G3 versus GH2 for video in plain English

I know this topic has been discussed before, and I have read a few of the threads, but I am still confused. I have never owned a camcorder and my cameras are an Olympus E-510 and a Panasonic G1, so I know nothing at all about video capture and do not speak the lingo. The GH2 intrigued me when it was announced, but I balked at the price. The G3 seems that it will some similar video capabilities to the GH2, but at a more reasonable price.

Does anybody have an idea of how the difference between the G3 and GH2 video specifications will play out in real life? I say "specifications" because I know the G3 hasn't been tested yet.

Will there be a dramatic difference in video quality in certain situations, or will the expected difference only be apparent upon close inspection?

How big a deal is the lack of an external mike jack? Is there a workaround?

I need somebody to explain the differences in plain English, in the way that you might tell me that the Nikon D700 has an obvious dynamic range difference of several stops over my E-510, without having to resort to DXO charts, etc.

Thanks,

Bob

I'm not an expert at video.. there are some in this forum who are very good so I'll differ to them.. but based on the fact that I had a G2 and now have a GH2 and take quite a lot of video, here's my summary in plain non technical english.

1) No external mic jack on G3. On GH2 you can put on an external mic like the Video Rode Pro.

What this means? GH2 can record much better sound from an external mic. The internal mic of the G3 could be as good as the internal mic of the GH2, but in some situations you might want to record higher fidelity sound. Of course if you just record your kids first birthday etc, it might not be important.

Heck.. even with this feature, I find the built in mic on my GH2 good enough for normal use. I dont shoot documentaries or films etc so not much value to me.

2) However, the fact is that GH2 has full manual control of Video makes it stand out if you need to tweak how your end result looks. Its like the IA mode for stills vs M mode for stills. Using IA you can still take great pictures, but you cant be too creative. In M mode, you have control over ISO, Aperture, Shutter, film modes, AWB etc.. same with the full manual video modes, incl the cinema 1080p @24fps.
The GH2 lets you have greater creativity over your video recording..

Thats it. : )

Wow! Thank you. That was a big help and easy to understand. I think I'm leaning towards the GH2 now. I shoot in aperture mode most of the time for stills, but when I don't, I use manual mode. I would like to have that same control over video.

One of my biggest bugbears with the video mode in the G2 (and I suppose the G3) is that the videos are all shot in AUTO ISO. So I couldnt change something as simple as the ISO for my video ! With the GH2, I can !

Caveat here is that I am assuming (based on all published reviews etc) that the video mode control is similar to the G2, i.e. no full manual mode.

This is just an additional comment on the lack of a microphone socket on the G3.

It is not just that external microphones are likely to be significantly better than the internal microphone, there is also the fact that sometimes you need to position your microphone off camera.

I am shooting wildlife (badgers and badger cubs) in my garden at night. I need to shoot through a window to avoid disturbing the animals but I have to have the microphone outside the window to pick up the sounds that they make. I therefore use an external microphone on an extension lead.

Other examples might be where you need the microphone closer to the subject than the camera or where there is a lot of noise around the camera.

AFAIK the only "workround" for this is to record on an external digital recorder and sync in post processing.
--
Chris R

Chris R-UK said:

This is just an additional comment on the lack of a microphone socket on the G3.

It is not just that external microphones are likely to be significantly better than the internal microphone, there is also the fact that sometimes you need to position your microphone off camera.

I am shooting wildlife (badgers and badger cubs) in my garden at night. I need to shoot through a window to avoid disturbing the animals but I have to have the microphone outside the window to pick up the sounds that they make. I therefore use an external microphone on an extension lead.

Other examples might be where you need the microphone closer to the subject than the camera or where there is a lot of noise around the camera.

AFAIK the only "workround" for this is to record on an external digital recorder and sync in post processing.
--
Chris R

Click to expand...

Good info.. something i've learnt about external mics... Dont shoot nature so this is not my cup of tea, but I can see the flexibility such an arrangement might offer

robertbarber said:

How big a deal is the lack of an external mike jack? Is there a workaround?

