Reading mode: Light Dark

Is the GH2 worth the premium over the G3 if I don't care about Video?

Go to last post
robonrome

robonrome

Senior Member
Messages
2,335
Solutions
2
Reaction score
1,299
Location
Australia
Coming to appreciate my G3 especially for the IQ and speedy focus, but I do miss the absence of more manual controls I would normally have on my canon DSLRs.

The GH2 has same sensor and focus but a more DSLR feel and look to it with more manual controls, but it is substantially more expensive - more than I can understand on a superficial view. I presume this is to do with it's great capability and configuration for that thing called video?

Anyone who is primarily a stills shooter choose the GH2 over the G3 I'd be interested in your reasoning and whether you thought it worth the extra/

thanks,

rob
 
robonrome said:
Coming to appreciate my G3 especially for the IQ and speedy focus, but I do miss the absence of more manual controls I would normally have on my canon DSLRs.
Click to expand...
robonrome said:
The GH2 has same sensor and focus but a more DSLR feel and look to it with more manual controls, but it is substantially more expensive - more than I can understand on a superficial view. I presume this is to do with it's great capability and configuration for that thing called video?
Click to expand...
GH2 has different (I'd say"better) sensor.
robonrome said:
Anyone who is primarily a stills shooter choose the GH2 over the G3 I'd be interested in your reasoning and whether you thought it worth the extra/
Click to expand...
If I were in position to select ,I'd chose GH2. The reasoning depends on the scale of the reasons.

For me handling and my integration with camera means much more than shape factor, for others it can be opposite.
robonrome said:
thanks,

rob
Click to expand...
--
MFT in progress

 
I bought the GH2, over the G3, because I liked the controls better. The larger grip is nice too. Having said that, if I had picked up a G3 I don't think I'd pay to "upgrade" to a GH2.

The sensors are most likely the same, but dpreview was actually able to get a tiny bit better performance from the G3 (probably just sensor to sensor variance, or possibly a product of the noise in the circuitry of the GH2 vs. the G3.

Best to wait, to see what Panasonic might have in store for the next generation.
robonrome said:
Coming to appreciate my G3 especially for the IQ and speedy focus, but I do miss the absence of more manual controls I would normally have on my canon DSLRs.

The GH2 has same sensor and focus but a more DSLR feel and look to it with more manual controls, but it is substantially more expensive - more than I can understand on a superficial view. I presume this is to do with it's great capability and configuration for that thing called video?

Anyone who is primarily a stills shooter choose the GH2 over the G3 I'd be interested in your reasoning and whether you thought it worth the extra/

thanks,

rob
Click to expand...
 
GH2 has

1) Multi aspect sensor - I shoot quite often in 3:2 and dont lose many mpx
2) 24p mode for video + FULL Manual controls over Video
3) Hackable. With the video hack, it is rated even better than the Red One.
4) Better Grip and controls.
5) Better EVF. 1.5 Mil dot to 1.44 mil dot in the G3
6) SH burst mode of 40fps @ 4mpx
7) In DXO, the GH2 sensor is rated higher than the G3
 
Winston Loo said:
GH2 has

1) Multi aspect sensor - I shoot quite often in 3:2 and dont lose many mpx
Click to expand...
Exactly. The GH2 sensor is not the same as the G3 sensor: it's bigger. If you always shoot 4:3 aspect ratio, then the GH2 and G3 have almost the same resolution, but if you adjust your aspect ratio to suit the subject, then the GH2 will deliver a higher resolution image than the G3, and a slightly wider angle one as well (for any given lens and zoom setting). The GH2 sensor is oversized enough to produce 4:3, 3:2, and 16:9 images without cropping. Only the 1:1 (square) aspect ratio is a crop.
Ag_Paladin said:
2) 24p mode for video + FULL Manual controls over Video
3) Hackable. With the video hack, it is rated even better than the Red One.
4) Better Grip and controls.
5) Better EVF. 1.5 Mil dot to 1.44 mil dot in the G3
Click to expand...
I think the GH2 EVF is a bit larger so it can display full sized preview images in all 3 native aspect ratios. I assume that when set to 4:3, the number of pixels used is the same as the G3.
Ag_Paladin said:
6) SH burst mode of 40fps @ 4mpx
7) In DXO, the GH2 sensor is rated higher than the G3
Click to expand...
Yeah, I noticed that too.
--
Peter Epstein
 
