustration is that technology never seems to really break through for these long-zoom cameras. It's just a gimmick to me, but it's become part of the way she expresses herself with photography. And she's just not interested in carrying around a 200-400, but she'd accept that range as opposed to the ridiculously silly ranges that are offered which can never truly express quality of image at such magnifications.

0 upvotes

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.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting

1 upvote

GH3 actual does timelapse and have really good lenses...

1 upvote

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.

0 upvotes

Richard,

It would be helpful if DPR could make it clear how the dimensions coincide with the weightings. For example, you have a movie/video dimension but this is not a separate category in your weightings pie chart. Thus, we have no idea if it is considered part of "features" or "other" or something else.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4416254604/camera-scores-ratings-explained

1 upvote

I don't understand the reason for this camera. I thought the idea behind smaller sensors was smaller cameras? This one is even worst than the GH2 which seemed ridiculously oversized.

3 upvotes

Well, seems like for good video you need bigger body for several reasons (cooling probably being most notable one). No wonder Canon 1D C met such a warm welcome. Only there it makes more sense than with GH3, cause Canon got FF sensor.

0 upvotes

it's probably the same reasoning that is behind cars like the VW Golf getting larger and larger. a first generation Golf is about the same size as the latest Polo. "let's abandon the key principle behind our product and try to increase our market share". to be fair, there are smaller m4/3 cameras on the market, but the GH2 size was a reasonable maximum.

1 upvote

Cameras don't have to be small, look at the range of different size APS DSLRs you can get. There are already plenty of small m4/3 bodies for people who want a small camera, this is a pro-grade (video) body for people who want that. Making this camera smaller would make it worse for its intended use.

The only thing I think Panasonic is doing really wrong is the poor video mode in their smaller cameras, why not have at least GH1 quality video in cameras like the GX line??

0 upvotes

this is still a hybrid camera. a pro video camera has a totally different shape, and panasonic actually makes some pretty high end models.

a camera does not have to be small. however, the idea behind m4/3 was smaller cameras. APS-C never targeted this size. the idea behind the GH2 was a camera that had comparable image quality to a Nikon D7000 but in a much smaller package. the idea behind the GH3 is to have the same size as a D7100 with a smaller sensor. ok, the lens do give it a size/mass advantage, but still, if you want a big camera why not just buy one? or just buy a video camera?

1 upvote

If the GH2 is oversized for you, then either:
1) you never really held one in your hand;
2) you are probably an owner of quite extraordinarily hands. I myself have small hands, but I NEVER feel quite comfortable holding any camera smaller than my good old D80.

0 upvotes

Platek - modern sensors don't suffer from the overheating problems of old. The CPU will be of much lower power than most smart phones. The idea that you need a big camera for cooling is just er hot air! Check out the Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema as mentioned by Nukunukooif you need further evidence that you don't need a brick to produce 'Professional' quality results.

Andy please enlighten me as to why a 'pro-grade' camera has to be big. Wouldn't most real pros would rather have something small and light? I suspect this isn't really intended for pros. This is for pro wannabes who will be able to impress themselves and their 'pro' mates and help Panasonic to flog these consumer-in-a-big-case cameras at inflated prices to the gullible. Just as they do with cars these days ...

I agree with what agentul says. I like his car simile - bigger must mean better. I seem to remember cars being much more fun in the days of the Mk1 - why did everything have to get so big and serious?

0 upvotes

ponyman, i can only guess at the reasons behind size increases. some might be due to new safety systems being implemented, others might be due to people actually being taller and fatter than 30 years ago. it took me many years to reach my height, and now i see 9th grade kids that are taller than me. of course, i also suspect that the manufacturers tried to sell the same model to the same people over many years. what i mean is that if they sold you a golf when you were in your 20's, they will also try to sell you a golf when you're in your 40's and want or need a larger car. i base this conclusion on newer and smaller models still being sold by the same manufacturers - clearly people haven't increased in size by too much.

back to our camera size problem: if you feel the need for a larger camera, you can find them on the market. panasonic tries to compete with them using the same system, which is good from a certain point of view.

