Personal View site logo
Official Panasonic GH3 topic
  • 1288 Replies sorted by
  • is anyone from panasonic reading this?

  • @Astro

    Click my name, search for my posts. They got buried in the thread, but check em out.

  • @cinemasteve87

    I was writing a long comment but forget about it.

    In my opinion... you can't compare the price range of a FullFrame and a M43, it's not the same... i'm not talking about the quality, etc.. but a production of a FullFrame Sensor cost more than a M43.

    Now the GH3 don't cost that much less than a FullFrame and if you compare the GH3 to the another FullFrame product with a lot interesting stuff for videographer... the only difference is 700$/700euros, also in my opinion the A99 is not the official price and i will not be surprised to see after the release a price range of the A99 less than 1900$/1900euros... remember the A77 announcement price and the official release huge price difference.

    And if you check correctly the GH3 + 12-35 is announced at 1800$ when the d600 + 24-85 can be find at 2300$ Also the GH3 have almost the same size than the D600

  • @Neverprod

    So, A99 price will drop, but GH3 won't. Data directly from the top?

    Also the GH3 have almost the same size than the D600


  • @all

    Considering @Neverhood, I absolutely do not belive that @Neverhood ever touched GH3.

  • @Astro

    Its hard to describe, but somehow the GH2 has a more pleasing image, the P-Bloom video is blunt and trying to look filmic and the other stuff, cat etc...looks videoish and Sony like.

    +1. After watching some GH2 material I just shot yesterday, I realized the key to it's great look is the texture. The GH3, so far, has no texture at all. It's the same syndrome canon, sony, and nikon all suffer from. Everything looks like the SAME MATERIAL. Skin looks the same as a clothes, dirt looks the same as grass, windows look like they're made out of clear-wood. Nothing has TEXTURE to it. The GH2, as well as the BMCC, Red, and Alexa, all render textures amazingly well. Skin on the GH2 looks matte, it looks normal and real. Skin on the GH3/7D look like they're wrapped in plastic. Everything has that dull-clay look. I hate it. I'd rather take the hit in DR, as I really only use my GH2 in controlled circumstances anyways.

  • One remark about the different quality of the GH3 clips you find. Not all GH3 at the Photokina were the same. The scenes I made on Monday, with the low light and the blue, were done with a 14-140 lens. The one from Wednesday with more yellow, had the new 12 - 35 2.8 lens on.

    2 GH3 had WiFi, the others not. With most of them I could change the video quality, with one not. Markus Matthes said, they got the silent shutter to work in 2 models, not in the others. This clearly shows, that the GH3 at the Photokina were in an early stage of firmware, maybe even with different firmware (I did not check unfortunately) so that can be the reason for different results.

  • @AKED Sounds like it would be difficult to keep tabs on. Thanks for fighting the good fight. :)

  • @bwhitz This is just a hunch but the GH3 is touted as having low noise high ISO performance do to its noise reduction. Could you be seeing some of the 'smoothing' effects of this in the GH3's video?

  • Whatz the release Germany ?

  • This all sounds a lot like the GH1 to GH2 kind of comments. Also sounds like the early BMC kind of comments. When will people learn to have a little patience and not be too overly judgmental about pre-production videos? Without a finished product out in the wild to really put it thru it's paces, we really can't be sure what the final GH3 is gonna look like.

    The comments about the look of the footage seem a bit dubious to me in that we know these are not final products and based on the info we have, likely none of the guys doing videos really knew a darned thing about the new camera. I read countless reviews from testers who found out after their review that they made some mistakes in settings on the camera due to user error. Not being familiar enough with the camera to realize that they had some setting wrong or whatever.

    I can understand some pessimism due to not being totally blown away by the promos, but I also think this community has enough experience to know that it doesn't make sense to be premature in evaluating new cameras. There have been some bad signs, but still it's hard to say that Pany simply won't be able to address the image issues. Also how much of those issues are user error and how much is a real technical limitation of the camera?

  • @Aria

    People never change :-)

    I'll try to collect all mentioned GH3 deficients at wiki page.

  • I was waiting all the same: D recess and just like the GH2, the GH series is nothing without vitaly! For my part the genies are not Panasonic lol, quite the contrary.

    In France, there is a promotion in certain shop

    GH2 + 14-140mm has nine 899euros: D, I may be tempted me was the price, considering how my first gh2 suffered shock lol ... In case.

  • May be Panasonic placed on the GH3's hack to boost its sales. The best isn't that Vitaly and other announce "we will not work on GH3 hack"? Panasonic has a few weeks to create the best possible firmware effort required by users.


  • @Astro

    I wouldn't worry too much about how other people's video looks (particularly when it's uploaded to Vimeo). There is no real alternative to waiting for a GH3 (buy or borrow) and evaluating it yourself.

    There are so many variables for settings, acquisition, editing and uploading that making a decision based on how someone else shot and edited their GH3 material is basically meaningless. For me anyway.

    I'm getting one asap...and intend to test the crap out of it relative to my GH2's (different hack settings). Then I'll know if it's a worthwhile upgrade or not.

  • @Neverprod

    Gh3 + pana 12-35/2.8 IOS => 855g

    D600 + nikkor 24-70/2.8 (NO ios) => 1660g

    D600 + nikkor 24-85/2.8-4 (NO ios) => 1305g

    D600 + nikkor 24-85/3.5-4.5 VR => 1220g

    And that's just a "one lens equipment" comparison...

  • @Tron

    Your posts seem to me me those of Barry Green when people complained about AF100...

  • @Aria

    I wrote the same thing a thousand of posts before: When the GH2 was announced and first videos came out all the people here and on dvx were crying and complaining about video quality and a bunch of other things. "I will keep my GH1" was the most common shout. Then all we know the end of the story....

