Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Hands-on Preview: Digital Photography Review

Body Elements

	In a significant upgrade over the GH2, the GH3's viewfinder is an OLED 1.7 million dot unit. Directly beneath the eyepiece you can see a sensor for automatic switching between the EVF and rear panel display. A diopter adjustment knob juts out slightly from the right edge of the rubber eyepiece cover.
	The GH3's pop-up flash is aligned with the center of the lens mount. It has a relatively low guide number of 13m at ISO 200, but does offer 24mm (equiv.) coverage to match Panasonic's recent 12-35mm F2.8 lens. You can of course attach a more-powerful external flash via the camera's hotshoe.
	The GH3 is among the more button-heavy cameras you'll find in any class, with four sitting along the camera's top plate alone. A deeper handgrip design has allowed for a second control dial just behind the shutter button. The power switch juts out from the mode dial, and you can see status lights for both power and Wi-Fi connection.
	Three of the camera's five customizable Fn buttons are located to the right of the rear OLED. A 4-way control dial with central button sits here as well. Above the 'DISP.' button you can see openings for the GH3's speaker.
	A fifth Fn button and playback button sit to the left of the EVF. Above them on the camera's shoulder is a drive mode dial, which replaces the AF mode dial found on the GH2.
	The GH3 has a dedicated drive mode dial, as opposed to the switch operation found in the GH2. A flash PC sync port sits below it on the camera's front plate.
	A 3.5mm mic socket (versus 2.5mm on the GH2) lies on the camera's left side, eliminating the need for mic owners to use an adapter. You can also see the flash pop-up button located on the viewfinder housing.
	The GH3 sports the familiar Panasonic thumb dial. With Panasonic's decision to devote the camera's second function dial to drive versus focus mode, a three-position focus mode lever now surrounds the AF/AE lock button, in a design reminiscent of the company's old Four Thirds SLRs. The movie record button has been moved from the top plat to the rear of the camera.
	The AF assist lamp has been re-positioned - much more sensibly - to the right of the lens mount where you're far less likely to inadvertently block it with your finger.
	A hotshoe sits atop the viewfinder housing. On either side of it lie the camera's stereo microphones.
	On the left hand side of the camera is a combined USB/video out connector, and a HDMI port that can be used to connect the GH3 to a monitor or external video recorder. Above them is a second rubber-flapped door concealing a headphone socket for audio monitoring.
	The GH3's SD card slot sits behind a sprung plastic door on the handgrip.
	The door to the GH3's battery compartment lies underneath the handgrip. The GH3 uses a high capacity 14Wh Li-ion battery pack (Model DMW-BLF19PP)
	The camera's tripod socket is aligned with the center of the lens mount, positioned far enough from the handgrip to allow for a battery change when the GH3 is attached to a tripod plate. The electronic connectors (shown here with cover removed) are for communication the GH3's optional vertical grip.

Comments

Total comments: 418

It it good for Filming?
How much is the cost?

0 upvotes

at when the final review??

0 upvotes

Can we expect the completion of this review some time this year? For a camera that has generated this much interest amongst core photographic and video shooters, DPReview seems to have rendered itself redundant. We need reviews to inform purchase decisions, this one has taken too long to be of use to many of us. (it will probably show up just after the review of the Phantom Flex)

2 upvotes

Is the side panel screen that folds out made of magnesium alloy as well?

0 upvotes

Very impressive video specifications with a 50-72 Mbps. I never see somethings like this. You say that is exceeded only by Canon 5D Mark III and I go to this review to see that. But is no one word about bit rate there.

0 upvotes

Of corse GH3 is in the top of image quality and in the top of the top of video quality, but what is impressed for me is a feature that nobody tolk about it. The high level of wireless control. Everysings of the camera body control can be remotely controlled wireless by Wi-Fi from about 10-20 m inclusive lifeview monitor image in a big screen of a tablet. And can tuchfocus and zoom from the tablet screen. Imagine all of this features with a motorized pan&tilt head. May be that will change the wildlife shooting style in the future. May be will no need the 10.000$ big lens to capture from big distance, while we will can do camera and lenses control wireless from the distance.