0 upvotes

continued: what i was trying to say is that the GH3 seems to start a trend of moving away from the size advantage of the m4/3 format. if they would still offer a successor to the GH2 in terms of size, then it would be OK. what i wouldn't want to see is a further increase in size just because they can.

0 upvotes

Nice review, nothing earth shattering as it just confirms what we already knew - the GH3 and the EM5 are the standard bearers in m43 land. If you're more video focused go GH3, if you're more stills and legacy glass focused go EM5.

One criticism - does anyone at DPR copy edit the stuff EOSHD submits? At times, it looks like it was written by a 5th grader.

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting

1 upvote

So it's great for video but in stills it's not junk, but it's not as good as it COULD be.

Hmm, seems like validation of what I've said all along--if you try to be a stills and video camera at the same time, something will suffer. Looks like stills suffered--and again, I read that they're not HORRIBLE, but that they don't measure up to the likes of the Nikon D7100, which it's almost as large & expensive as.

So maybe a camera should be geared towards stills-only, or video-only, and enough with the "convergence" nonsense.

Also, it's micro 4/3rds, yet look at how HUGE it is. I thought micro 4/3rds was about d-SLR (or near d-SLR) quality in a SMALLER package. This is hardly that.

The OM-D/EM-5 looks like a better implementation--much smaller, better JPEG engine, and the red dot YouTube button can be re-mapped to a stills-only function to optimize it as a stills-only camera. Now THAT makes more sense.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

2 upvotes

What about documentary photography and video?

No news agency nowadays would send a staff photographer into the field with a camera that didn't perform BOTH functions. I mean, you can't potentially miss still photo OR video opportunities at a news event, can you?

And is the enthusiast photographer's situation that different, when traveling, for example? I can think of many examples where I had set out to take still pictures, but wished I would have had a video camera with me too.

So you may be right about it being best to dedicate a camera for stills performance, but that isn't the reality of how these devices are used. You will never see a high-end camera produced again without a video feature, and the better the video feature, the better the camera will sell.

1 upvote

There are more compact M4/3 bodies (GX1, EPL-5) if you prefer this type. Some people tho' do not like miniature buttons and would rather go for a more sizeable camera. Nowadays, there's a quality offer in both sizes.

Don't think convergence is nonsense. Lots of people nowadays do both still and videos even if not necessarily in the same proportions. Up to now Sony was in my opinion the manufacturer which consistently best managed both but the gap is narrowing fast.
As a left-hander (around 10% of worldwide population is left-handed) convergence finally allowed me to shoot some video I could never manage on consumer video cams handled only with the right hand. With a convergence cam, I can use one hand to hold the camera, the other one to handle the lense.

Moreover Pana G X lenses are great for left-handers with their zoom lever on the left side (which might be why some right-handers don't like them that much...).

0 upvotes

Maybe Panasonic should make video cameras. Oh, apparently they do. Just not as good as this crossover camera...

5 upvotes

They got Panasonic AF100. Noone noticed that this camera even exists. GH3 only stands a chance on market due to generic hype of filming with a cameras that don't have ergonomic design for video, but rather stills.
The current situation on a market is totally weird and crazy.I generally vote for waiting year or two till it actually stabilizes and we'll be able to buy cheap, high-quality dedicated camcoders. FS100 was definietly a step in a good direction, VG-series could be if not the issues with video quality. But let them grow up and we might see really awesome gear from excellent prices.

1 upvote

I almost bought a Panny consumer camcorder last year. There were two problems with it, though. The sensor was small, so shallow DOF was not possible. Also, the stills were horrible. Something like 5 Mp resolution, which doesn't bother me too much, but the stills were terribly processed and the artifacts were terrible. I mean, think $30 brand new Chinese knockoff compact camera on ebay image quality. This was around a $1,000 Panny model, I forget which one.