Click to expand...

This can be a real bummer esp. in challenging situations. I shot a wedding video on a beach, using a shotgun mike with a wind sock. Without this all you would have heard was wind noise. Shot gun mikes are also a near necessity for shooting concerts and other performances.

I think this was a dumb move on Panasonic's part.

Workaround? Silent movies

lack of a mic port will be the "final straw" which will make many buy the GH2, which they will eagerly replace with the GH3. This is why I probably won't buy a G3 as an extra body...even my lowly GF1 has a mic port.

I completely understand their decision, and it doesn't really detract from the fact that the G3 is a heck of a deal. Except for the brown one, of course...

are some differences in shooting options and tools, but the quality differences will be slight. I have learned this from comparing my own clips from my A33 and GH2 (and even GF1) shot in different situations. If you really think that you will be getting into video in a big way, such as recording concerts, Etc., then get the GH2. For most people, myself 99% of the time included, the G3 would be fine.

One caveat...please read my post below about the loss of the mic port. This is an issue for me because of my need to shoot graduations and talent shows in large rooms.

extensively yet. Wonderfully light and the suspension is nice. Reviews on YouTube have been very positive.

Note: It's almost as difficult to find a 3.5 to 2.5 adapter (that actually works) as it is to find the Videomic pro!

The bottom line is how serious are you about video? Are you going to spend hours researching different video techniques, are you going to actually put a gigantic microphone on the camera(Yes it will be seen as gigantic in public places), are you going to actually use the manual controls constantly, are you going to do serious video editing….etc

If you are sure you are going to do any of those things then the GH2 should be your only choice. However, if you doubt you will do any of those things then the G3 will save you a lot of money that you can spend on lenses which can make an even bigger difference.

As I see it the GH2 enables true slow motion video because it can shoot at 60 Frames Per Second instead of the 30 FPS in the G3. You can see examples of slow motion in the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BOmbVuzkLk&t=6m17s

Other than the slow motion the videos will be surprisingly similar. The difference between 1080p and 720p is not really as big as people make it out to be provided the video is shot correctly(good lighting, proper lens…etc). The compression on the G3 is not as good as the GH2 so that does make a difference. However, I suspect both cameras will be hacked soon enough and then bit rate will be irrelevant.

So how important is video to you? Is it worth $1600(GH2+14-140mm) because that it what it costs to do it right. If not then the G3 will definitely give you acceptable results.

--
GH2, GF1, & ZS3 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
http://vimeo.com/user442745
GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums

intended it to go to the OP.

I've seen several recommendations to use an external audio recorder and then synch up the audio to the video later, regardless of whether the camera supports an external mic or not. This obviates the need for a long cord or any sort of wireless mic-to-camera set up. This also allows for much higher audio recording gear than the camera's built-in audio processing electronics.

This recommendation is assuming you are looking to do a high quality production; if not then the cheapo built-in mic would be good enough anyway.

I guess your original statement of wanting an explanation in "plain english" sums it up. Based on that I'd guess you're not a videographer, so why spend the extra amount of money for functionalities you're probably not going to use? Do you really plan on adding an external microphone? Do you really plan on doing lots of editing and color grading in post? Do you have a need for slow motion? Do you need 24p for cinema like videos?

My suggestion: get a camera that will let you do what you want it to do with the least amount of hassle, and spend the extra $$$ in lenses.

Good luck shopping!

--
http://www.nico-foto.com

This has been a helpful discussion. I am in a similar situation. I have an Olympus E620 but I am looking for a camera to both video and photo. I rarely use my video camera because I rarely want to mess around with both a camera and video camera. On the video side, I will be using the video primarily to take home videos of my young kids. Photography is both kids and just about anything else, nature etc.

The GH2 is more than I want to spend. I am leaning heavily towards the DMC-G3, I think that it will be good for the video that I need and quite a bit cheaper.