Switched from G3 to GH2.. WOW

[van Ark]

Just a short message from me - to everyone considering the above..

The build quality of the GH2 is IMHO miles ahead the G3's plastic buttons and small form factor.

I had the G3 for about 14 days, and returned it - never really was happy about the build (gaps between screen and plastic, plasticcy buttons, toy-like quality in general.)

The GH2 has nicer feel to its buttons, has a larger (not so much of a difference in real life - but it still is the difference between G3 and GH2 - from pocketable and not pocketable..)

The image quality is the same - and as you all know, the video features is a lot better on the GH2..

But What I like the most, is the handling, better build (even though its plastic all the way, and not magnesium, like some of the G3), and actually I got at a cheaper price then I paid for the brand new G3.

(150 dollars cheaper than my G3 body only, for my second hand GH2 body)..

So all in all, i am very happy.

The things missing in the GH2 from the G3 is the autofocus feature where you can choose the outer-points of the screen as focus points - and the G3 had a little edge in high iso.

Sorry for this pretty messed up "mini review" - just hopes it helpes someone

Have a nice day everyone - and remember - the new iphone is getting introduced today.

mva

 

[jimboyvr]

"The image quality is the same"

Really? The G3 as good as the GH2.

And you paid how much for the gh2?

 

[mpgxsvcd]

I disagree. They all close in image quality. However, the GH2 does beat the G3 in resolution and high ISO for RAW images. It is not a big difference though.\

The colors appear to be better for the G3 jpgs. However, the GH2 can be tweaked to come very close. It is better to shoot RAW if color reproduction is your object.

The image quality is the same - and as you all know, the video features is a lot better on the GH2..

mva

--
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

 

[van Ark]

I really think image quality is close.

GH2 has the edge of dynamic range, maybe by one step - and g3 has the edge at high iso (3200+).

Skin tones were a little better on the G3 jpg's aswel - but I shoot raw, so doesnt matter much to me.

I got a 3 months old, 1.500 clicks GH2 for 550 dollars. Really a steal - but the seller had lost the original charger - so im charging the batteries in a "universal charger" which came with the gh2. But it works great, and the camera is as new. And I have ordered a new charger - 7 dollars (copy of the original.)

I am really happy with the switch from G3 to GH2 - but I think it depends on how much you value small size - vs. build/handling/video..

 

[van Ark]

Also - i actually like the screen of the GH2 better.

It seems more firm, better build, and "anti-glare" works better that on the G3. Maybe thats just me?

 

[zzzzzzzzzzz]

I really like my G3 for what it is (small and light). I see no issues with the G3's build quality. When I want to use something more substantial I use my D7000 DSLR. My D7000 isn't much bigger than a GH2, but it is a more capable camera.

 

[van Ark]

well, with that lens on your G3, it might just as well be the GH2
I only use primes / pancakes.

 

[Bob Meyer]

Have you actually compared a GH2 to your Nikon? To say the Nikon isn't much bigger is a joke. There's a huge difference in size and weight. To each his own, and if you like the G3 that's fine, I've got nothing bad to say about it, but the statement about size is simply wrong.

 

[millsart]

G3 takes nice photos, right on par with the GH2 and I wouldn't argue one or the other is better in that regard, but I just hated the ergonomics of the G3.

The lack of a real grip, lack of automatic switching with the EVF, and while not a dealbreaker alone, lack of the buttons/switches of the GH2 just made me pack it right back up and return it same day.

I had a GH1 before it, so I was perhaps more used to the GH form factor, but just could not get on with the G3 at all. GH2 cost a few hundred more and that may be a big factor for some but I just wouldn't of kept the G3 at any price.

Ironically enough, I'm now using a EP3 as its a bit better choice for me with all the newer m4/3 prime lenses that have come out due to its IBIS.

GH2 or even G3 of course are much better choices for longer zooms though

--
http://www.millsartphotography.com

 

[millsart]

G series is much smaller/easier to carry than a D5100, D7000 etc if your talking about something you can throw into your briefcase or carry on bag for a quick trip out of town.

On the other hand, when your carrying a photo bag/backpack with a variety of lenses, your laptop, tripod, filters, chargers etc, you don't really notice the difference between them, both systems can easily be carried really.

Before I got the EP3 I was taking the GH2, 7-14, 100-300 etc and it was a pretty big kit. More than I'd want to walk around with in jacket pockets and a bit much to slip into my laptop bag.

Doesn't mean its a big system, but just big for the way I wanted to carry it.

EP3 with the 12/20/45 on the other hand is small/slim enough that you really can have a couple lenses in your pocket easily.

Doesn't mean its smaller overall, because going back to 100-300 and such would then offset the size advantage

As such, its all just realtive to how your carrying it and how much other gear you've got.

Its like cell phones, some of those new smartphones I think are too big for a pocket, but if your a female and carry a purse, then you've got a totally different perspective on size and what you can carry easily

Have you actually compared a GH2 to your Nikon? To say the Nikon isn't much bigger is a joke. There's a huge difference in size and weight. To each his own, and if you like the G3 that's fine, I've got nothing bad to say about it, but the statement about size is simply wrong.

--
http://www.millsartphotography.com

 

[zzzzzzzzzzz]

Have you actually compared a GH2 to your Nikon?

yes

To say the Nikon isn't much bigger is a joke.

Ok

There's a huge difference in size and weight.

Right, a difference of .64 lbs is going to give me a real workout!