1 upvote

I only wish it had an app for the new Windows Phone and tablets.

0 upvotes

With some help from our dog I managed the drop my G5 a week before my daughter’s wedding. Other than my depleted checking account, I have been thanking my dog ever since. I haven’t found any aspect of this camera that I don’t like. The focus is ultra fast and accurate, the 1.7 million dot OLED viewfinder clearly surpasses the Olympus MD-5 and previous Lumix viewfinders. (It is so good in fact, that I far prefer this WYSIWYG viewfinder to my wife’s Nikon 5100 optical viewfinder.) The Color and dynamic range are equivalent to the Nikon. … and the Video is just unbelievable.

The body is about the same height and width as the 5100, but the depth is much smaller. Along with its wide selection (Count them, there 53) of much smaller excellent quality silent focus lenses, it is truly the “Goldilocks” camera for serious photographers and videographers. There is no other camera like it! I can’t see me ever going back to full frame or APS-C cameras.

2 upvotes

looks like the most recent messages have been taken down. I wonder why :)

0 upvotes

Maybe the process in machine could be a little better; those raws are very good !!!

1 upvote

the image Q tests make every camera look the same. Dynamic Range test section is quite good though.

0 upvotes

i am going to have it :D

0 upvotes

Am I the only one who can't see anything on these comparison pages?
And when I click on the widget -link it says the page doesn't exist on the server.

0 upvotes

I'm having the same problem- nothing is showing up in the comparison images- they were working earlier???????

0 upvotes

every time they make some changes to the site, parts of the site go down. IT staff seems a little inexperienced.

2 upvotes

It is funny how many people complain about size of GH3. Well, we'd got most features what we were asking here in many forums, except few. IMHO, this cam is a really gem among others cams, in the M43 format and as well as all dslr's. Size is perfect for what is was created: and ultimate video machine! Ups, pictures, ya it takes a pictues too, really good ones, but not the best ones (do not know why not). And then that high price for some people who will never buy it at any price, thus they complain about anything, say gh3 is too big, too expensive, its......whatever it is it is no good.

As for me who is 2/3 in video and 1/3 in photo is a really gem as mentioned above. My only hope is that all functions of this cam will finally work without problems (all products go the same path).

Waiting for final review from this site and others as well and saving money to get one soon.

Thanks all for this fine forum, where everybody is welcome and can learn alot.

Thanks again the M43 forum!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

Pana says that smaller means better. the great thing with GH3 is that it got a smaller sensor compared with the body.

0 upvotes

I agree completely on size. GH2 was too small for me, especially with 14-140 & 100-300 lenses. Plus I tended to hit the WB button accidentally. GH3 fits better and (IMO) has a better EVF; overall, the ergonomics are all good.

IQ? Not a whole lot better, but that relates to lenses more than camera. I'm noodling on those fast f/2.8 zoom lenses. But for my uses, probably not.

I will use video on this camera. GH2 was too limiting and I got tired of playing with the hacks.

My goal in going to m4/3 was to reduce carry weight (mostly is the lenses) and that goal has been realized. Sold the 7D and those big, heavy lenses.

0 upvotes

Look, the whole point of MFT was for SMALLER cameras. It obviously is no longer the case for any model, as apsc sensor cameras are just as small now! And there are some VERY nice lenses for APSC that are not larger (ie: XF 35mm f/1.4, NX 30mm f/2).
I don't see why Panasonic and Olympus stubbornly refuse to put larger sensors into their highest-end models. It really would do justice to the ones who like and use those.
The sacrifice of control over DoF really ruins it for them. At this level, one expects to not have significant limitations.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

> Look, the whole point of MFT was for SMALLER cameras

it's more for smaller lenses: smaller aperture, less glass, and cheaper manufacturing cost at the same f-number (but simply cannot do the same work, for what we need same aperture).