Interestingly to me, because I'm not a video expert, I learned from researching this camera that even quite expensive video cameras, many of them $3,000 to $5,000 and more, have small sensors (compact-sized, not m43) and are incapable of shallow DOF. That's one reason why these DSLR/MILC cameras are so popular with filmmakers, that you can use very cool, fast old lenses on them and get shallow DOF in video.

2 upvotes

Thank you for the review, even though it's rather controversial and is a subject of numerous discussions! One thing is clear, Panasonic managed to create something new and interesting, and not just another minor upgrade of the GHx-class of cameras.

There is no surprise that the GH3 shakes the traditionally conservative still-imaging and video-cinematographers by establishing the strong link between these two complimentary tools of art/journalism/craft/documentary, and establishing the new high level among the affordable still/motion-picture cameras.

3 upvotes

Great comprehensive review, with more analysis weighted towards the video. Panasonic should be satisfied with the detail in this review as an advertiser, but rather unsettled with the comparative stills among its peers....

This is posted by an enthusiast who loves the versatility of the M43 concept and articulated screen, but finds the still images limited (ie, the kids are growing older and moving much faster to photo).

0 upvotes

I think the final score is the only criticism you could level at this review as the buying advise and comparisons with other models was spot on. However while I was reading it I did expect a 81% plus score due to the fact that it does everything so well in one camera. However the score is probably the least important detail of a review (unless your the marketing manager for Panasonic) and DPreview is a predominantly stills based site which I think is reflected in the score to be honest. I still think the GH3 is a better option as a stills camera then the OMD if you put handling over compactness.

3 upvotes

I think that the days of evaluating cameras as stills cameras only are over.

Remember when live view was thought of as a peripheral feature, a "solution looking for a problem"? Now you can't sell a camera without live view. We've moving in that same direction with video, if we're not there already. It would be unthinkable to produce a high-end stills camera today without a semi-professional video feature. You couldn't sell the camera.

What I like about this review is inclusion of an expert take on video. I think that dpreview in general should move in that direction, not only with this camera, but all of them.

Yes, there will be people that buy these cameras only for stills, but there are people that buy them only for video too. They need to be reviewed for both.

9 upvotes

I don't care for video so much. And I don't think many of us are actual expert video producers. And I doubt that expert video producers would choose this as their gear. So putting video before stills, when evaluating a camera and not a video camera, doesn't make any sense. (I say putting it before, because it obviously has, given the gold award)

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting

5 upvotes

Timmbitts,

Many DSLR/MILC cameras are used these days in professional video production, even movies and T.V. shows. The GH2 was highly respected. The GH3, unless it severely disappoints, will be used in professional video production. These cameras are used by professionals where better cameras are unfeasible or too expensive to risk, or by independent filmmakers as their main equipment. The review points that out.

As for this being a stills-only site, well, OK, but the manufacturers are going to continue making cameras with high-end video features, and people are going to continue to buy cameras with the video features in mind. I don't see why dpreview should shortchange that part of the functionality of these devices.

3 upvotes

bobbarber - and still they are margin of the market comparing to dedicated camcoders (margin being probably a great understatement, I doubt more than 1% of all pro video work is being done on DSLRs/ILCs).

Don't overprice DSLRs/ILCs for what they are. DSLRs advantage over dedicated camcoders goes basically only to the price for sensor size. That's one of the cases where 'cheaper' pushes away 'better'.

In general I totally agree with Timmbits. In review of a camera stills should be a priority, period. I wouldn't mind though to see dPreview testing camcoders and comparing them against each other using video-oriented criteria.

2 upvotes

Plastek,

Even $3,000 to $5,000 video cameras use small sensors, and the IQ is not necessarily better than what you get out of these cameras. So the large sensor size is a big advantage. Also, you can use interchangeable lenses. Old manual lenses are often PREFERABLE for video, because they can be adapted to stopless aperture change, have smooth manual focus, etc.