D7000:
Width 5.2 in. (132mm)
Height 4.1 in. (103mm)
Depth 3.0 in. (77mm)
Weight 24.3 oz. (690g), 1.5 lbs

D5100:
Width 5.0 in. (127mm)
Height 3.8 in. (96.5mm)
Depth 3.1 in. (78.7mm)
Weight 19.7 oz. (560g), 1.2 lbs

GH2:
(EXCLUDING PROTRUSIONS)
Width 4.88 in. (124mm)
Height 3.53 in. (89.6mm)
Depth 2.98 in (75.8mm)
Weight 13.82 oz (392g), .86 lbs.

 

[gswpete]

It's smaller in every dimension and almost half the weight.
I'd call that smaller.

I've held all three and the GH2 just feels significantly smaller in the hand (even compared to the D5100). Maybe it's the grip?

This is without factoring in lenses.

Have you actually compared a GH2 to your Nikon?

yes

To say the Nikon isn't much bigger is a joke.

Ok

There's a huge difference in size and weight.

Right, a difference of .64 lbs is going to give me a real workout!

D7000:
Width 5.2 in. (132mm)
Height 4.1 in. (103mm)
Depth 3.0 in. (77mm)
Weight 24.3 oz. (690g), 1.5 lbs

D5100:
Width 5.0 in. (127mm)
Height 3.8 in. (96.5mm)
Depth 3.1 in. (78.7mm)
Weight 19.7 oz. (560g), 1.2 lbs

GH2:
(EXCLUDING PROTRUSIONS)
Width 4.88 in. (124mm)
Height 3.53 in. (89.6mm)
Depth 2.98 in (75.8mm)
Weight 13.82 oz (392g), .86 lbs.

 

[Jorginho]

Well....percentage wise it is a lot more lightweight and it is a lot smaller. My sis has a D7000, we shoot side by side when we can...the D7000 dwarfs my Gh2. In the IQ department however, we both see little difference actually.

 

[jeffharris]

It's smaller in every dimension and almost half the weight.
I'd call that smaller.

I've held all three and the GH2 just feels significantly smaller in the hand (even compared to the D5100). Maybe it's the grip?

This is without factoring in lenses.

Absolutely. DSLR lenses are larger and heavier by far. If you want a fast zoom, you're multiplying the weight and size even further. Some of them are 2, 3 or 4 lbs. each!

When I was trying to decide between a GH2 and D7000, by looking at the specs alone, they don't look so different. I had convinced myself that there was only a marginal size/weight difference. I went to B&H and HELD both of them. The difference is dramatic. I literally started laughing at the D7000! Just look at zzzzzzzzzz's photo of the G3 and D7000 side by side. A GH2 isn't much larger than the G3.

That 10 or 11oz. difference in weight doesn't look like much on a sheet of paper, but carry it in a bag or around your neck and you will feel it. Carry it all day and hour by hour it will feel heavier and heavier. If you've ever done any climbing, mountaineering or backpacking, you'll know that every extra ounce counts ... and HURTS.... over the long haul.

 

[gulffish]

Well here is one G3 fan who will disagree with your qualitative comments. From my point of view, the G3 is solidly built and handles well and I'm not at all bothered by the use engineering polymers, lots of modern devices wouldn't exist without these materials. Here's a brief reference: http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/materials-science/material-science-products.html?TablePage=16374854

Enjoy your GH2, also an exceptional camera too.
--
Kirk

 

[Corkcampbell]

I went from a metal (Sony) A700 to a plastic, budget A33, and loved it. A700 sold. I don't have a G3, but played with one and it seemed fine to me. For many other reasons, I prefer the GH2 over the G3, but have recommended the latter to friends recently.

 

[Corkcampbell]

of the G3 is reason enough to dump it, unless you bought one made on a Monday morning!

However, I am not surprised at the "Wow" regarding other aspects of the GH2. You have gone from the loss-leader of the line to the flagship model, so there should be plenty of "Wow" - Multi-aspect sensor, ergonomics, dials, video capabilities, etc.; even little things like an external mic port make a difference.

And, your price was great; if I had seen it, I would have bought it as a second body, especially now that we know there is no GH3 appearing soon.

 

[Everdog]

If you shoot jpeg, sometimes the GH2 turns people green. Also, the G3 looks pretty good at ISO6400.

The controls are lacking, the grip is small and the video is nowhere near as good.

 

[zzzzzzzzzzz]

Just look at zzzzzzzzzz's photo of the G3 and D7000 side by side. A GH2 isn't much larger than the G3.

The G3 measures (W x H x D):
115.2 x 83.6 x 46.7 mm / 4.54 x 3.29 x 1.84 inch (excluding protrusions)
Approx. 336 g / 11.84 oz (Body only)

The GH2 measures (W x H x D):
124 x 89.6 x 75.8 mm / 4.88 x 3.53 x 2.98 inch (excluding protrusions)
Approx. 392 g / 13.82 oz （Body only）

Sizewise the GH2 slots right in between a G3 and a D7000. If a GH2 isn't much larger than a G3 then a D7000 isn't much larger than a GH2. Yes, a D7000 is a little heavier, but it has a more robust magnesium alloy body. A D5100 is lighter.

As far as lenses go, not all of the SLR lenses are heavy. Nikon's 18-55 kit lens weighs 7.2 oz. (205g). The Lumix 14-42 kit lens weighs 5.82 oz (165g).

The Lumix 14-140 F4-5.8 weighs 16.23 oz (460g). The Nikkor 18-200 F3.5-5.6 weighs 19.8 oz. (560g) and it is a faster optic.

I know that the pancake lenses are very light.

 

[MichaelKJ]

Two very different cameras with different strengths and weaknesses (depending on one's needs).

Like you, I think the GH2 is a fantastic camera.