0 upvotes

The photo quality on the images are impressive and is a fantastic secondary option for those looking at Canon's EOS M mirrorless system. Panasonic also claims that the video quality is actually better than Canon's 5D Mark III, which is a plus.

There is a great review from one of the photographers at this year's Photo Plus workshop series in Dubai. He has gotten a hold of the this system somehow and wrote about his first hand experiences with the camera, including raw video footage and photo samples too.

http://eduardoangel.com/2013/03/26/shooting-with-the-new-panasonic-lumix-dmc-gh3-my-field-report-and-impressions/#more-6255

0 upvotes

Image quality blows away my 7D. Take a look at the image of the woman in red at 100%. My 7D has nothing close to that in detail.

0 upvotes

Yes, excellent detail, but I guess the sensor only plays a minor role in this particular picture:
The strong light an the excellent lens make it happen.

2 upvotes

ok... now compare what your 7D can do, with the images of the woman in the white dress! The lack of quality is HORRIBLE!!! I've taken pics of my daughter giving her first guitar recital in similar light conditions, and the pics are nice and clean... not a pile of noise. (NX20)

1 upvote

why you care to mention 7D in the first place is because you think that's a good camera. or you just say that G3H is better than crap.

what we don't know is whether you think G3H is a good camera or not. though we do know you want to promote it.

0 upvotes

> ok... now compare what your 7D can do, with the images of the woman in the white dress! The lack of quality is HORRIBLE!!! I've taken pics of my daughter giving her first guitar recital in similar light conditions, and the pics are nice and clean... not a pile of noise. (NX20)

Noise is overrated. If you are focusing on noise, you are not looking at the image.

0 upvotes

A preview with a list of "video features" but whose tests or findings are still TBA. Perhaps by May?

Among the most contentious questions will be whether the 50Mbs or 72Mbs offer any improvement, other than technical compliance with supposed "broadcast grade" video, without lay viewers perceiving a speck of difference in the net results. Might video shot with a GH2, or even a G5 or X900 or CX760, appear just as sharp? Might the moiré be worse than with a D5200? Might an OMD "five-axis" stabilizer be better?

0 upvotes

I hope they hit on the details about why the 50Mbs mode is so good. Bit Rate is not everything in compression. The efficiency of the compression is what really matters.

The efficiency of the GH3's 50 MBPs IBP mode is as good as any camera I have ever seen. The GH2's compression is nowhere near as complex as the GH3's and even the Hacks couldn't change that. That is why they resorted to ridiculous and unstable bit rates with all I frames.

1 upvote

I fail to see why everyone is so impressed. It seems that for a still camera the GH2 has more impressive images and the OM-D images are far better. I really was thinking that the GH3 would be good replacement for the aging Olympus E series but I don't think so. It seems the OM-D is still king and the choice is to move to it or jump ship after 34 years of using Olympus and go to Nikon or Cannon.

3 upvotes

Eeh.. maybe it's because the E-M5 records 59.94 interlaced fields per second at Full HD, 59.94 frames per second for AVCHD 720p, or 30 frames per second for Motion JPEG.

I own and use the OM-D, but honestly, I'm quite p-ed off at Olympus for putting in such outdated useless video specs. Simply not of this time.

GH3 otoh:

Full 1080/60p, true progressive-scan video at 1920x1080 and 60 frames/second. That means 60.00fps from the sensor, no frame-doubling involved. (Also 50, 24 and 25 fps!)
Bit rates as high as 72 Mbps - Dramatically higher bit rates mean very low compression and better video image quality.
All-I recording modes - Great for editing: All-I recording is basically frame-by frame compression. There's no compression involving multiple frames, so it's much easier for editing software to break into the video stream wherever you want. (The Panasonic GH3 offers AVCHD Progressive, MPEG-4 and MOV recording formats All-I recording is available with the MOV format.)

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting

1 upvote

I am going to predict a Gold award for the GH3.