The advantage of a small sensor is that everything is in focus. That's pretty much it. That helps in documentary footage, which is where those cameras are used. If you're a TV station, you buy a $5,000 video camera for remote news coverage. Everything is in focus at the car crash and you're good. But the $5,000 camera like that, which also performs smoothly, does not necessarily make better video than these cameras.

Now there are better options coming out, with larger sensors at a lower price point. Everybody wins.

2 upvotes

Plastek : concrete example - In Ireland, the TV stations uses the AF100 with a large set of lens. Many production actually use the gh2 for their documentaries/shows/short films.

One more hint, look at the great camera shotout (which is based on a blind test system): http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2012/07/24/panasonic-gh2-video-better-than-red-arri-says-coppola
Other article : http://www.eoshd.com/content/8528/zacuto-revenge-shootout-part-2-results-revealed-francis-ford-coppola-and-audience-majority-give-win-to-gh2

If you are aware of this market, you will notice that a lot of people use this camera and the 5d mk3 for video production. You are not sure about this statement, look at the different thread related to the gh series on personal views :)

1 upvote

@ bobbarber. Agree. Convergence is great unless one has highly specific professional needs. And even video pros usually welcome shooting some stills for preparatory work.

0 upvotes

Thumbs up to including Andrew's take on video.

3 upvotes

Most in-depth and well balanced review I have ever read. It was worth the wait although I did give up waiting and have already bought the GH3!

2 upvotes

Andrew certainly meant tonal precision and NOT tonal range here: "This can be used to extract maximum dynamic range at the time of recording, at the expense of tonal range."

It is about time reviews start MEASURING the rolling shutter effect and not just demonstrating it. It is not even hard to measure. Also, I fail to see how a clean and almost moire free camera like the d7100 has worse image quality compared to the gh3.

0 upvotes

Still : The review does not say that.
Video : Maximum bit rate (12/24mbps) on the D7100. Better codec on the pana ? Also panasonic has more experience on the video production market. (so potential better hardware/software...)

1 upvote

Well, it is not much use having a better codec when your video is moire ridden.

Comment edited 9 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

Dotes,

You need to calm down.

"Moire-ridden"?

The GH2 was used extensively by independent and even Hollywood filmmakers, and the GH3 has better video, but it is "moire-ridden" to you?

Quick!

Call up Francis Ford Coppola! He needs your advice!

Give me a break. The D7100 will have lots of buyers, lots of whom will make video, and the market will make a judgment on the quality of the footage.

No movie-maker wants to plunk down $1300 on a camera that produces "moire-ridden" footage, yet they will buy the GH3, in droves.

2 upvotes

Seems pretty moire ridden to me...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcbNJUDMEPY

2 upvotes

Oh, you cherry-picked a video.

Fail.

If you did an objective review of GH2 video IQ posted on the Internet, you would find that generally it is very high and people rave about it, and very few complain of moire. Even the most expensive video cameras can have problems from time to time, the same as the most expensive stills cameras.

3 upvotes

I don't think you know what you are talking about. I cherry picked a moire test video because we are discussing moire. If we were discussing porn I would cherry pick a porn video for you, geez.

Moire occurs in situations involving fine-line and human made structures, which incidentally are all around us. If you did have any idea about what we were talking about you would know that moire and aliasing artefacts are the single most annoying and (hard to fix in post) problem for low budget/indie filmmakers.

Neither the Nikons d5200 and d7100, nor the Canon 5d Mark 3 exhibit aliasing artefacts comparable to this moire-fest.

Being a property of the unifrom sequency sampling it is actually possible theoretically to fully remove this if your OLPF and downsampling are optimized for the sampling rate of your camera.

And finally, learn to do a proper argument. Your posts are full of fallacies.

