The GH3 is now in Stock at BHphoto (Click here) too!
The GH3 is already in Stock for days now at Adorama (Click here) and Samys (Click here).. Adorama also offers some GH3 + accessory kits (Click here). It is surprisingly still not in Stock at Amazon but at least you can play with their new Lens Finder Tool at Amazon (Click here) to kill the time until it will be back in Stock 🙂
42 Responses
The DP review (or extended preview) kind of ruined my lust for this camera. It really doesn’t seem to have improved in pictures or video (when hacked) with the exception of 1080p60. Im glad I waited.
Over what? If youre comparing it to the gh2 the gh3 can take much more grading abuse than the hacked gh2 footage. Its also cleaner with much better shadow detail (no black crushing). If youre talking stills then its no contest the gh3/omd handily beat the gh2
I have a GH2 personally and for business. I can’t buy the GH3 for business because im not up for more capitol for a while and the personal one is mostly for stills, in the which the GH3 didn’t really impress me over the GH2. At least in the DPreview tests. I haven’t had a lot of field time with the GH3, but aside from the black crushing i can’t see a lot of difference in video over a hacked GH2. Im sure its there, but its not $1300 there if you know what i mean. Save that money up for a BMC with the active MFT mount that is supposed to be coming. Don’t get me wrong, im sure its better, but again…not $1300 better.
You might want to refresh your mathematical skills. A GH2 still goes for around $500. I sold mine when I bought the GH3. Hence the upgrade cost around $800…not $1300. And I’d say it sure as hell was worth it for improved IQ and a ton of useful features and improvements.
To each his own, I suppose.
Here’s to whatever makes you feel better… Cheers!
Actually – I’ve found the video quality on the GH3 to be better than the GH2, without question.
BTW, if you are not ready for the GH3, you can now get the GX1 body for only $279 at Kenmore Camera.
Sensors looks a little small in that big body
Big sensors and lenses are for those who choose to overcompensate.
big sensors are for lowering noise and raising dynamic range… until the technology catches up with the smaller sensors, bigger is better.
I disagree with that statement. Working in Lightroom on landscape shots between my D5100 and my E-PL5, I do not find that I have more RAW exposure latitude with either. Noise performance at ISO 800 is about the same for both cameras, but at 1600 and above, the D5100 is worse.
There really is something to be said about these “accepted truths” in photography. I think majority of it is regurgitated product marketing.
The problem with such comparisons { the D5100 is better at high ISO} is down to what you think you are comparing .Try that with both cameras optimally exposed and you will see the D5100 advanatge. Assuming you know what proper exposure is
Its his, he can do it any way he wishes, don’t belittle people.
Hi JimD , the guy could have been a bit politer , but he is essentially right, exposing the respective cameras to give the optimum results is very often different from what the nominal in camera setting may suggest. “Proper” exposure as he calls it , I prefer optimum will show that the D5100 does indeed have an advantage over even the best mFT sensors.An advantage that is increased with the new higher MP D5200.
Hi Jim. The there are some issues here that need mentioning. These cameras are used ‘as sold’ by everyone who has them (Ok there may be one or two exceptions) If the user uses the camera settings and gets better results with one over the other, then the one that gives the better results, is the ‘best’ for that user, and possibly all users. People who want to go to the lengths of using non camera dependent light assessment will not, in all probability be using these cameras. I’m sorry, but the camera as sold is what gives the result not what one needs to add on to make it work properly. If it needs to be added to it is indeed an inferior camera. The manufacturer has failed.
Nice try Stephen, the GH3 outscores the entire Canon “Pro” line in the dynamic range category, even the $7000 1DX. If dynamic range is really as important as you say, many must’ve overpaid for their “landscape cameras.”
Canon are behind the loop in sensor tech if you do not want to compare the best to the best then why not compare the 12mp sensor in thousands of mFT bodies.Even with the poorer sensors, The Canon 1DX is nearly two stops better than the E-M5 at high ISO has better colour depth and the DR is within half a stop. Now if you want to compare the current best sensors in each format then the E-M5 compared to the Nikon D800e is 3 stops behind in colour depth, 2 stops behind in DR and nearly 2 stops behind in high ISO { more if you downsize the D800}
We like take pictures here not hang charts on the wall. If you want to study oil change periods go to the dox site and drule there. You will be in like for like company.
No , it is nothing to do with “taking pictures” what goes on here largely is that a group of chip on the shoulder, small sensor camera owners, attempt to delude Themistocles and others that mFT has some special vantage over other systems .The one and only advantage of mFT over other larger sensor cameras is size/weight at the expense of maximum image quality. The best APS cameras are clearly better than the best mFT cameras and the best FF cameras are better still. The Olympus mob since the release of the E-M5, which doesn’t even catch up with the previous best generation of APS let alone the current best APS and is just as far behind the current best FF as mFT ever was.