1 upvote

Can you mention in the final review the fact that if you shoot in single exposure jpg only mode even with NR set to -5 it will apply the extra noise reduction for ISO 3200 and above. However, if you shoot in burst mode or with RAW files it will not apply that noise reduction.

They do this because the extra noise reduction takes awhile to process. That processing blacks out the screen and takes awhile to do. If they used the NR for burst mode it would severely limit the burst speed.

My hope is that they simply take that single exposure jpg NR out all together in a firmware update. I don't want the camera to apply any noise reduction at all if I set NR to -5.

Here is an example of what the NR blackout looks like.

http://youtu.be/hIMdxoGbNXU?t=10m47s

3 upvotes

ISO 200 minimum? Not 160?

0 upvotes

125

0 upvotes

Okay folks, who took the GH3 out on their vacation. A lot of those sample photos are definitely not Seattle or anywhere in the Pacific Northwest. Looks to me like someone went Island hopping with it. (Some nice photos though. I'm just jealous.)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

I am a happy traditional stills only DSLR shooter but this seems like a great, gutsy move by Panasonic. I finally had the chance to try an OMD and while it's clearly a great camera it looked ridiculously small in my hands (the optional grip would of course be the answer); it's always hard for a company to try the right thing even if it goes against their corporate mantra - in this case that smaller is better at the expense of everything else. If only other companies were this agile.

2 upvotes

I got the GH3 precisely because it was as if someone had shrunk my Nikon D3s bodies in the wash. The 2 new f2.8 lenses made it a no-brainer for me as a lightweight stills setup for travelling when the 2 body D3s f2.8 kit is too heavy or too hard to insure.

1 upvote

It should have been moderately smaller and lighter, however. For a m4/3 DSLM, it's large and heavy. It looks like its IQ is on par with GX1 and OMD.

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

GX1 and OMD? I have a G3 which has the same sensor as the GX1. Although I'm happy with it, it's a level below OM-D and GH3 in terms of DR and high ISO. In the comparison chart here, there's about 1 stop of difference. The comparison on the DxO mark site suggests a bigger difference.
Price/quality the G3 and GX1 are really good. But they have a different target audience. I value portability and budget more, others want more options, weatherproofing, and controls.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Seriously? It weighs next to nothing with a 12-35/2.8 on and its quite small. In fact its probably the smallest pro body on the market.

1 upvote

I'll just say, thanks for the updates.

1 upvote

at ISO 200, the exposure of GH2/3 are nearly 0.3 stops more than D5200 and E-M5 near one stop higher if the shutter speeds and T-stops are accurately in the same scale.

though all the cameras were set at ISO 200, if D5200's is at true ISO 200, then GH2/3 are really at ISO 160 and E-M5 at ISO 100. we can use DPR's tool to compare GH3 against GH2 but not D5200 or E-M5. they are not on the level ground (E-M5 at ISO 400 can be fairly compared with D5200 at ISO 200).

double exaggerated ISOs is one of the reasons why E-M5 looks so good to some eyes. that they really compare it against other cameras at one stop higher ISOs and convinced E-M5 is better.

in general, ISO100 on 4/3" should be better than ISO200 on APS-Cs because we are merely comparing equivalent ISO384 against ISO470 (ISO520 for Canon).

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Is it not relevant what glass the various cameras had mounted when the images were taken?

0 upvotes

it's very difficult that we have to find lenses of
similar angle of view (similar distances to the subjects),
similar performance (against PH) at equiv. f-number,
rectify their apertures,
fine tune the focus within a mm or two for close-ups ...

1 upvote

I don't deny it is relevant. Indeed I think it absolutely is. Much of the apparent difference in the images could be down to glass. Obviously the M43 cameras can all use the same lenses but the DSLR comparisons etc cannot.

0 upvotes

Sorry if I'm the come-late dumbo-rex, but wasn't there a dispute a while ago about whether the ISO settings of some cameras (including the OMD) not quite as purported? Is there any disclosure of which lenses were used with the respective cameras? Might they all be f/2.8 28mm eqivalen, or apples and oranges?

0 upvotes

It's ENORMOUS! Why the hell would you buy an M4/3 camera when it's as big as an APS-C DSLR? I have an OMD and for this reason alone the GH5 is no competitor (no IBIS either...)

7 upvotes

Big doesn't make it bad. In fact, it's a lot more comfortable than OM-D. What makes it bad is a small 4/3 sensor.

4 upvotes

Aren't the OMD's controls kind of tiny, close-placed, and squishy? Too dinky?

2 upvotes

Best reasons to get a GH3 (SeeRoy, the GH5 doesn't exist) are to shoot excellent video and stills with the same kit of lenses, with bulk and weight of about 1/3 that of an equivalent dSLR rig, at 1/3 or so less cost.

Pixel peepers will no doubt complain that APS-C units are slightly better, and "full frame" 24x36mm cameras are a good bit better, but the advantages are marginal for most uses and users.

8 upvotes

go put a f2.8 lens on that aps c and then come back here and comment on the size

4 upvotes

It's mostly for video use where it will usually be mounted on a tripod and size and weight don't matter much. Using a larger sensor would have increased the price and, more important, Panasonic only has lenses in this format. It's a very nice set of lenses, too.

A budget videographer could do some very solid work on this camera and save a lot of cash. And not have as much weight to carry around as with a dslr, with the lighter lenses available. I wish they had kept the size a little closer to tge GH2, as it would have made it a more attractive still camera, but it's clear they were trying to meet the needs of current GH2 users. They were probably requesting more and better control points.

1 upvote

Sorry about the mis-attribution. Panasonic's naming conventions are just too esoteric for my limited intelligence. Or memory. The video thing always puzzles me - if video was my main interest I'd be buying a video camera. Of course having the lens range available is nice but good video (ie ALL the attributes that go together to make a programme) requires a set of ergonomic and technical features that you don't get with a still camera.

1 upvote

What sized hands do you have?

0 upvotes

The Sony NEX-7 images, both JPeg and RAW, are a great reference. (If only the Olympus could go to 100 or 50 ISO?) Thanks to those below for the hints.

0 upvotes

Er... " in a design reminiscent of the company's old Four Thirds SLRs." - have I missed something? When did Panasonic do 4/3rds SLRs?

0 upvotes

They did make a couple of models back in 2006 or 2007. They were called L1 and L10, and the former was also available in a Leica version, the Digilux 3.

3 upvotes

Why article says about stereo mic, but than audio format is Mono?

0 upvotes

The audio _speaker_ is mono.

0 upvotes

A bit off topic but.....I tried the GH3 in a local camera store.
I compared the viewfinders with the GH2 and the GH2 for me won hands down. The GH3 viewfinder seemed a little smaller, darker and slightly soft. Many have commented on the GH3 viewfinder being soft but I was pretty shocked to see how small the viewfinder image appeared especially in 4:3. It was like looking down a tunnel in comparison. Of course it's a personal choice, but for me I'm hanging on to my GH2.

5 upvotes

Both the GH3 and GH2 in stock in a local camera store? In What galaxy? In my corner of Milky Way, iit's hard to find either in stock. Perhaps time warps do exist!

GH2's were at a sweet discount a while back. No longer.

0 upvotes

He had his GH2 with him, so, yes!
There truly was both GH3 and GH2 in a store - temporarely
;-)

1 upvote

Thank you Cyber Angel for defending me against John Kock from the Milky Way.

1 upvote

Brightness is not one of the strengths of OLED viewfinders. They are contrasty, which makes them look brighter. Still, I bet the brightness just wasn't set as high as it might have been.