1 upvote

I'm a bit wary of that YouTube video as it doesn't seem to have been processed correctly, there's some ghosting. Even the human eye determines moire patterns if the pitch is fine enough, look at the fine mesh on the back of an office chair, there's one example. On the GH3 I find it very easy to avoid. The D5200 and D7100 are a nice step up from a Canon APS-C DSLR or Sony NEX for video quality and certainly have the edge on the GH3 at very high ISOs but in normal shooting conditions the GH3 has the better image and codec, certainly the better handling by far for video. The D7100 is not 100% moire free either you know? The detail it resolves in video mode is not up to the GH3's level. Rolling shutter is a lot worse and it lacks 1080/60p, articulated screen, EVF, timecode, and a bunch of other useful video features compared to the GH3. You cannot use cine lenses (PL, etc.) on the Nikon mount and have to have Nikon mount glass adapted for cinema use.

4 upvotes

Sharpness = moire

You can use a softening filter, or a crappy lens, so the the GH3 resolves video down to the level of the D7100. Of course, there is no option to "sharpen up" the D7100 to the GH3 level, when moire is not a problem.

Or you can set up your shots differently.

0 upvotes

Hello Andrew, nice to have you here.
Here is another moire test of the gh3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VAfRO0yIic&feature=youtu.be

I am sure the gh3 is a much more video oriented camera (I actually used one last month for a shoot). It is a true hybrid. But we are discussing image quality here, not features. For me, moire is the most distracting video image element. It might be ok in a still image, but completeley draws attention to itself in a moving image and destroys shots. Neither rolling shutter, nor "electronic" noise, nor low DR, nor FPN ruin shots in the way moire ruins them.

2 upvotes

"cherry picked a video"?
why do you get to cherry-pick comments?
and omG is the moiré ever bad!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

For stills, if the GH3 and OMD have the same sensor, with identical DxOMark scores, why does DPR submit that the GH3 only has "good IQ" and with the OMD they were gushing about IQ?

How can two identical sensors produce such dramatically difference output? JPEGs are meaningless with most cameras of this class, and in fact some of the only really good JPEGs are from the XPro1. But most shoot RAW.

Anyway, thanks for the review.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting

6 upvotes

But the Image quality (raw) rating is the same as the OMD.

5 upvotes

But in the GH3 review conclusion DPR was rather luke warm only saying "Good IQ". How can one camera have only "good IQ"?

They placed too much importance on JPEG Engine, IMO. And because of this (and the new intangible "charisma") they gave the impression that the GH3 and OMD have different IQ. They should be about the same, in RAW, which is what most photographers would be concerned with.

2 upvotes

Don't forget they include factors like price and target market in their conclusions, what is great IQ for a cheaper more consumer focussed camera may only be so-so for a large expensive "pro" grade camera.

1 upvote

I am a Panasonic fan, but can clearly see the OMD had better image quality in both jpg and raw!

7 upvotes

@marike6,

1) OM-D set a new benchmark for m43. The GH3 only equals the benchmark, it doesn't move it forward, which is not as exciting.

2) I disagree with your comment that most photographers are shooting raw, should be concerned with raw, etc. I was looking at dozens of photos of the Boston Marathon disaster yesterday, and as a photographer evaluated IQ. They all had an OOC JPEG look, with blown highlights etc. They were all also very sharp and obviously taken with high-end cameras. It was clear that the highlights COULD have been saved by working in raw, but who really works that way, except for enthusiasts and fine arts photographers? Many, many professionals (most?) shoot jpeg because of time and workflow considerations.

I have owned Oly and Panny bodies, quite a few, and the Oly jpeg engine is a serious feature. It is a time-saver to produce pleasing images within the workflow that most of us use most of the time.

7 upvotes

bobbarber wrote: "It was clear that the highlights COULD have been saved by working in raw, but who really works that way, except for enthusiasts and fine arts photographers?