There are BS claims made about the E-M5 all the time when the absolute bottom line is that it is less than a stop better than the GH2.In genuine low light the high ISO sucks above 800 unless your output is 400pix web shots, its C-AF is just as bad as before ,its one real trick the 5 axis IS works wonders with static subjects. Have you guys actuully looked at the current sales charts around the world BCN, Amazon USA , Amazon UK,EU you might be surprised just how poorly mFT is doing , or more likely you will just deny it lol
http://bcnranking.jp/category/subcategory_0008.html
We are quite happy being a “group of chip on the shoulder, small sensor camera owners”
It seems that the non “group of chip on the shoulder, small sensor camera owners” does not like us being a happy “group of chip on the shoulder, small sensor camera owners”. So why not go join them. I am sure your wise superiority will be welcome there as you explain the 135 qualities with which your APSC sensor is endowed and the fact you had to buy a bigger car to carry it round in dry comfort.
I suggest you go look at what pictures look like instead of what the sensor looks like.. unless your intention is putting your cameras in a display case, and marveling at how they look.
Oh, and its not like you can’t pick a smaller camera with the same sensor, or a slightly bigger camera with a bigger sensor, but hey, why should people have choices that you don’t like eh?
There is also something about size of optics and its relation to size of medium, which makes nearly every conceivable GH3 configuration smaller then any equivalent larger sensor camera setup, but I suppose that is totally beyond your level of understanding…
bart.. i was wondering about that… i’m thjinking of (learning how to spell) letting my D7000 + 18-200mm lens go in favour of micro4/3, but i’m a little concerned about the gh3… sure its almost as big as mine, but i guess it may be lighter and any 4/3 lens would make the whole package less bulky than what i have ? . i like all the function buttons and such on the gh3 and the fact that you don’t neccessarily need a hand grip to get ‘the feel’. BUt it sure is nice when you get a feel sometimes.
stephen, picking between those 2 seems a difficult choice that is mostly driven by what you really want to use the camera for.
The obvious, if sports or similar action is high on your list, stick with your D7000 and if video is high on your list, go for the GH3.
The D7000 sensor is slightly better still when it comes to dynamic range, also something to consider.
The size bit is what you were asking about. A GH3 with 35-100/2.8 is going to be a bit smaller then a D7000 with an equivalent lens (which to my knowledge doesn’t really exist in DX format) for 2 reasons:
– shorter focal lengths mean that the lens can be shorter without compromising quality
– smaller image circle makes it easier to use ‘faster’ apertures while maintaining good optical quality, which again makes lenses smaller then a ‘bigger format’ equivalent because less correction is needed.
Obviously this also is determined by the exact ‘range’ you are interested in, and what lenses exist in both systems.
But, I very strongly suggest you try to get some hands-on practice with a GH3 and the kind of lens(es) you’d be interested in. Micro FourThirds is a very nice system in my opinion, but I’ve encountered a fair number of DSLR users who find it difficult to come to grips with how certain things work (especially the subtle difference in how AF behaves is something people at times can’t come to grips with). This is in my opinion a ‘must’, first determine if a GH3 (or E-M5 or other such camera) will work for you from a functional/usability point of view, because if it doesn’t, its size advantage will just bring you a lot of frustration.
Tracking works quite well in the GH3 by the way, so it is usable for sports. It’s much smaller than people think, not just because of size of lenses but because the flange back distance is shorter it’s actually about a third thinner than a DSLR.
Tracking isn’t the issue, distance is. tracking has everything to do with keeping the subject covered by the focus area, but nothing whatsoever with keeping that subject in focus, that has all to do with continuous AF.
About every 4/3 DSLR runs circles around the GH3 when it comes to continuous focus (and by extension around every existing m4/3 camera, since the GH3 is actually better at this then other m4/3 cameras). A D7000 runs circles around the best 4/3 camera with regards to this, so really, the GH3 doesn’t come anywhere close of being competition in this specific aspect.
THis doesn’t mean you can’t do sports photography with a GH3, for that matter, people have been doing sports photography using manual focus cameras for the better part of a century, but like I already said in my post above, you CAN do sports with it, but, especially when compared to a D7000, it is not very good at this.
@Bart
“”About every 4/3 DSLR runs circles around the GH3 when it comes to continuous focus (and by extension around every existing m4/3 camera, since the GH3 is “””
This is nonsense the tracking performance of even high end FT gear is very poor in comparison to the big boys, which makes it rather amusing that the FT fans { the handfuls left} are always crying out for better AF on mFT when their system is at best bordello
Did you even read what you replied to?
