Panasonic GH3 - my short test "Civilian"

[Andrew Reid]

[quote name='Scott' timestamp='1353966728' post='22365']
Personally I've never gotten acceptable results sharpening Mk III footage in post. For some reason 'softness' occurring naturally from the lens seems preferable to 'softness' caused by an AA filter.
[/quote]

This is likely because digital sharpening in post increases the micro-contrast between pixels, leading to a less organic look.

[Scott]

[quote name='domonicwhite' timestamp='1353967112' post='22367']
Thanks - that's very interesting... what happens from your experience then? Doesn't sharpen, or do you get artifacts / other issues?
[/quote]

Yes as Andrew said, due to the the increase in contrast, some edges seem... 'heavier' for lack of a better description. If I use it at all it will be an Unsharp Mask with an amount of 1.0. Most of the time I end up just turning it off. I've never owned a GH2 but based on what I've seen I'm looking forward to picking up the GH3.

[TJB]

Has the GH3 got a 2x crop factor or is it the same as the GH2 1.86x crop factor?

Anyone?

[Willian Aleman]

Andrew, thanks for the update. Have you tested the HDMI monitor output at 720p, which in the GH2 up to today hasn't been fixed regardless of what patch is used? As soon as a monitor gets connected in the GH2 the Record Mode turns into 1080. I'm hoping the GH3 will get this right.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote name='TJB' timestamp='1353972856' post='22373']
Has the GH3 got a 2x crop factor or is it the same as the GH2 1.86x crop factor?

Anyone?
[/quote]

It is 2x now. http://www.eoshd.com/content/9170/panasonic-gh3-real-world-test-pre-production-firmware

[tomekk]

What's the highest usable ISO? I'm assuming it's 1600? That's pretty low for end of the 2012. Crop factor sucks too. Basically it's a no go for low light, tight places. For everything else - it's nice.

[Andrew Reid]

I don't agree. Highest usable ISO is 3200. What other DSLRs do better for 2012? Only two spring to mind - 5D Mark III and 1D X. Both a LOT more expensive than the GH3. And in low light you need to stop the lens right down on those if you want manageable focus.

Needing more than ISO 1600 or 3200 at F0.95 in low light is rare.

As for tight spaces, I assume you're talking about shooting actors with the camera rammed up their noses. For that you will indeed be better off with a 50mm on a 5D Mark III rather than 50mm on the GH2. Oh I forgot - maybe use a 25mm!??

[tomekk]

I don't know what's the maximum usable iso for GH3, that's why I asked. 3200. As for tight spaces I mean ppl dancing in clubs kind of stuff. Don't think GH3 will be suitable for that with 2x crop factor. For everything else sure (video wise only though). I wish GH3 was FF.

[Xiong]

[quote name='tomekk' timestamp='1353988559' post='22387']
I wish GH3 was FF.
[/quote]

Dont we all. But im good with improved low light and better ergonomic and weather sealing, I like shooting outside alot in not perfect weather, it adds more tone to some shots that need it. Good to know a bit of rain or sand wont mess up the camera.

[galenb]

Yeah, I think the GH3 is probably better in some ways then the GH2 but just don't shoot with them side by side like you did the other day in the BMCC shoot out. In almost every shot where there was a GH2 and GH3, I liked the look of the GH2 better. But then again, if you compare the GH2 to the BMCC, it's not going to look perfect either. :-) I think the GH3 is a odd duck. In some ways better, in some ways just the same if not a little worse. It's seems like it's a matter of choosing what are the most important aspects to you. I'm sure there are a lot of people who will be perfectly happy with the image quality just like there are tons of people who are happy with the 5D MkIII. The low-light performance does seem a lot better to me which is a good thing. I didn't see any moire in any of these shots which is good too. One thing I've noticed (and this is true for 5D too) is that if you shoot with a shallow depth of field, you have much less chance of seeing moire. I mean, this is probably obvious to you guys but I was just musing to myself that all of the footage that I've seen that I thought looked really good, was all shot shallow. Obviously, the technical reason is probably due to that fact that moire only occurs when thin lines are come together. You're more likely to see this in the distance like on buildings or fine patterns in fences. When you are shooting with shallow depth of field, you are usually (although not always) closer to your subject so if you think about it, there's probably less chance of seeing moire. Does that make sense?

I'm glad to see some more pleasing footage coming from this little beast. I was definitely one of those people who made a big deal out of the moire issues of the GH3 footage I'd seen so far. To me, image quality is paramount and I don't feel like that's to much to ask for. It's good to see that moire is at least avoidable and not something that you will be fighting against all the time.

[Germy1979]

There's a newer 1.0 firmware that came out recently correct? I don't know the details, but regarding low light, the guys that shot those videos are happier...so it seems that it addressed some issues in the image department.. I was a little concerned about it. it looked like a much better stills camera with a GH2 thrown in for video, & some moire.. lol. I'd like to know how "log" style you can get with it. (I know Cinestyle is supposedly the devil on 8bit footage, but i still dial back a better image with it than without it.) My personal taste though.. I like to shoot flat as a runway model.

[Nima]

Thanks for the video Andrew. Question: I'm not familiar at all with the Helios 58mm F2 44M-2 lens you mentioned. Does it natively fit onto the GH3, or are you using an adaptor? Thanks.