But the GH3 and OMD are enthusiast cameras. And to get the best out of either camera you shoot RAW. I don't know any enthusiasts who are happy working with 8-bit JPEGs, so why attach to much importance to JPEG engine in a review of such a camera? It's not a P&S, but a proper camera.

1 upvote

bobbarber : Well it really depends on the body + lens... And usually pro photographer does not play around with mft and asp-c camera.... But you've got the point.

By the way, I have played around with the Gh3 and the 25mm f0.95 and the IQ is not so bad in JPEG

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

marike6

First of all, I probably enjoy fiddling with raw photos as much as the next guy. I understand the benefits.

But you're completely dismissing Olympus's jpeg engine, as if it's an unnecessary add-on, like scene modes or art filters.

IMHO, a good jpeg engine is up there with high-ISO, fps, etc. as an important feature. In other words, a tangible benefit that might make me decide to buy or not buy a camera, all else being equal. My GH2 produced poorer jpegs than my old Olympus E-510. And trust me, it made a difference in how I viewed the two cameras. At times I didn't want to pick up my GH2 and head out the door. I was like, "Do I REALLY want to mess around with all those images in raw to get the best out of them?"

Your point about raw IQ being the same between the GH3 and OM-D is well taken, though. If I shot only stills, I would go with the OM-D for the jpegs. As it is, I prefer the GH3 because of video features.

3 upvotes

I seriously hope Olympus ignore those "RAW purist" and continue their fine tradition of their JPEG engine.

Don't give up refining your JPEG engine Olympus!

1 upvote

And to add, you can't send a RAW file to the lab to get prints. In the end you'll still need a 'lowly' JPEG or TIFF if you wish to print your photos. I don't ever recall printers requiring user to provide 16 or 32bit JPEG images too.

0 upvotes

'Most shoot RAW' base on what sample size? If its only dpreview or photographic forums versus the world at large, would you still think most shoot RAW? Camera companies sells to the world, not just to 'photographers'.

0 upvotes

olympus has a GREAT jpeg engine..

if you dial everything in right, before you press go, and compose your images properly, there isn't as much need for post processing. a lot of the event photographers i know, shoot for their audience. if they're shooting for the web, they shoot sRaw+Ljpeg. if they're doing an event where they're going to print, they'll shoot full sized RAW, but still shoot Ljpeg, for the web. and shooting RAW is nice, but if you don't have a monitor that is capable of displaying that 14bit goodness, you're still looking at an 8bit image.

0 upvotes

lol of course they can praise OMD because it was out almost a year earlier. At that time it was certainly revolutionary for OMD. GH3 may have done the same but it was too late to the party.

0 upvotes

I see terrible Jello-Cam effects in the yellow train shot or is it just me?

I'd still prefer a FF like 5D mark3 or D800 for video. i have seen far more impressive samples from them.

And if i want good video at a lower budget i'll get a go pro hero 3 or something.

I don't really understand the market for this DSLR. Is it a video cam with a photo function? From the review that's what i sounds like. Not my thing anyway.

3 upvotes

May you should look at the professional video market and why people use these cameras :)

2 upvotes

Well said Celery!

@ethern1ty: professionals for hollywood films you say? until you tell me what serious producers (and I don't mean for b-series or porn) actually use this, and I'm not talking about a one-off for PAID product placement, I will continue to seriously doubt that any self-respecting producer would actually downgrade to something like this when they have some serious equipment on hand plus some FF Canon cameras.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

2 upvotes

@timmbits. I am talking about advertisement, television, etc. i.e. RTE uses mirrorless camera (m43)

Hollywood producer uses 4k camera for sure (Flex, Red). Regarding short production, from the feedback I got, they mainly use 5d mkIII and gh2.

