GH3 vs. G7 for 1080p video

[jmeisejr]

The gh3 does have a higher bit rate but that means nothing. The alli bit rates on the gh3 were considered useless by the video forums and of no better quality than the lower bit rates. and the gx7 was considered to have sharper more detailed video than the gh3. The gh3 video may grade a bit better but only if panasonic hasnt improved their compression in 2 years which I found doubtful since they vastly improved compression every generation. Sharpness aliasing moire etc the g7 will be just as good. Trusts me tests have been done. There was virtually zero difference in the video quality of the gh3, gx7 and g6 in 1080p. The g7 is at least as good or better.

I can't believe you actually said something reasonable...I give credit where credit is due though. Although, I really can't believe all the other things you've been saying and then you say this? "virtually zero difference" "at least as good or better." I just don't understand some people....regardless, I still wouldn't trade my GH3 for a g7. Would be somewhat tempting in some ways, but I'd much much rather get a GH4.

 

[dulynoted]

This is all moot, of course, if you use the 4K mode on the G7 and downscale to 1080p, which is what I would recommend. This would, in fact, leave the GH3 in its dust.

...is this a joke? You do realize that the G7 only shoots 2160p at 100 Mbps and 2160p is exactly 4 times the information (pixels) as 1080p. Which means that you are taking 100 Mbps and spreading it over an area that is 4 times larger than a 1080p source which comes out to 25 Mbps per 1/4 of total pixels....I'm sure it doesn't break down exaclty like that, but regardless, there's simply no way the difference IF ANY NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE AT ALL would be so significant as to be accurately described as "leaving the GH3 in it's dust."....People like you really blow my mind.

Doesn't matter. The 4k capture downscaled to 1080p results in a full 1080p image with no missing lines. The detail would be better than the gh3, the noise and dynamic range would also be better.

It wouldn't leave it in the dust per say.....most viewers can't tell any difference between cheap camcorder 1080p and a gh4 at 4k. But it would undoubtedly be better in every measure-able way. In fact many people have tested and proved this..

 

[dulynoted]

The gh3 does have a higher bit rate but that means nothing. The alli bit rates on the gh3 were considered useless by the video forums and of no better quality than the lower bit rates. and the gx7 was considered to have sharper more detailed video than the gh3. The gh3 video may grade a bit better but only if panasonic hasnt improved their compression in 2 years which I found doubtful since they vastly improved compression every generation. Sharpness aliasing moire etc the g7 will be just as good. Trusts me tests have been done. There was virtually zero difference in the video quality of the gh3, gx7 and g6 in 1080p. The g7 is at least as good or better.

I can't believe you actually said something reasonable...I give credit where credit is due though. Although, I really can't believe all the other things you've been saying and then you say this? "virtually zero difference" "at least as good or better." I just don't understand some people....regardless, I still wouldn't trade my GH3 for a g7. Would be somewhat tempting in some ways, but I'd much much rather get a GH4.

I really have no idea why you have chosen to target me in several threads. You even went as far as to insult me in one of them and say that nothing I have said is of any use to anyone. I don't really care but it is really odd.

The g7 will outperform the gh3 in the vast majority of shooting circumstances for both stills and video. The difference probably won't be noticeable to the normal viewer, but to users and pixel peepers it will definitely favor the g7. The g7 is a better camera unless one really needs weather sealing and can't afford a gh4.

I think most people around here would have a hard time understanding why you would bring up so many dead threads just to launch a sudden, unprovoked, personal attack on me.

 

[acepaul]

Just in case anybody reads through this thread, here is the truth (from a person that owns both a GH3 and the latest G7 (G7 purchased Nov 2016):

The GH3 records very high quality 1080p in both 60fps and 30 fps. Useable up to 1600 ISO.

The G7 does not record quality video at the 1080p setting, regardless of whether you set it to AVCHD or .mp4. The only way to achieve good quality video with the camera is to shoot in 4k and convert to 1080p in post. The difference in quality is stunning. I have done side by side tests and it is easy to spot the difference.

Honestly, I would rather have a second GH3 since I am now forced to shoot in 4k for a second cam to maintain quality. Also, the downside to shooting in 4k (besides my need to buy more hard drives) is you can not use the tele convert function to achieve a bit of lossless digital zoom. Another side note, battery life on the GH3 is a lot better than the G7.

The only advantage so far in using the G7 for 1080p is the auto focus is much improved over the GH3.

 

[dulynoted]

Just in case anybody reads through this thread, here is the truth (from a person that owns both a GH3 and the latest G7 (G7 purchased Nov 2016):

The GH3 records very high quality 1080p in both 60fps and 30 fps. Useable up to 1600 ISO.

The G7 does not record quality video at the 1080p setting, regardless of whether you set it to AVCHD or .mp4. The only way to achieve good quality video with the camera is to shoot in 4k and convert to 1080p in post. The difference in quality is stunning. I have done side by side tests and it is easy to spot the difference.

