Just got my GH3, updating from GH2. Haven't shot any serious video yet (waiting for hacks to come.. Lol) but I did some travelling stillshooting and I have to say that this is so much better than before. Raw quality better, ergonomics better (i love the size of GH2 for travelling and GH3 isn't that much bigger but grip is 100 times better) and battery time greater. I have two batteries and didn't have to recharge during the whole trip, taking around 1500 pics. I do notice some smearing of the EVF, but it's not a dealbreaker for me.

A review by Eduardo Angel: http://eduardoangel.com/2013/03/26/shooting-with-the-new-panasonic-lumix-dmc-gh3-my-field-report-and-impressions/

I'm finding the GH3 to be quite a leap over the GH2 for the style I shoot. I like to highlight with lots of hard back light, and shoot low light interiors. I've just been getting terrific results with this camera. My employer has mentioned he believes the visuals have increased significantly over GH2 footage in his opinion.

I should mention I've only shot studio/indoor, but so far this camera has exceeded my expectation for a $1300 body. Would I rather be shooting Blackmagic RAW with its dynamic range? absolutely. But that is $4000 and a major investment in storage and workstation upgrades, as well as time. Whereas the GH3 was a dropin upgrade.

@Eno

I read the article you posted

Oh I didn't post it...

@bwhitz I read the article you posted, some information in there is true but most of it is misleading. It is demonstrated that Bayer pattern with modern technology of interpolation dos not cut more than 25-30% of resolution. So his theory about 4K being 36 Mpix is, sorry to say, bull shit! Take for example the Sigma Meril with 16 Mpix of or red, green and blue photo detectors, they say it is a total of 48 Mpix or a resolution equivalent of 36 of a bayer technology. In reality a good 24 Mpix Bayer sensor may be equal if not superior in resolution to the 3x16 Mpix sensor. So yes, actual 4K may be in fact 3K but his argument of 36 Mpix is very WRONG!

As far as 4K is concerned, I recommend you to read this article: http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels

haha... John Galt. I guess he ended up taking a job at Panavision...

Here is the same shot but from the GH2:

Compare it to the GH3 version, but please download the original files, the compressed ones don´t say much.

Of course, the GH2 isn´t completely free from moiré, but it isn´t that obvious. With the sharpness on the GH2 set to 0 and -5 on the GH3, the latter still looks much worse in terms of moiré. At least, this is what my short tests with bricks and fabrics showed.

I love the colors of my GH3, but I hate the moiré so much. Look at my short test and download the original file, because the compression softens the moiré. Have an eye on those roof tiles, but you can´t overlook it anyway.

I don´t understand why some people claim that the GH3 shows only "slightly more" moiré than its predecessor. I´ve been using my GH2 for two years now and made some money with it, so I can say for sure: it looks MUCH better in terms of moiré. While the GH2 shows some kind of decent but acceptable "waves" or flickering when shooting certain patterns or fabrics, the GH3 turns it into a psychedelic dream party, with rainbows and all that stuff... Really annoying and obvious moré.

And no, I´m not using a Lumix lens! I´ve got some Canon FDs and a Nokton 25mm, my settings are all dialed down to -4.

I got my GH3 in January. I had no time studying how to use it ...but I used it anyway in a 20 days Disney trip ... I used with 2 lenses , the great 25 mm f 1.4 and the 14 mm f 2.5 . Here´s a short video of my vacation . The first and the last parts was done using a Sony Action CAM AS15 So far I am loving the camera . There´s is moiré and the EVF has the famous smearing ...but I could not find a better option to replace my GH1 hacked.

If you compare IPB 50 MB/sec on GH3 with the 24 MB/sec on D5200, GH3 has more noise but much more details as well. Noise can be easily removed, but detail can not be added if it is not there. Anyway, for wedding work I found AVCHD 50i from 25p to be perfect, it is almost a stop ISO cleaner than IPB 50 MB/sec, with a little bit less detail, but almost imperceptible difference if you do not pixel peep, and the DR in AVCHD is grater as well. So if you compare now GH3 wit D5200 or D7100, GH3 will win. Not to mention, that D5200 has a very strong NR for video in the first place, and the one on GH3 is light.

Remake the test with GH3 with NR set to +5, AVCHD 50i from 25p and you will find that GH3 is cleaner, with more detail and grater DR compared to Nikon D5200/D7100.

Must agree - GH3 is noiser. I was thinking skip my GH2 and go for GH3 for weddings, but I think sensitivity for weds is more important than 50p. Perhaps I will survive without normal aperture setting... Going to another topic - D7100 vs GH3

Scratch that (i have the lens hood on wrong) how embarrassing LOL

I always shoot at -5 sharpness regardless of lens. I've tested pretty extensively and noticed that adding post sharpness in post is just as good if not better than the sharpening applied in camera if ever I need to add it. In premiere, that usually falls between 10-20 sharpness value