Peter Epstein said:
Winston Loo said:
GH2 has

1) Multi aspect sensor - I shoot quite often in 3:2 and dont lose many mpx
Click to expand...
Exactly. The GH2 sensor is not the same as the G3 sensor: it's bigger. If you always shoot 4:3 aspect ratio, then the GH2 and G3 have almost the same resolution, but if you adjust your aspect ratio to suit the subject, then the GH2 will deliver a higher resolution image than the G3, and a slightly wider angle one as well (for any given lens and zoom setting). The GH2 sensor is oversized enough to produce 4:3, 3:2, and 16:9 images without cropping. Only the 1:1 (square) aspect ratio is a crop.
Click to expand...
Something else about the multi-aspect ratio capability. A GH2 owner once commented that they really like shooting UWA, and with the GH2, they can actually capture an even wider field of view than any other m43 camera without losing resolution.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/
 
Only if you don't already own a G3
 
453C said:
Something else about the multi-aspect ratio capability. A GH2 owner once commented that they really like shooting UWA, and with the GH2, they can actually capture an even wider field of view than any other m43 camera without losing resolution.
Click to expand...
Good point. Here is a graphic that helps show the difference:

 
Second time's a charm:

 
The left side is for the older models, not the G3, but it is still useful to visualize how the different aspect ratios are handled: by cropping the top and bottom of the 4:3 native image from the sensor).

Here are the numbers:
4:3 G3: 4592 x 3448, GH2: 4608 x 3456
3:2 G3: 4576 x 3056, GH2: 4752 x 3168
16:9 G3: 4576 x 2576, GH2: 4976 x 2800
1:1 G3: 3424 x 3424, GH2: 3456 x 3456

Pixel pitch in microns: G3: 3.75, GH2: 3.63
 
  • Multi aspect sensor. 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 all keep the same diagonal angle of view (a benefit for video as much as it is for stills, it ultimately means you get to use every bit of the lens that you paid for).
  • More physical controls. Makes the kinds of adjustments you want to make quickly that much easier.
  • Slightly less noisy sensor from what I can tell (very marginal difference though).
  • Superior ergonomics for larger lenses.
  • Eye sensor option. If you want the viewfinder to turn on when you bring the camera to your eye, the GH2 has that, and the G3 requires you to press a button.
  • Slightly faster motor drive, at 5FPS. (G3 does 4FPS)
  • Slightly longer battery life (on the other hand, the G3 has a less expensive battery and fully compatible third party batteries available)
The G3 does have superior JPEG performance, however. If you're a JPEG shooter primarily, you'll get superior image quality out of the G3.

I bought my GH2 close to when the G3 was announced. I specifically chose the GH2 over the G3 for those reasons. The fact that it is still to this day the best specced "HDSLR" on the market for overall video performance and efficiency is just icing on the cake for me. I'm a RAW shooter.

--
http://www.photoklarno.com
 
thanks Guys, sounds like there's not enough in it (in my case) to warrant an "upgrade". I'll stick with the G3.
 
the sensor is better - cleaner with no banding issues as well as Multi aspect ratio .. the body is like the proper G series (1 GH1 & 2) and not like a dumbed down P&S version so handles infinately better - WHY they removed the grip from the G3 is a mystery, the very deep EVF and ANY lens fitted (even the 14mm) makes the camera as bulky as a G1/2 anyway ..

--
A Problem is only the pessimistic way of looking at a challenge

 
However, if you have no problems with the IQ of the G3 and know, absolutely, that you will never, never acquire an interest in "that thing", then the only difference is the body/controls, auto LCD/EVF switching (or whatever it's called), as you won't need an external mic port, etc.

But, be warned...I had absolutely no interest in video a couple of years ago, didn't even try it on my GF1 for months. Now, it's a priority, fun - enjoying putting movies on YouTube - and led me to buy an A33, A77, and a GH2. I do like the controls, etc., of the GH2 so if I lost mine and had no interest in video, I'd still get another over a G3.
 