Honestly, I would rather have a second GH3 since I am now forced to shoot in 4k for a second cam to maintain quality. Also, the downside to shooting in 4k (besides my need to buy more hard drives) is you can not use the tele convert function to achieve a bit of lossless digital zoom. Another side note, battery life on the GH3 is a lot better than the G7.

The only advantage so far in using the G7 for 1080p is the auto focus is much improved over the GH3.

That's funny considering that when the gh3 released multitudes of users found the g6 and gx7 to produce better video quality than the gh3. You can look at the various video forums around the internet and see that many chose g6's over the gh3 even after price drops. Plus panasonics 1080p is fantastic in almost every model and practically every review bares this out.

 

[glowingshutter]

Just in case anybody reads through this thread, here is the truth (from a person that owns both a GH3 and the latest G7 (G7 purchased Nov 2016):

The GH3 records very high quality 1080p in both 60fps and 30 fps. Useable up to 1600 ISO.

The G7 does not record quality video at the 1080p setting, regardless of whether you set it to AVCHD or .mp4. The only way to achieve good quality video with the camera is to shoot in 4k and convert to 1080p in post. The difference in quality is stunning. I have done side by side tests and it is easy to spot the difference.

Honestly, I would rather have a second GH3 since I am now forced to shoot in 4k for a second cam to maintain quality. Also, the downside to shooting in 4k (besides my need to buy more hard drives) is you can not use the tele convert function to achieve a bit of lossless digital zoom. Another side note, battery life on the GH3 is a lot better than the G7.

The only advantage so far in using the G7 for 1080p is the auto focus is much improved over the GH3.

That's funny considering that when the gh3 released multitudes of users found the g6 and gx7 to produce better video quality than the gh3. You can look at the various video forums around the internet and see that many chose g6's over the gh3 even after price drops. Plus panasonics 1080p is fantastic in almost every model and practically every review bares this out.

24Mbps video 1080p video will not match up to 60 or 70 Mbps 1080p video, when both are done by the same manufacturer. Now, 24Mbps videos from the G7 and G6 will beat high bitrate videos from the E-M5 II because the codec wasn't as good on the Oly.

But 24Mbps (for 24p) in h.264 is not sufficient to capture pro quality 1080p without incredibly high quality NR being done prior to encoding. You can encode pro quality 1080p in far less than 24Mbps after being post-processed, but, usually, there just isn't sufficient processing power in a camera to do this in real-time. That may change, but I don't think it's there yet.

That's the reason Panasonic only puts their high bitrate 1080p video on the GH bodies. This isn't a marketing gimmick. The GH bodies genuinely do better 1080p. Even if the video can be made very sharp with 24Mbps, you usually can't do as high quality NR on this heavily compressed video in post as you can on a higher bitrate video that captured the noise more faithfully.

--
Auto focus is a work of the devil.
I post from a tablet, spelling errors are common, berry common.
https://streetsmartphotos.blogspot.com
https://www.flickr.com/photos/streetsmartphotos/

https://twitter.com/x/status/684368424626073604

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[dulynoted]

Just in case anybody reads through this thread, here is the truth (from a person that owns both a GH3 and the latest G7 (G7 purchased Nov 2016):

The GH3 records very high quality 1080p in both 60fps and 30 fps. Useable up to 1600 ISO.

The G7 does not record quality video at the 1080p setting, regardless of whether you set it to AVCHD or .mp4. The only way to achieve good quality video with the camera is to shoot in 4k and convert to 1080p in post. The difference in quality is stunning. I have done side by side tests and it is easy to spot the difference.

Honestly, I would rather have a second GH3 since I am now forced to shoot in 4k for a second cam to maintain quality. Also, the downside to shooting in 4k (besides my need to buy more hard drives) is you can not use the tele convert function to achieve a bit of lossless digital zoom. Another side note, battery life on the GH3 is a lot better than the G7.

The only advantage so far in using the G7 for 1080p is the auto focus is much improved over the GH3.

That's funny considering that when the gh3 released multitudes of users found the g6 and gx7 to produce better video quality than the gh3. You can look at the various video forums around the internet and see that many chose g6's over the gh3 even after price drops. Plus panasonics 1080p is fantastic in almost every model and practically every review bares this out.

24Mbps video 1080p video will not match up to 60 or 70 Mbps 1080p video, when both are done by the same manufacturer. Now, 24Mbps videos from the G7 and G6 will beat high bitrate videos from the E-M5 II because the codec wasn't as good on the Oly.

Panasonic constantly improves it's own codecs. I would be surprised if the 1080p video from the gh3 is still better in any measureable way than the g80.

But 24Mbps (for 24p) in h.264 is not sufficient to capture pro quality 1080p without incredibly high quality NR being done prior to encoding. You can encode pro quality 1080p in far less than 24Mbps after being post-processed, but, usually, there just isn't sufficient processing power in a camera to do this in real-time. That may change, but I don't think it's there yet.

That doesn't change the fact that hundreds of video professionals from various forums have said the gh3 was great,,,,,but man still chose the g6 and gx7 instead because the g6 was just as good and had more character, and the gx7 was actually considered to give sharper video.

