G3 gets a aluminum body, but GH2 is plastic?

ivey3721

Member
Messages
49
Reaction score
4
Location
CA
I know the sensors are different, and there might be some difference in vedio. However, G3 gets 16M new sensor, full 1080P vedio, smaller body which is made of aluminum. GH2, however, gets a plasitic body, while it is 43% more expansive.

It is interesting to see how Panasonic positioning these 2 cameras in the market.
 
I use the buttons and wheels not present on G3 all the time, so for me the GH2 is the correct choice.

Also, I prefer the camera to have a plastic shell. That feels safer for me than aluminum. I think the internal GH2 chassis is steel, anyway.

http://m43photo.blogspot.com/
 
G3 does not have full 1080P. It has a 1080i mode that's inferior to the GH2's (interpolated up to 60i from 30i).
 
Looks like GH3 will be upgraded this year. Most important thing, G3 jpegs are way superior. There is no way Pana can sell GH2 will G3 around.
 
I certainly like my GH2. However, from marketing point of view, this seems strange to me.
 
G3 does not have full 1080P. It has a 1080i mode that's inferior to the GH2's (interpolated up to 60i from 30i).
GH2 has the same 1080 60i that comes from 30p sensor. 60p is only for 720
 
G3 does not have full 1080P. It has a 1080i mode that's inferior to the GH2's (interpolated up to 60i from 30i).
Not quite true. The G3 can only get data from the sensor 30 times a second. So it has to split each full frame into 2 parts in order to output 60i. Because of this when pieced back together, it ends up looking like 30p with no interpolation needed.

Again the G3 can only read the sensor 30 times a second. The GH2 reads it 60x a second which is why there is a problem.
 
Looks like GH3 will be upgraded this year. Most important thing, G3 jpegs are way superior. There is no way Pana can sell GH2 will G3 around.
I disagree. The GH2 is the better video camera and has better ergonomics for stills. And we still don't know if the G3's RAW files are better than the GH2's. Frankly, I don't really understand the market for the G3. It's barely smaller but less capable aside from it's marginally better jpegs.
 
G3 does not have full 1080P. It has a 1080i mode that's inferior to the GH2's (interpolated up to 60i from 30i).
Not quite true. The G3 can only get data from the sensor 30 times a second. So it has to split each full frame into 2 parts in order to output 60i. Because of this when pieced back together, it ends up looking like 30p with no interpolation needed.

Again the G3 can only read the sensor 30 times a second. The GH2 reads it 60x a second which is why there is a problem.
I haven't recoreded that much video at 1080i with the GH2 yet, but so far I have yet to see any interlacing artifacts. Doesn't seem like much of a problem to me.

The G3 does not have 1080p output. It records at 30fps and interpolates that to 1080i/60 fps.
 
From my stand point as a person that really doesn't care at all about video the G3 is the choice for me. The GH2 just doesn't offer anything I truly need. More external controls are welcome of course, but the GH2 has nothing that is worth $300-400 more to me. With the money I save I can buy the 20mm/1.7 (assuming I can find one in stock somewhere).

I'll take this as a sign th the GH3 will be stepping up a notch or two in build quality. Hopefully it will rival something like a Pentax K5.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eparks/
 
It has a much improved, it appears, sensor than my G1/GF1 and we assume G2 for less money. I can't imagine that the RAWs arent much better also.
Looks like GH3 will be upgraded this year. Most important thing, G3 jpegs are way superior. There is no way Pana can sell GH2 will G3 around.
I disagree. The GH2 is the better video camera and has better ergonomics for stills. And we still don't know if the G3's RAW files are better than the GH2's. Frankly, I don't really understand the market for the G3. It's barely smaller but less capable aside from it's marginally better jpegs.
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic
G1 gallery http://www.pbase.com/picnic/temp_g1
 
I know the sensors are different, and there might be some difference in vedio. However, G3 gets 16M new sensor, full 1080P vedio, smaller body which is made of aluminum. GH2, however, gets a plasitic body, while it is 43% more expansive.

It is interesting to see how Panasonic positioning these 2 cameras in the market.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
 
I agree. I'm just saying, if you're going to by a G3 why not spend a few more bucks and go for the flagship product?
It has a much improved, it appears, sensor than my G1/GF1 and we assume G2 for less money. I can't imagine that the RAWs arent much better also.
Looks like GH3 will be upgraded this year. Most important thing, G3 jpegs are way superior. There is no way Pana can sell GH2 will G3 around.
I disagree. The GH2 is the better video camera and has better ergonomics for stills. And we still don't know if the G3's RAW files are better than the GH2's. Frankly, I don't really understand the market for the G3. It's barely smaller but less capable aside from it's marginally better jpegs.
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic
G1 gallery http://www.pbase.com/picnic/temp_g1
 
I agree. I'm just saying, if you're going to by a G3 why not spend a few more bucks and go for the flagship product?
$700 with kit lens for G3, so I'm guessing $600 body only? That's vs. the GH2 at $900 body only. 50% price increase to go from G3 to GH2. That might be "a few more bucks" for you, but for some that's a big difference. And if one is happy with the G3 feature set why spend the extra money on a GH2? I think it's priced and packed with features appropriate for its target market, which obviously you aren't a part of. But cheer up--the GH3 will be right up your alley.
 
The price difference is $200 -- not $300-400.
MSRP on the GH2 body-only is $900; it's $600 for the G3. We haven't had time to see real world prices on the G3 yet, so I can't compare street prices.

That aside, I actually prefer the size, shape, and look of the G3. For me it's an easy choice since the camera I prefer is actually cheaper. I have never liked the front grip on my G1. I was really hoping for something more like the LX5 has; and the G3 has just that. The grip on the G1/G2/GH1/GH2 is neither large, nor small, it just never fit my hand right. I find small flat cameras comfortable to use, and I find large E05 cameras comfortable to use, for me personally the GH2 occupies some middle ground that is neither.

I want to wait and see what Olympus has in store for the E-P3, but if it doesn't blow me away I'll certainly be upgrading to the G3.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eparks/
 
For me, the biggest difference for me for keeping my GH2 and not going with the G3 is the multi-aspect sensor. I primarily shoot in 3:2, and having the native 3:2 capability of the multi-aspect sensor is a big deal for me. I prefer to have the extra horizontal AOV for wide angle use, and then the ability to switch to 4:3 or an even wider 16:9 is great.

That said, if the G3 were available 3 months ago, I probably would have gotten it instead of my GH1 as a backup (though I'm also very pleased with my GH1...especially for the $350 I paid new).
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jordansteele.com
 
I agree with you.

A metal body is more elegant if you only use it for display, but plastic absorbs the little every day bumps and scrapes with less cosmetic damage. My GF1 has a couple of noticeable areas of paint wear already. It's also slippery to hold, compared to the rubberized coating on the G1/GH1/GH2.
I use the buttons and wheels not present on G3 all the time, so for me the GH2 is the correct choice.

Also, I prefer the camera to have a plastic shell. That feels safer for me than aluminum. I think the internal GH2 chassis is steel, anyway.

http://m43photo.blogspot.com/
 
My comparison of the prices is based on 14-42mm kits. If we compare prices of body only, I think your number is right. GH2 is actualy 50% more expensive.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top