Few example/review related to the Gh2
- BBC TV series uses the Gh2 for the show Top Gear
- "Panasonic GH2 video better than Red, Arri says Coppola" http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2012/07/24/panasonic-gh2-video-better-than-red-arri-says-coppola
- http://www.43rumors.com/sundance-film-upstream-color-shot-on-gh2/
- http://www.43rumors.com/three-professional-work-made-with-the-panasonic-gh2/\

Why don't you think that blackmagic pocket cinemra camera uses a m43 mount. It's a misconception to say that the m43 does not have serious equipment.(i.e. Voigtlander 25mm f0.95, etc.)

0 upvotes

Am I the only one who do not agree with the conclusion and score. Both tests and sensor specs shows that the OM-D and GH3 share the same sensor. OM-D is ranked 80% and Gh3 79%.
Ok, we understand that the om-d is better for JPEG. However, this is an issue on the application side (and not software). That said, the raw images are identical. And serious photographers tend to use RAW !

"And, of course, it also has to stand up to its Micro Four Thirds peers, such as the Olympus OM-D E-M5 and it simply doesn't have the JPEGs or outright charisma to do that, either."

Giving too much importance on JPEG quality and "charisma" (I didn't know dpreview takes the "charisma" into account... a really subjective approach) to decrease the score ?

Not to forget that the GH3 has way more connectivity and a much better video quality....

7 upvotes

TO finish :
"So, while it probably wouldn't quite gain a Gold Award if viewed purely as a stills camera,.." (dpreview - gh3 april 2013).
"Without any reservations whatsoever, it deserves our Gold Award." (dpreview - om-d april 2012).

Quite a different approach for two cameras who share the same sensor...

(I do not say that the OND is a bad camera. I just think that the two cameras are like brothers and sisters. I am simply questioning dpreview and their editorial approach)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting

4 upvotes

I agree with the endresult, but may be not for the reason drpreview gives. THe EVF is a very serious letdown especially. Also, OMD was here in february 2012, the GH3 has somewhat less IQ (JPEG does count) 8 months later....So relatively in this very fast evolving market, the IQ is worse. It is less compact by far.
If video is more impoartant, it still is the cam to get. If it is mainly stills Ithink there are better options at the same or lower pricepoint.

2 upvotes

@jorginho Well I am not quite sure that the IQ is evolving so quickly.. Canon EOS xxxD share the same sensor than the 550D and 7D... They are just doing a fork of these models (last one in date : 700D).... AFAIk, Nikkon has made some improvement from the D5100 to the D5200. After I just handled the D5100 in the past. So not sure about the progress in IQ.\

"OMD was here in february 2012, the GH3 has somewhat less IQ (JPEG does count) 8 months later..." Anyone I know who is serious to invest this price on a body uses RAW... The only interest I see of JPEG is related to the creative modes.... (and if you have a SD card < class4...)

3 upvotes

so the GH2 gets 79% and a silver award, while the GH3 gets 79% and a gold award. why?

0 upvotes

DPR:s explanation:
"There is no direct link between the overall score and the awards: they are not given automatically to cameras reaching a certain threshold. Crucially a camera can get an award even if a camera with a higher overall score didn't."

The awards are meant to be totally subjective; if the reviewer really likes a camera, for any reason, then he may give it an award. The score, on the other hand, is calculated from a lot of sub-scores given different weightings, as explained here:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4416254604/camera-scores-ratings-explained

1 upvote

so the score is objective while the award is subjective.

2 upvotes

Both are obviously subjective. The scores on each dimension and the overall score are based on subjective judgments as are the awards.

1 upvote

it's a high profit-margin item and the owners want to sell some!

1 upvote

Since you are praising the video capabilities of the GH3, including the alleged sharpness of its video footage, can you please measure the resolution of the video footage?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

To me the GH3 is still the best choice overall. There are many things I don't like on the OMD, and many things I like on the GH3.

Anyway both are good cameras, it is a matter of personal taste, because IQ is almost equal.

The GH3 is very good for stills like the OMD, but the GH3 has a plus that is much better video.

Each review I have read has a slight different approach, score, and opinion.

But all said that is a great camera.