That's the reason Panasonic only puts their high bitrate 1080p video on the GH bodies. This isn't a marketing gimmick. The GH bodies genuinely do better 1080p. Even if the video can be made very sharp with 24Mbps, you usually can't do as high quality NR on this heavily compressed video in post as you can on a higher bitrate video that captured the noise more faithfully.

Of course the larger file size comes with some added benefit. But is that benefit important? According to most the 77 mbps files from the gh3 where useless. Most people recommended that you stick to 50mbps as the max. 77 mbps is too low for all-1 encoding. The biggest benefit would be to grading, but the 24mbps video grades pretty well anyways and the g7 and g80 both offer cinelike d to give you more capability to grade your image than the gh3 gives you. Compared side by side I doubt the difference is large enough to matter and I would bet that the comparison would favor the g7 or g80 (especially if you take the g80's evolution as an overall camera into account. It is pretty much the best m43 body available other than the em1 mark II and at a fantastic price low enough to make you wonder why anyone would bother with a gh3)

 

[glowingshutter]

Just in case anybody reads through this thread, here is the truth (from a person that owns both a GH3 and the latest G7 (G7 purchased Nov 2016):

The GH3 records very high quality 1080p in both 60fps and 30 fps. Useable up to 1600 ISO.

The G7 does not record quality video at the 1080p setting, regardless of whether you set it to AVCHD or .mp4. The only way to achieve good quality video with the camera is to shoot in 4k and convert to 1080p in post. The difference in quality is stunning. I have done side by side tests and it is easy to spot the difference.

Honestly, I would rather have a second GH3 since I am now forced to shoot in 4k for a second cam to maintain quality. Also, the downside to shooting in 4k (besides my need to buy more hard drives) is you can not use the tele convert function to achieve a bit of lossless digital zoom. Another side note, battery life on the GH3 is a lot better than the G7.

The only advantage so far in using the G7 for 1080p is the auto focus is much improved over the GH3.

That's funny considering that when the gh3 released multitudes of users found the g6 and gx7 to produce better video quality than the gh3. You can look at the various video forums around the internet and see that many chose g6's over the gh3 even after price drops. Plus panasonics 1080p is fantastic in almost every model and practically every review bares this out.

24Mbps video 1080p video will not match up to 60 or 70 Mbps 1080p video, when both are done by the same manufacturer. Now, 24Mbps videos from the G7 and G6 will beat high bitrate videos from the E-M5 II because the codec wasn't as good on the Oly.

Panasonic constantly improves it's own codecs. I would be surprised if the 1080p video from the gh3 is still better in any measureable way than the g80.

But 24Mbps (for 24p) in h.264 is not sufficient to capture pro quality 1080p without incredibly high quality NR being done prior to encoding. You can encode pro quality 1080p in far less than 24Mbps after being post-processed, but, usually, there just isn't sufficient processing power in a camera to do this in real-time. That may change, but I don't think it's there yet.

That doesn't change the fact that hundreds of video professionals from various forums have said the gh3 was great,,,,,but man still chose the g6 and gx7 instead because the g6 was just as good and had more character, and the gx7 was actually considered to give sharper video.

I realize that. I read those forums too, but it wasn't unanimous.

Loading…

www.personal-view.com

http://www.eoshd. com/comments/topic/2660-panasonic-g6-vs-gh2-video-test/?page=6

I'll do a comparison at some point with different Panasonic cameras at different bitrates and post it here.

Note: Remove space before "com" on the EOSHD link to make it work.

That's the reason Panasonic only puts their high bitrate 1080p video on the GH bodies. This isn't a marketing gimmick. The GH bodies genuinely do better 1080p. Even if the video can be made very sharp with 24Mbps, you usually can't do as high quality NR on this heavily compressed video in post as you can on a higher bitrate video that captured the noise more faithfully.

Of course the larger file size comes with some added benefit. But is that benefit important? According to most the 77 mbps files from the gh3 where useless. Most people recommended that you stick to 50mbps as the max. 77 mbps is too low for all-1 encoding. The biggest benefit would be to grading, but the 24mbps video grades pretty well anyways and the g7 and g80 both offer cinelike d to give you more capability to grade your image than the gh3 gives you. Compared side by side I doubt the difference is large enough to matter and I would bet that the comparison would favor the g7 or g80 (especially if you take the g80's evolution as an overall camera into account. It is pretty much the best m43 body available other than the em1 mark II and at a fantastic price low enough to make you wonder why anyone would bother with a gh3)

--
Auto focus is a work of the devil.
I post from a tablet, spelling errors are common, berry common.
https://streetsmartphotos.blogspot.com
https://www.flickr.com/photos/streetsmartphotos/

https://twitter.com/x/status/684368424626073604

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

--
Auto focus is a work of the devil.
I post from a tablet, spelling errors are common, berry common.
https://streetsmartphotos.blogspot.com
https://www.flickr.com/photos/streetsmartphotos/

https://twitter.com/x/status/684368424626073604

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram