Just Posted: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 review

@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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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).

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

Even the G1 performed well for me.

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.

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.

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?

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)

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.

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.

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.

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 :)

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

@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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

so the score is objective while the award is subjective.

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

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!

Olympus fanboys are much more aggressive than Panasonic fanboys.

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

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

A camera's wight is only a real concern if you don't have a cleric who can Turn Undead in your party.

NEx and M43 can both survive. It will be interesting to see if Sony can make a fast zoom that matches the small size of their bodies though.

Nope, you are wrong. There are no small APS-C lenses, therefore MFT will always win.

Try putting *any* tele lens on an APS-C mirrorless. It's nonsense.

FF bodies were the perfect balance with manual focus FF lenses.
APS-C bodies are the perfect balance with APS-C AF lenses.
MFT & Nikon 1 bodies are the perfect balance with tiny MFT/1 lenses.

Canon EF-M 22mm f/2.0 pancake
weight 105g

20mm NX Camera iFunction Pancake Lens
75g

@fdfgdfgdgf
EOS-M with small pancake is small indeed. But try to af anything.. and you'll see why m4/3 whips Canon's A## here.
m4/3 is the best mix of IQ, performance, weight.
EOS-M is stillborn, unless canon fixes the AF

Yes, APS mirrorless with a pancake can be impressively small. But what about telephoto, and fast telephoto? (If such a thing even exists for the system in question...). That is why (IMO), whilst APS mirrorless is a great small/walkabout accompaniment to a DSLR for short to portrait FL's, if you want a *complete system* that is small, M43 is the only solution right now.

Where is the APS-C equivalent of 70-200mm? After all this years only M43 and FF have this kind of lens

Yeah, Canon sure are leading and setting the mirrorless world on fire!

Seriously, whatever self-serving comment Canon peopke have to say about this market should be taken with a grain of salt. DSLR's, yeah, they can speak with some authority. Mirrorless? They have been a bad joke so far.

I personally prefer my OM-D or the GH3 for stills than the EOS-M or NEX 7. Mainly it comes down to handling and a wider range of Lumix & Olympus lenses.

Very good AF and smaller lens sizes also help as do exotic options like Vogitlander 25mm F0.95 and SLR Magic 12mm F1.6.

I'd also give the OM-D the edge on image quality over the EOS-M and NEX 7.

Compare the range of Olympus and Lumix lenses for Micro Four Thirds to E-mount and EOS-M. Sony and Canon have a real weakness with their mirrorless lenses, there's just too few of them. AF is so slow on the EOS-M it could be considered completely defective. Voigtlander Nokton 25mm F0.95 with 5 axis stabilisation vs Sony E-mount 50mm F1.8 OSS or the very pricey 24mm F1.8, bit of a no contest really!