The size is a measurable attribute. You should be able to look that up and see which is bigger. I just briefly handled a GH3 and the vf size looked OK to me. Nowhere near as big as the best dslrs, but comparable to many mirrorless models. Some, like the Sony oled used in the NEX-6 just don't work for me because I wear glasses. The eye point is poorly designed for a glasses wearer so I can't see the whole vf without jamming my glasses into my face. My Nikon V1 evf is a little smaller, but it is just right for me as I can just see the whole screen.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

1 upvote

I own both a GH2 and a GH3. GH3 EVF is more contrasty and easier for me to use on a sunny day (of which there are many here in SoCal). IQ? Not all that much different, but that's more a function of lenses anyway. Video? Lot's more and better options with GH3. Ergonomics? GH3 is far easier to use due to better button locations. Finally, GH3 colors are better, at least to my eyes.

Comment edited 52 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Nice to see that Panasonic has FINALLY fixed the weird rendition of red that their previous bodies have suffered from (compare the heart on the playing card vs the GH2, for example).

0 upvotes

still too much magenta

2 upvotes

@DPReview,

Thank you for the additional pages uploaded for comparison. I am rather accustomed to your standard photo, so the widget tool is a great benefit.

Art

1 upvote

Why does the background, or field, for the Olympus appear brighter, and can that be making the comparison with the GH3 difficult?

0 upvotes

I own GH2 , EP1 and 2 plus 12-35, 45, 25 lenses. But I also own Pentax K5 with a bunch of "limited"lenses. Call me a fanboy, but if I am about to upgrade bodies, look at the K5IIs results. Astounding and not that much bigger than a GH3! plus similar price and weather protection....

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting

1 upvote

They couldn't be much more different. Yes, they're both weatherproofed, but that's about it. The Pentax is an exceptional APS-C still camera with very weak video features barely adequate for home movies. The GH3 is a Micro 4/3 camera aimed squarely at serious video shooters. It's a capable still camera, though its price will discourage most still photographers from considering it when there are cheaper, better still cameras available. Its impressive video features are aimed at pros and serious amateurs who won't find the price excessive. The Pentax is useless to that group at any price.

Panasonic hit an accidental home run with videographers with the GH2 (maybe more of a ground-rule double) . Now they're trying for a grand slam (and got a home run just over the fence with nobody on.)

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting

1 upvote

From the studio shot, it looks (RAW) almost as good as OMD EM5 and very slightly better than GH2. So if its IQ alone; I will keep my even older GH1 happily with its smaller size and multi-aspect sensor for another two years; its not worth the investment.

But GH3 is so much more than any other m43 in terms of body handeling and featureset. So I know for coming two years I will remain confused.. will see!

0 upvotes

I'm currently using a GH2. From the studio samples I see little to recommend the GH3 vs. the GH2, so I await the full review before pulling the trigger on a GH3.

Of course, IQ isn't everything and the GH3 has many other things to recommend it (larger grip, likely faster performance, etc.) -- and certainly more video flexibility. Still the GH3 IQ, based only on the studio samples, is not promising and looks poorer (jpegs only) than the OM-D.

Alas, I far prefer Panasonic GH ergonomics over the Oly mft bodies I've used. So it's stay with my GH2 or upgrade to the GH3 at a non-trivial expense. The DPR review of the GH3 will be a major deciding factor. Considering the GH3 price is about the same as the 35-100 f/2.8 OIS lens, there are definitely priorities to consider.

1 upvote

I have both and I will tell you IMO that if you make large prints then it matters. The GH3 has much less fine noise at base ISO and this really shows in blue skies and water on larger prints. It also is a nice step up in low light, high ISO work which is not part of the DPR test.

0 upvotes

I'm disapointed that the GH3 has a lower quality JPEG output in the studio photos. I've actually changed the comparison on the page to be GH3 vs OM-D vs Nikon D7000 vs GH2. The GH3 had the least amount of detail in the comparison at ISO 200, but the colors seemed a bit better (nothing that can't be fixed by changing the Film settings). ISO3200 managed to make it better than the GH2, but the RAW images seemed to be matched, so this can probably be overcome by people who can post-process. Overall, if I had 1300 USD to spend, I would just buy one of the F2.8 lenses.
I am rather curious if the JPEG quality will be improved in a future firmware update. I find it hard to believe that Panasonic can't optimize the low ISO performance when they made the high ISO better than the previous version.