I specifically mentioned that for example a D7000 runs circles around any 4/3 camera when it comes to continuous focus. I also mentioned that those 4/3 DSLRs still run circles around a GH3 when it comes to continuous focus. Conclusion, medium/high end Canikon is significantly better at continuous focus then the GH3.
Oh, and ‘tracking’ is not the same as continuous focus, through both are often used in combination.
Tracking specifically and exclusively refers to the ability to track a subject across the frame
Continuous focus specifically and exclusively refers to being able to deal with changes to the camera – subject distance
CDAF cameras have an inherent advantage over PDAF based cameras for tracking, but an inherent disadvantage with regards to continuous focus.
That has everything to do with the information those systems have available, and while both can be fine-tuned to do things ‘good enough’, the theoretical differences will still show and are unavoidable because they are inherent consequences of those technologies.
Oh and I forgot..
The short flange distance only helps wide-angle lenses because it reduces or removes the need for retro-focal design.
When looking at 50mm+, that shorter flange distance actually makes your lenses a bit bigger, because the distance between optical center of the lens and sensor is simply determined by focal length, and anything you shave off the flange distance must be added to the lens.
There are optical tricks to reduce the length of a lens, but those come at the expense of optical quality, and have absolutely zero relation to flange distance.
So… yes, flange distance does help keeping wide-angle lenses smaller, but it doesn’t do much for normal lenses, and very little to nothing for longer lenses.
I am sorry but tracking for sports most surely does not work well enough for sports , unless your sports are very slow moving. Or another favorite amongst the mFT crowd is the huge DOF landscape shot that happens to have someone taking part in a sport included in it.I love my GH3 especially for vidoe but I am also a huge sport photography fan where my Nikon gear blows the GH3 out of the water regarding AF.
Hi Bart,
I believe that sigma make a 50-150mm F2.8 OS for Nikon DX , giving a 75-225mm range on Nikon APS
Thanks, that should be close enough. How does its size compare to the 35-100?
Btw, that comparison isn’t entirely fair, that Sigma has 2 disadvantages here, a wider range, and it requires a bigger entrance pupil, both making this lens a bit bigger then it would be if it were an exact match in range and aperture.
You’d need something a little bit shorter, and at approx f4 for a more fair comparison.
Bart
The gh3 is nowhere near the d7000 in size. Its smaller than a rebel t4
And yes, fast paced sports is the only place where youll miss phase detection
@Stephen: I’m facing the same dilemma as you. I own the D7K and the 18-300mm Nikon, which I use just for travel. To get the same 35mm-equivalent coverage with MFT requires two lenses that weigh more and have more bulk than my current Nikon gear. On the other hand, I do own a Panasonic G3 and a half-dozen MFT prime and zoom lenses, so I have been waiting to see what the GH3 offers. Now that DP has posted their preview of the camera, I am less than impressed with their sample photos. I find them underwhelming. As it happens, I live where a number of those photos were taken, I recognize the scenes, and I know it’s possible to do much better….at least I have with my G3. Probably it was the bad weather. Anyway, it’s fairly common for the photos in preview articles to give a misleading impression of the true quality of cameras that are under review, consequently I will wait for the full report by DPR before making a decision. In your case, note that to cover the same 35mm equivalent range in focal length with the GH3 and MFT zoom lenses as with your Nikon gear, you will have to spend as much as $3500. On the other hand, for less than USD $1K you could buy a nice Tokina wide angle lens, which would give you an excellent kit…excepting the video of course. If video is important to you, then the GH3 is far superior to the D7K and it might be worth the purchase. I recommend you wait until after Panasonic issues its new product announcements, which are expected to come in early and late April. Better, or at least cheaper, options may be available just around the corner.
Some very defensive people on this forum. Was a comment about the ratio of sensor to body, not absolute size of sensor. Saying the gh3 is relatively big for m43.
and it has escaped your attention that there are lots of larger lenses available now for m43s that are uncomfortable to use on smaller m43s bodies?
The body isn’t big relative to a DSLR…
So?
em-5 had same quality a year earlier.
So?
Why would anyone buy the GH3? Anm4/3 emulating a small Canon dslr?
While still being smaller than the t4i, it has 7 fn buttons and 3 separate buttons for iso, wb, exp. comp., wifi, a 100% .70 evf, built in wireless flash, pc sync, raw stacking, a MUCH better grip than the em5 (without the accesory grip), faster af, a small movable af point, window in window focusing and things im probably forgetting.
Sure a rebel is almost that size but does it have half those features?
Find a camera that has that kind of customization and see how much it goes for
Yes, I own both, and prefer the GH3.