Thank you for this review Andrew but I must say I am quite surprised at your conclusion.
Don't forget this isn't a final review at all. Waiting for final firmware and more experience with the camera.
Stills aside, since most of us care about video, where are the improvements?
How can you say the gh3 is a successful upgrade?
-"same" insane detail / so no improvement there and I would like to see a side by side comparison that shows that there is indeed the same detail as on the gh2 because I personally doubt it. And even if it's there, we should be happy they did not make it worse?
One of the Slashcam guys was at the shoot and he's chart tested the GH3 vs GH2. He said the GH3 had a little bit more. I believe him, he knows his stuff. They are based in Berlin and I plan to meet up again.
- Better colour and dynamic range / really? is there really a significant and more importantly usable in post increase in dynamic range?
- Best ever codec on a consumer camera / fair enough, but does that translate in a visibly better final image than on the hacked gh2?
I have zero interest in shooting at 176Mbit to gain an almost in-perceivable difference over 80Mbit. Leave that to the personal-view guys... It got boring (not to mention confusing) pretty fast.
The GH1 hack was great since it patched up a broken codec. The GH2 hack began well but now it is all about fiddling and fluffing around the edges. No significant new progress.
Out of the box codec is far more important. It isn't hacked. It is designed.
I can't have a shot curtailed during a shoot because of an unreliable codec hack.
- clean hdmi / sounds good but then you say yourself "I can’t see there being much advantage to external HDMI recording on the GH3"
Wait and see the final camera. Also the HDMI may not at the moment be better in terms of image quality than an already superb internal codec but it is THE SAME. Which is more than you can say for the GH2's output, which was worse than the internal!
Uncompressed HDMI if you want ProRes workflow straight off the bat is useful for some.
I feel that the gh3 is the new mark III, definitively improved in the stills aspect but definitively not in video.
And with the introduction of moire and aliasing it just gets worse.
No improvement in resolution, no high frame rates, no 10bit...
Better stills, better ergonomics, sure.
Video wise? there is nothing significant compared to a hacked gh2 imo...if I am missing something let me know.
Yep, you are - sorry!
- 1080/60p at 50Mbit for slow-mo, no need to drop to 720p
- Smoother gradation
- Less banding
- Better colour and no yellowish / greenish cast to deep reds and oranges
- Weather proof for wet shooting days
- Massively improved LCD and EVF for video
- Huge battery (and battery grip)
- 72Mbit ALL-I is more reliable than hacked GH2 and no need to hack / put up with annoying Russian guy
- 24/25p and no progressive segmented frame nonsense or interlaced
- Tougher lens mount for anamorphic and heavy lenses