On the other hand: I find that my GH2, a camera launched in 2010, is as good (for me) as the just-launched GH3. I find this satisfying.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

JPEG quality can be improved in camera by adjusting the settings. The default sharpening in probably lower than some of the other cameras.

0 upvotes

I have a GH3 and I find the real-world performance to be much better than the GH2 - not just stills and video quality but handling and sheer enjoyment as well. The low-light capabilities are definitely better, particularly when you're shooting RAW.

After a solid month of shooting, I've yet to see the blotches of chroma noise referred to in the review, and I've found that anything up to ISO 3200 is perfectly serviceable (with a bit of help from Lightroom at that point). Mind you, that's RAW only - I haven't shot a single JPEG, because why would you? The only disappointment is the viewfinder, which is worse than useless.

5 upvotes

I agree with you about the GH3 viewfinder. Just awful. Have to say, I don't like the OM-D E-M5's viewfinder either. Glad to say I'm still happy with the GH2 viewfinder. It's sharp, clear, and bright.

0 upvotes

palinode, as someone pointed out in another comment, the lens will make a difference. when you say that the low light capabilities of the GH3 are better than the GH2, are you comparing them using the same lens? because, out of the box, the GH2 kit comes with a (relatively cheap) f3.5-5.6 lens, while the GH3 has a f2.8 lens (that's as expensive as the body itself). I'm not denying your finding, I'm just trying to get an idea of how the sensor performance has moved from one generation to the next.

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

I'm thinking about my good old GH1 and what might replace it. Good to see that the GH3 review might appear soon, so it could be compared with the OM-D E-M5's. But for me, weighing price and size and what I really need as compared to what sounds nice, the other one I'm missing is the G5 - not as capable of course, but so much lighter and cheaper. Your G5 preview, way back in July, sounded good and said you were keen to see how it performed and a review would be done. What's happened to that?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

I second to you Eric on GH1 .. IQ wise it is superior to GH2 in my opinion and GH2 and GH3 .. very little difference.. that make me stick to my old and faithful GH1. OM-D is promising with its best in class IBIS and a retro look, but then I like GH3 featureset like Wifi, elec shutter and other Audio Video factors. I guess; I will stick with my GH1 and see if Pany will give something real in future with even better IQ, multi-aspect sensor or maybe OMD's successor with Wifi and sielent shutter.

By the way here is my GH1 photo set on flickr; will be good to see what you been doing with yours too!!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hakeem-na/sets/72157631655392386/

0 upvotes

I am also caught between the GH3 and OMD to replace my GH1. I don't enjoy the ergonomics of the OMD and the GH3 is out of my budget. The G5 is nice, but feels small once you're used to the GH1/2. Now I am considering keeping the GH1 and perhaps getting a DX1.
Would be nice to know what you guys eventually decide to do.

0 upvotes

The results are very strange. The GH3 seems to perform worse than even a GX1 in these studio shots...

0 upvotes

GH3 seems to have same sensor as OMD..so if the GH3 does not have a sony sensor, does the OMD have a panasonic sensor?

They do seem to be the same if you look at performance and DXOmark.

So...Sony or Panasonic or maybe different sensors with similar performance?

0 upvotes

The word on the street is that they are both Sony chips, and yes, the same chip with different tuning...though I could be wrong.

0 upvotes

Although some people believe that Panasonic would never use a Sony sensor in their flagship camera, I think they are wrong.

Probably the same sensor as E-M5, E-PL5 and E-PM2, but maybe with different filters on top, and different signal processing.
We will hopefully know who makes that sensor soon, when Chipworks reveal the results of their analysis of the E-PM2 chip, that someone in the m4/3 forum donated to them.