  • To upgrade to GH3 or stay with GH2?

    I see it this way: I bought my GH2 last year and like with other purchases (software, even cars).. I may well find I choose to skip one version and then leapfrog to the next; in this case, a hypothetical GH4.

    I find myself thinking the way we did with Australian built Holden cars. There was a new model every year. The new body style came out one year; often with a few bugs. The following year, there was only a subtle body change but they got everything right under the bonnet.

    Now, will the GH3 turn out to be like the new-body-style 1963 EJ? Or more of a rock-solid, different tail-lights, 1964 EH?


  • @bhwitz Quote After watching some GH2 material I just shot yesterday, I realized the key to it's great look is the texture. The GH3, so far, has no texture at all. It's the same syndrome canon, sony, and nikon all suffer from. Everything looks like the SAME MATERIAL. Skin looks the same as a clothes, dirt looks the same as grass, windows look like they're made out of clear-wood. Nothing has TEXTURE to it.

    Perfectly put, somehow it either looks soft and trying to look like film, or sharper and video like and kinda sterile. I dont know what they did...but the GH2 had an ability to look organic and me this is 1,000 times more important than 1 or less stops of dynamic range or the ability to do a soft sort of filmic look.

    And you mentioned dull and clay look to the skin...Agreed 100%..Skin...the outer dermal layer scatters light under it, called Subsurface Scattering..without this going on the skin looks solid and clay like and dead, and shadows render slightly greyish without realistic depth (not talking about falloff).

    In 3d development, the texture and light is the difference between sterile and realistic, I spend hours tweaking and aging surfaces, developing subsurface scattering on skin to get a real world look, then theres light...the raytrace bouncing off walls, the indirect light, scattered light, specular, diffuse... yada yada ...all that stuff...who knows the new sensor may be computing that differently somehow than the GH2 did and not picking that stuff up that well, its not to do with DR either, that does not come into this stuff really. I dont know, not everything comes down to a technical equation, personally as soon as I saw the GH3 footage I thought..hmmmm give it a miss.

    Anyway others love it, probably really good for filming sports and stuff and night scenes.

    I wish I could love it, but I cant, and I dont see Panansonic changing best to keep my GH2 and look elsewhere unless a miracle happens LOL!! Cheers

  • @GH2UW Yep there is a lot of truth in what you say about evaluating for yourself, but the Vimeo complaint (many say that) I dont really buy, this clip for example (I know its only 720P...I have 1080P clips that look as good as this) Anyway it looks far better than any of the GH3 clips I have seen so far.

    Pause it around 15 sec on...thats a great look (to my eyes) this look is quite unique to the GH2, I guess its now gone...maybe not, probably that's why Coppala liked it, its not just clarity (although it has that in spades) or DR or 4x4 matrixes or any of the other technical details, its a look, and I see it over and over with the GH2. But I havent seen it yet...not once with the GH3 and its not Vimeos fault. No matter how clever the engineers are at Panasonic or Sony, they may not be artists, thats another talent, so they only can make something thats technically good, has better luminance and so on...all good stuff, but somehow uninspiring.

    That said I hope I am wrong, and will be happy to eat my words.


    Yep I read your posts...agreed!! Definitely...100%

  • @Astro

    Lovely! For someone who loves light, and how it interacts with surface textures, I concur with what you've said about GH2 rendering more details, even in the shadows. Like at the model's face: the image is so visceral you can almost put your hand out to touch her face. The rendering of her skin is not video smooth, it has an edge, much like when you shoot with 35mm for stills.

    What lenses did you use? And what patch did you use? What was your post-production like? And for grading, what did you use?

  • @Nino_Ilacqua

    Barry Green is pragmatic and talks a lot of sense from his own perspective (which should be expected to differ from others here), but we're not talking about a $5000 camcorder vs. a $1000 consumer model. Rather some folks who are trying to judge a bunch of unlit footage shot with preproduction firmware as evidence of a conspiracy or epic failure. I just don't see it. My GH2 looks like shit when I shoot unlit scenes too, in fact the noise looks like crap compared to the grain-like noise I see in the GH3 at higher ISO's.

    I'm also glad to see that banding appears to have been fixed on the new model, that was the biggest pebble in my shoe with the GH2. Adding grain in an effort to defeat it often erased any detail advantage the hack may have provided and also extended the length of my rendering times dramatically. It will also be nice to run a camera that doesn't require I change ISO in a predetermined sequence or else face completely botched footage. Personally I am not looking for a religious experience when I pick up a camera, I just want a quality image with the least amount of workflow challenges. The GH2 is really great when all the stars line up, but there are plenty of things about it that I am looking forward to forgetting about.

  • Guys, here you are

    I'll collect all existing issues and "issues", and put it in special wiki page.

  • @GH2UW You do realize that most of the variables you mentioned do not apply to the footage Dieter and the rest of the PV team at Photokina put up already, right? It has not been edited, nor transcoded or re-compressed if you just download the original files from the Vimeo site (which they considerately made available).

    Now the differing GH3s at the show presents more of a variable.

    @Astrp @Kazuo You guys are making me think back to the 90s, and when I was dreaming of being able to afford a good radiosity renderer but made due with mid-level software to render things for months at a time. Then I had my mind blown by the first screens from Final Fantasy:The Spirits Within. Say what you will about the box office receipts, but they changed the "face" of computer animation with that movie.

    Anyway, I am very much willing to wait and see how the GH3 handles when it launches - to systematicaly put it through its paces. But there are some areas I will be looking at very intently to see whether I want one or not - and thanks to the MAR issue, I honestly cannot see myself on a GH3 shoot without a GH2 as well for acces to the crop I have grown accustomed to, etc.

This topic is closed.
← All Discussions