[Xiong]

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1353991858' post='22392']
Yeah, I think the GH3 is probably better in some ways then the GH2 but just don't shoot with them side by side like you did the other day in the BMCC shoot out. In almost every shot where there was a GH2 and GH3, I liked the look of the GH2 better. But then again, if you compare the GH2 to the BMCC, it's not going to look perfect either. :-) I think the GH3 is a odd duck. In some ways better, in some ways just the same if not a little worse. It's seems like it's a matter of choosing what are the most important aspects to you. I'm sure there are a lot of people who will be perfectly happy with the image quality just like there are tons of people who are happy with the 5D MkIII. The low-light performance does seem a lot better to me which is a good thing. I didn't see any moire in any of these shots which is good too. One thing I've noticed (and this is true for 5D too) is that if you shoot with a shallow depth of field, you have much less chance of seeing moire. I mean, this is probably obvious to you guys but I was just musing to myself that all of the footage that I've seen that I thought looked really good, was all shot shallow. Obviously, the technical reason is probably due to that fact that moire only occurs when thin lines are come together. You're more likely to see this in the distance like on buildings or fine patterns in fences. When you are shooting with shallow depth of field, you are usually (although not always) closer to your subject so if you think about it, there's probably less chance of seeing moire. Does that make sense?

I'm glad to see some more pleasing footage coming from this little beast. I was definitely one of those people who made a big deal out of the moire issues of the GH3 footage I'd seen so far. To me, image quality is paramount and I don't feel like that's to much to ask for. It's good to see that moire is at least avoidable and not something that you will be fighting against all the time.
[/quote]

Yeah, I agree. For simple medium to close up shots moire is less of an issue because you'll most likely be shooting at a wider aperture, the 5D is fine for this. But things get messy when you need landscape, having to lose that shallow depth of field can show the bigger issues of the 5D. Thats where the GH2 seems to shine, incredible amount of detail.

http://vimeo.com/29549553

[/p/]

What exactly is the fascination of a FF GH3? Seems unnecessary.. If Panasonic decide to increase the size of the sensor it should be to S35 not 35mm FF............... Why drastically increase the price for near to no benefit whatsoever? Just look at what the BMCC does with an even smaller sensor............................ Tell me again why Panasonic should make a 35mm FF camera?

[tomekk]

so I can have perfect stealth hybrid, not a video camera only. FF for stills. No crop factor is nice too. If I wanted video only Id buy video camera.

[Zach]

[quote name='/p/' timestamp='1354024283' post='22436']
Tell me again why Panasonic should make a 35mm FF camera?
[/quote]

Marketing :)

If panasonic ever did make a FF camera I have to wonder what kind of mount it would have.

[pask74]

Thanks a ton, Andrew !

[pask74]

So, obviously you wouldn't mind not aligning with DaVinci's official recommendations?
(ASUS P9X79 PRO Motherboard + GeForce GTX 580 + 12 GB RAM or higher)
By the way, from their documentation it's quite unclear if a second graphic card (Quadro 4000 etc.) is actually required or just a plus...

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1353964223' post='22358']
Sub $700 is:

Intel 3.4Ghz i7 2700K
8GB RAM
GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1.5GB
USB 3.0

Those are the bits that matter. The rest doesn't need to be anything special.

This should all come to under $700 and if you can't build it yourself, buy one second hand on eBay. Mine is a Dell XPS 8300 of similar spec to the above and it cost me 600 euros.

If you can stretch another $200 for an SSD, that is a good idea. Put a 2TB hard disk in there (that is OK for editing raw footage off), but also an 240GB SSD for the main OS, apps & boot drive.
[/quote]

[markm]

Andrew Nice film!

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1353991858' post='22392']
Yeah, I think the GH3 is probably better in some ways then the GH2 but just don't shoot with them side by side like you did the other day in the BMCC shoot out. In almost every shot where there was a GH2 and GH3, I liked the look of the GH2 better. But then again, if you compare the GH2 to the BMCC, it's not going to look perfect either. :-) I think the GH3 is a odd duck. In some ways better, in some ways just the same if not a little worse. It's seems like it's a matter of choosing what are the most important aspects to you. I'm sure there are a lot of people who will be perfectly happy with the image quality just like there are tons of people who are happy with the 5D MkIII. The low-light performance does seem a lot better to me which is a good thing. I didn't see any moire in any of these shots which is good too. One thing I've noticed (and this is true for 5D too) is that if you shoot with a shallow depth of field, you have much less chance of seeing moire. I mean, this is probably obvious to you guys but I was just musing to myself that all of the footage that I've seen that I thought looked really good, was all shot shallow. Obviously, the technical reason is probably due to that fact that moire only occurs when thin lines are come together. You're more likely to see this in the distance like on buildings or fine patterns in fences. When you are shooting with shallow depth of field, you are usually (although not always) closer to your subject so if you think about it, there's probably less chance of seeing moire. Does that make sense?

[/quote]

Good post galenb I was having second thoughts about the GH3 and was starting to side with Andrews take on the BMC and canon mark3. However I really liked this film

[blazer003]

I couldn't past the first 8 seconds of the video. That is horrible image quality! Needs to be hacked...



;)