0 upvotes

Looking closely at the RAW output, in no area of the scene does the GH3 do better than the GH2 and in some areas it is worse - a bit less detail for sure. Also as you push the iSO it is only slightly better than the GH2 at ISO 1600+. IQ wise then it appears a wasted opportunity.

0 upvotes

exactly, I was really thinking about upgrading, but aside from weather sealing and better native video...i don't see the point.

0 upvotes

What is the point of the RAW comparison, however, when RAW files are intended to be extensively processed? Viewing and comparing the originals serves little point that I can see, to be honest.

0 upvotes

To: MPA1 - surely the object is to get away from the idiosyncrasies of the cameras' jpg processing? At least the RAW are processed (or not) to the same extent?

0 upvotes

@hamerhead: they also moved the AF lamp in a better location. on the GH2 it's too easy to accidentally cover it with your hand while zooming.
but that's no real reason to bother upgrading.

0 upvotes

@Michael J Davis
But that is like choosing between film cameras based only on the negatives...
RAW files are SUPPOSED to be processed - by you. I really don't think that you can rely on what is said about the look of an unprocessed file that you personally may be able to get astonishing results from and AN Other may not.

0 upvotes

I was expecting a bigger improvement between the 2 and the 3. In the Raw files, there doesn't seem to be much in it until well up the ISO chain. Makes me feel good about NOT upgrading.

2 upvotes

Three unedited, full size, jpg photos I took with the GH3 (I tend to expose at -1/3 so as not to lose detail in whites): http://www.flickr.com/photos/steve_goddard/sets/72157632971815709/

0 upvotes

do you like the 12-35?

0 upvotes

The camera was announced 6 Months ago. I really like to buy it, however doing it without a deep preview by dpreview is unlikely for me...please hurry.

0 upvotes

Sorry, we know this one is late, but we're working hard on it.

2 upvotes

So far I love the GH3, but I haven't shot enough images to share yet. The one big drawback I have encountered is with Adobe, not Panasonic: if you are used to editing RAW in photoshop you will have to have CS6 or use the dng converter. I have CS5 and am very annoyed that adobe will not recognize a raw file from the GH3 - they want another $350 from me to do that. Happily the very good (or excellent - good reviews) Silkypix software included with the GH3 handles RAW files very well.

0 upvotes

Adobe: Yes, we can!

0 upvotes

when will the full review be ready?
will you compare it to olympus om-d e-m5 and sony a99?
please hurry

0 upvotes

It competes more directly with the Pentax K-30 and Sony A77, not the A99. The OMD-EM5? -- maybe, but the two are ergonomic opposites.

0 upvotes

Cameralabs has given the Gh3 an 88 "Highy recommended" - I've ordered mine and will share my first impressions soon.
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_GH3/verdict.shtml

2 upvotes

CameraLabs is awesome .. I always rely on thier reviews as much as on DpReview .. Very enthusiastic, good comparison and with real world samples ..
If you are buying it on their recommendations ... you can't go wrong mate!

0 upvotes

The Preview says that the GH3 is the same size as the Sony
A65 and A57. The Camera Size comparisons site is instructive: the top view tells the tale - the Sony bodies are considerably thicker. It is the GH3's protruding eye piece that makes the dimensions seem close. The Sony bodies are also about 13% heavier. (The GH3 weighs 78 grams less than the EM-5 with its grip too.) But it is true that the GH3 is bigger than the GH2, and we will give the DPR preview authors some latitude for poetic licence.

As has been pointed out, the big difference maker is the smaller size of m43rds lenses. And IQ is up there with the Canon 6D at low ISO levels as DxO points out.

Look forward to the full review.

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

I have tried one Panasonic Lumix GH3 for 4 hours. Now I want one.

Really a good pro camera.

8 upvotes

What I am reading on the ATOMOS tech support forum is that the HDMI outputs 60fps no matter what internal format is selected. 60fps is not supported by the Ninja, a real problem for anyone wishing to record ProRes externally.

ATOMOS states they have requested a GH3 from Panasonic for testing.

0 upvotes

Total comments: 418