For a stills photographer, the GH2 has the best usability and ergonomics of any m4/3 camera so far. The control layout is dominated by labeled switches , which gives you information about the state of the camera, immediately, not necessary to turn it on for that. It is more comfortable to hold than the G3, especially with larger lenses.

The G3 has in comparison not such a good user interface. It is more touch driven, and for unknown reasons lacks the eye sensor, which would be even more useful for this type of camera.

The grip of the G3 is too small, and the thumb wheel is worse (smaller, less comfortable to turn).

To me the build quality of the GH2 is also better, the thin metal cover of the G3 looks shiny, but I doubt that it is more durable than the polycarbonate body of the GH2.

The GH2 has a mulitaspect sensor and a slightly better (larger) view finder.

--
Thomas
 
For me, the GH2 is too big, cluttered with buttons and controls and undesirable.

I do not like the current fad of having separate buttons and controls for every feature imaginable, especially, when you have different cameras where the buttons are placed differently.

The G3 is very simple to use, small and light without the clutter.

I use my G3 with my 100-300 with little effort. It goes very well with my 9-18.

And, unlike the poster who promotes the myth that you need to press the button for the EVF, this is not the case!!

The other myth is that the G3 is touch screen intensive. 99.9% of the time, my screen is turned inwards and I use the EVF.

It is really tiresome when posters promote myths as fact.

As far as stills go, you will be hard pressed to see any difference - especially on a monitor - unless you participate in the trendy pixel peeping.

Allan
robonrome said:
Coming to appreciate my G3 especially for the IQ and speedy focus, but I do miss the absence of more manual controls I would normally have on my canon DSLRs.

The GH2 has same sensor and focus but a more DSLR feel and look to it with more manual controls, but it is substantially more expensive - more than I can understand on a superficial view. I presume this is to do with it's great capability and configuration for that thing called video?

Anyone who is primarily a stills shooter choose the GH2 over the G3 I'd be interested in your reasoning and whether you thought it worth the extra/

thanks,

rob
Click to expand...
 
Allan Brown said:
And, unlike the poster who promotes the myth that you need to press the button for the EVF, this is not the case!!
Click to expand...
You need to press the button to switch between the EVF and the LCD. You can still do that if you want to on the GH2, but you also have the option to use the eye sensor.

--
http://www.photoklarno.com
 
I got the G3 because it wasn't worth the extra $ to me. At first it seemed too small but I quickly adjusted and I find it quite comfortable and easy to hold. Only problem is that sometimes I accidentally hit a button with my thumb, but I'm not paying hundreds of dollars extra for something different.

Also, i find the touch interface simple and nice.

It produces great pics.
 
Allan Brown said:
For me, the GH2 is too big, cluttered with buttons and controls and undesirable.

I do not like the current fad of having separate buttons and controls for every feature imaginable, especially, when you have different cameras where the buttons are placed differently.

The G3 is very simple to use, small and light without the clutter.

I use my G3 with my 100-300 with little effort. It goes very well with my 9-18.

And, unlike the poster who promotes the myth that you need to press the button for the EVF, this is not the case!!

The other myth is that the G3 is touch screen intensive. 99.9% of the time, my screen is turned inwards and I use the EVF.
Click to expand...
So and how do yiu switch drive modes for instance? Sure, you can do that without touchscreen by pressing a button and and then select the mode by pressing something again. With the GH2 you can just use a switch, which you can operate even before the eye is on the finder or blindly, while looking through the finder.

To me it si pretty clear, which method is quicker and less awkward.

(...)
Allan Brown said:
Allan
robonrome said:
Coming to appreciate my G3 especially for the IQ and speedy focus, but I do miss the absence of more manual controls I would normally have on my canon DSLRs.

The GH2 has same sensor and focus but a more DSLR feel and look to it with more manual controls, but it is substantially more expensive - more than I can understand on a superficial view. I presume this is to do with it's great capability and configuration for that thing called video?

Anyone who is primarily a stills shooter choose the GH2 over the G3 I'd be interested in your reasoning and whether you thought it worth the extra/

thanks,

rob
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Thomas
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top