6 upvotes

The Panasonic GH3 is indeed the best choice of the mirrorlless camera at the current moment, and as all best products it has a well-balanced compromise design between the size, hardware and software capabilities and the price. Considering the Panasonic expertise in Professional Audio-Video Broadcast products, the company is capable to make a more advanced hybrid imaging/video camera, but the price for it would much higher.

I hope that Olympus will bring their Micro-Four-Thirds (MFT) products, lenses in particular, to the high standards set by their best Four Thirds ones. Unfortunately, it is not the case with the EM-5 and most of their current MFT lenses.

3 upvotes

I have two cameras-one by Olympus and one by Panasonic. I like them both. However, it is these kinds of comments from Panasonic fan boys that made me want to distant myself from them and made me an Olympus fan boy!

1 upvote

Olympus fanboys are much more aggressive than Panasonic fanboys.

I wish that people don't attach so much to brands.

13 upvotes

I'm a m4/3 Fanboy. I own both panny and oly bodies and lenses... both are great tools, but I feel that the GH3 gives more bang for the buck and is a true hybrid cam

4 upvotes

To continue the endless argument...I have EPL 5 and Gh2, so no fanboyism here (not saying anyone here is btw). Saying GH3 IS the better cam emphasises a majr plus. Namely the version of IS. Oly's IBIS is a big plus to many. I have handled the GH3 and it is really a lot bigger and heavier than my GH2, let alone EPL5.
So what IS better in a large part depends on what is important to you. If it is video, it will easily go to the GH3. If it is stills...could be either of both as it seems GH3 has the better ergonomics and probably more controls on the body. when it is size and weight and IS for each and every lens, it seems OMD is the better choice.
The EVF problem is a big one too I think. OMD seems to have a good EVF, never heard complaints other than from OVF users.

Personally, if I was as still shooter it would be OMD all the way.

1 upvote


Panasonic posts firmware for DMC-GH3 and announce GH3-Minute Movies Mar 29, 2013	Panasonic announces upcoming firmware update for GH3 camera and lenses Mar 6, 2013	Panasonic UK launches a 'Try Before You Buy' service for DMC-GH3 Feb 14, 2013	Panasonic announces DMC-GH3 high-end movie-focused mirrorless camera Sep 17, 2012

	Pentax Efina Jun 3, 2013
	Olympus PEN E-P5 May 10, 2013
	Samsung NX2000 May 1, 2013
	Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V Apr 24, 2013
	Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6 Apr 24, 2013
	Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 Apr 24, 2013
	Ricoh GR Apr 17, 2013
	Samsung NX1100 Apr 11, 2013
	Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF6 Apr 9, 2013
	Fujifilm FinePix S8400W Mar 22, 2013
	Fujifilm FinePix XP200 Mar 22, 2013

Considering switch from Nikon, to replace D700 ...	150
Sobering Sales Numbers for Mirrorless	150
New Pentax K-50 leaked	74
Hmmm AF fine tuning : Bullsh#t	65
* Wed C&C (No Theme) Thread, Ed. 267, 13 06 05 *	59
Praise the Macro Lenses. Post your best macros ...	49
Poor digital camera sales continue....	47
How to turn my Canon PowerShot S3 IS into a ...	42
Still no signs of an Olympus f2.8 zoom?	39
Selecting Camera	36
Help me create the best 6D system on a $3500 ...	35
USPS... The worst mail servie in the world	34
electronic first curtain shutter - on or off?	34
K5(II) SD Card Door Coming Open	33
Mirrorless & DSLR Jan-April shipment & ...	32
Sigma 60/2.8... sigma be damned (for its ...	32
Done Deal - Switched to Fuji XE-1 from ...	30
Focal reducers, why complexity for the sake of ...	30
Replacing Olympus OM-D with Fuji XE-1 or Xpro-1	29
micro 4/3s , Owls IF	29

Your email address:
Your name:

Just Posted: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 review

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3

Comments