Personal View site logo
Official Panasonic GH3 topic, series 2
  • 1024 Replies sorted by
  • ButtButt

    @Aria - yes, but only in movie mode - not in photo mode - but unfortunately the old GH2 better Filmcam

  • tetakpataktetakpatak

    @magnifico @mimirsan

    Don't get upset, guys- YouTube just always reduces the quality drastically, just get an impression.... :-)

  • magnificomagnifico

    lol, there is a mistake here it is not F2.8 but F.95 constant :-) ok, I want the F2.8 lens too...

  • mpgxsvcdmpgxsvcd

    Forget the GH3. I want the "45-150mm Lens, 1/50sec, F2.8" lens he claims to have shot with.

  • magnificomagnifico

    hmm, I am not rude because I put a "lol" in my answer. And I said : "for me", these are fake or bad workflow. Dont forget they are presented as tests!! And I am the one who doesn't give orders, you see?

  • MimirsanMimirsan

    @magnifico If you cared to check the uploader is HawaiRocksOn and you will see he has used the GH3 at the show. You will also see he isnt very good at shooting video. Youtube compression does not help either.

    Theres even a rep pointing at the shooter while informing someone about the GH3 and the battery grip.

    Just because something is shot badly does not mean it is fake. amateur is in his right to post it here. So theres no need to be rude.

  • magnificomagnifico

    @amateur : dont you see these videos (720p youtube) are...awful? I already saw some stills from gh3 at 3200 iso and they are very clean. 1250 iso for gh3 should be quite good in video mode. So for me these videos are just fake.

    You shouldn't have posted them here lol.

  • amateuramateur

    i didn't filmed the video... i just share the community it is normal... hope u guys do the same thing

  • AKEDAKED

    @amateur In the first video, the autoifocus takes quite often 5 to 8 seconds to focus. Do you remember how the autofocus was set?

  • amateuramateur

    @magnifico how can i compaire when i don't know the iso people are so funny to forget asking the iso

  • magnificomagnifico

    @amateur, I think there is something wrong with your workflow (including youtube)...See the clip of Trankilstef (dancer in this page) for comparison.

  • amateuramateur

    For both videos : 72 MBit All-I 24P, 12-35mm X Lens, 1/50sec, F2.8, ISO 1250 (perfect iso i'd never go up this) moire of the lens in the firsts second look acceptable but not okay

    0:20 sec the 2nd video HAHA XD

  • Sph1nxsterSph1nxster

    @mimirsan see GH3 Availability Topic

    http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/4641/gh3-preordering-and-availability-topic#Item_36

  • AKEDAKED

    What we really should aslo do is looking, how the GH3 compares to the unhacked GH2. Because there is still Vitlaiy, who might be doing magic again now to the GH3, so that Driftwood, Lpowell, Cbradin, RalphB and all the others, might do the rest of the magic, to make the GH3 again a better camera like with the GH2 and the GH2.

  • MimirsanMimirsan

    I personally think if its improved in photo side and video is looking good enough then the GH3 is a worthy purchase over the GH2. However I think it is very overpriced in the UK. Thats the biggest put off for me. I will see how the import prices fare.

  • magnificomagnifico

    @Astro I agree with you, there are a lot of factors and different expectations. And the main thing is not what these devices are but what we do with them :-)

  • AstroAstro

    @magnifico I guess we will see when the GH3 is fully tested. But right now I agree with you, I dont see the same level of resolution in any of the videos. I have some money for the GH3...so its not that I dont want to buy it, but what I have seen (so far) is not what I had hoped for. Yes: The colors are probably better...and the DR, better stills and so on, everyone has different wants, I would have been happy with the same resolution and improved DR (less highlight blowouts, shadow problems etc..) Now maybe it has the same resolution...but its not evident on any of the vids I have seen so far. To me thats disappointing, to others, not so much, they either dont see it...or its not a problem. Time will tell I guess.

  • endotoxicendotoxic

    @Aria , its the doubt we all have. being 8bit fucks alot up.

  • AriaAria

    @endotoxic, you've gotta look at how the GH3 compares to other DSLR's using their means of scoring! The GH3 is way better than a few other cameras. Better than OMD, 5Dmk3, NEX 7, X Pro 1...

    Still don't know how good video DR is tho.

  • endotoxicendotoxic

    They say 10 stops DR.

    http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Panasonic-Lumix-GH3-Digital-Camera-Review/Dynamic-Range.htm

  • magnificomagnifico

    no no please calm down :-)

    The main thing here is that acutance (wich is a component of sharpness) is not a bout resolving detail. Usually when one talks about sharpness for the parameters of the camera (-5 for gh3, -2 for gh2 for instance), in fact, actualy he is talking about acutance.

    What I love about gh2 is detail (wich is also a component of sharpness). Detail IS resolution ( the ability of an imaging system to resolve detail).

  • Sph1nxsterSph1nxster

    @magnifico my head exploded!

  • magnificomagnifico

    @Eno, hi, you said:

    "My conclusion so far is that Gh3 is a little bite sharper than Gh2 but...The conclusion that GH3 is less sharper in video mode compered to GH2 is because everybody dialed the sharpness to minimum, with may not be the best option."

    Hmm I wanted to say some precision here...for helping Jo who is reading us :-) I said (and I am not the only one) that gh2 in these footages seems to have better RESOLUTION than pre-industrial gh3. SHARPNESS you are talking about is in fact ACUTANCE.

    See there: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/sharpness.shtml

    " Resolution is the most familiar of the two perceptual factors contributing to sharpness. We've already looked at how much resolution is needed. You may start at 100 lp/mm (though typically not more than 50 lp/mm) but along the way if you end up with 10 lp/mm on a print you'll have a very crisp image indeed, and even 5lp/mm on a print is considered critically sharp by many observers. (To be scientifically accurate you actually should have somewhat more resolution than this (maybe 30 lp/mm) on a low contrast image because of acutance effects).

    Acutance is the less understood characteristic of sharpness. Acutance isn't about resolving detail, it's about the transition between edges. In other words when an edge changes from one brightness level to another. This is what Sharpening in digital parlance is all about. Scanning and digital capture softens acutance and so we apply a (ill-named) process called an Unsharp Mask to increase edge sharpness back to what it should be. Remember, this has nothing to do with resolution, the other aspect of sharpness. Unfortunately some anti-digital Luddites still confuse the two."

    Or see there :http://blog.almalence.com/?p=4

  • hoodlumhoodlum

    http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Panasonic-Lumix-GH3-Digital-Camera-Review/Conclusion.htm

    "While the Canon 5D Mark III has been the go-to option for these shooters in recent months, our video tests show that the GH3 shoots superior video across the board. The smaller sensor may not provide the extreme shallow depth of field effects you can get from the 5D Mark III, but the GH3’s video looks sharper and stands up better to aggressive editing. And despite the fact that the camera costs almost $2000 less, you get far more compression and codec options."

    http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Panasonic-Lumix-GH3-Digital-Camera-Review/Video.htm

  • amateuramateur

This topic is closed.
← All Discussions