Tone13

This camera is purely for posers with money to burn. Unfortunately, in this world there are plenty of rich posers.

I don't understand the mentality of stills guys who want a stills only camera. You do not sacrifice any quality in stills by having a video mode. Considering live view uses a video stream, it's a natural progression to include a video mode. I personally will never buy a stills only camera again. There is just no point.

Personally, I'm desperate for a phone that doesn't have a music playing feature. I just can't handle my phone being able to play music!!!!

Stupid stills guys

IMAX version was 2K? If so, yeah, looked fine.
 
Don't forget however that 4K makes for more dynamic range, as there's no (or little) pixel binning. It also makes for much cleaner 1080p when downsampled in post, with less aliasing.

All shots involving actors were filmed in 2K on Alexa. The rest is CGI obviously.

I understand that technology needs to constantly evolved and yes, 4K is a natural progression. I guess what I was trying to say was: do we really need a dodgy version of 4K on a camera like a GH4 or should camera makers first try to make a great 1080p camera first. There is a massive amount of improvement that could be made to the 1080p image before thinking about 4K. 1080p, moire free, 10bit 422, global shutter, high DR etc.

Let technology work its way down the chain where budgets can utilize it to the full rather than up the chain where trying to cram 4K plus all the other features into a $3000 camera is going to come with huge compromises.

I find it odd that productions shot for release in IMAX cinemas are happy shooting on 2K but all of a sudden pros shooting for the smaller screen, prosumers and parents filming kids soccer matches all need to shoot in 4K.

The film 'Gravity' was shot in 2k and looks fantastic on a 50ft screen. Do we really need 4K?

Just a thought.

Some revision and a little mantra ( attached) to chew on.
1) Resolution is not as important as Color space. I'll take 10Bit 2.5K over 8Bit 4K any day
2) Built in ND filters matter a lot since many of us need them to knock down the sensors in bright light and NO I do not like taking the time to constantly deal with filters in my mattebox every time I change shots.
3) Panasonic will be wasting time and an opportunity if they release anything 'Pro' in a M43sensor ( Please forget the Speedboosters- that's more unweildy hardware between the rear-element and the sensor than I care to deal with in a supposedly 'Pro' camera)So have a look at my mantra and goodnight all !

I agree with you on point number 1 and 2.

I don't think Panasonic will be waisting time making this a MFT sensor camera. Look at the huge uptake and acceptance the BlackMagic cameras have had at the $1000- $3000 price point and they all have a smaller sensor than MFT. I don't see how a little Speedbooster is considered 'unwieldy'? On the contrary, It's a small addition that negates the need for an APS-C sensor unless you need Auto focus (which lets face it, pros are happy to do without) while at the same time making your lenses faster and giving your lenses a smooth iris if you go for the Nikon version. Also, the MFT sensor with a Speedbooster becomes a 1.4 crop factor. That's better than using a Canon 1.6 crop APS-C or 1.5 crop Nikon camera if your worried about things like that.

Look at the Digitaloptik Converter, this will be used on higher end productions and the 'extra hardware' is not seen as a hindrance. Seriously, with a Speedbooster, the MFT sensor size is a non issue.

I don't care if you have shot on 35mm or been in the business 20 years.  I hate it when people spout out that they have used 35mm like you owe them more respect or gives them more credentials for having used it. I've been on one shoot using 35mm and honestly, so what.

 

I know you OWN a GH3, you moved on from a 7D I read your post, I get it, you don't like anyone knocking your new toy, so your here to defend it's honour. Is it a better camera than the pocket camera, it probably is. Does it produce better images in the hands of someone who knows that they're doing, No it doesn't and that's just a fact. And yes the final image is very important, It's not the only thing, but at the end of the day, isn't that the whole point.

 

Sorry if you felt threatened by me mentioning that I had shot on 35mm. I wasn't spouting it as a 'look at me' comment. In context to the rest of the sentence, I was mentioning that I had used many different camera brands and that I swap and change depending on my needs. Just because I think the GH3 is a good camera does not make me a 'fanboy'. I am not here defending it because I own one, I also own a 5DIII (yes I sold my 7D), I am defending it because it's an extremely versatile camera. And yes, you did call all those commenting in favor of the GH3 'Fanboys'.

 

I'll leave it there.

Double post

This article as many shoot out reviews do, has evoked many fan boy comments, it's almost like a comment section from IGN on the Xbox One vs PS4 debate.  it's clear that a lot of people on here aren't really being objective. The GH3 users are here to convince everyone and themselves that GH3 is king, even though it isn't. The GH3 produces a nice image and it's easy to use = best camera. I don't think so.

5DM3 is a fantastic camera and RAW makes it a beast, but again, is it the best RAW cinema camera? possibly but you also have to remember Magic lantern is not canon, if Magic lantern were to stop doing what they're doing, it would all be over. Which leads me onto my next point, it's a hack, so paid Jobs are something you most likely would never use it on. And before people start saying you would never use RAW on a paid job anyway? says who, you? a lot of people here seem to speak in absolutes. I work on paid Jobs and use RAW, but I do it with a BMCC. The workflow is a lot easier than converting the RAW files from canon DSLRs. Also it's not hacked, the software works with the hardware and it was intended to from the get go. I

 

I've been a DSLR shooter for years, Before that if I wanted the cinematic look, I had to set up a rail system with a 35mm adaptor from Redrock Micro with the Sony EX3 . What we can do now, it's mind blowing.

 

Again A lot of users here seem to be speaking in absolutes, like my way is the only way and what i'm saying is true because i've used X Y and Z camera therefore I know better. GH3 users saying the GH3 is the best because it's just as cinematic and it's so easy to set up and use with minimal accessories. What has ease of use have to do with the final image? 

 

I'm a narrative and advertisement film maker, we use blackmagic because despite their flaws, they work well and the final image is great, for people saying the 5DM3 blows it away in low light, I work in a stuido and we have lights, I thinnk huge sensors have made people lazy, not using lights because the sensor can cope in low light. I never shoot anything that doesn't have a proper lighting. We also have 5DM3 on set but we don't use them for filming in raw because it's paid. Why use RAW, you don't need it you say? we do because we do a lot of green screen work, I'm also a visual effects artist, anyone who is will know that working with 8 bit 4:2:0 DSLR footage will know it's terrible for keying, and before people say, I can key DSLR footage and it looks great, let me tell you, there is a big difference between, it looks ok, and something that looks professional.

 

I think people are downplaying a lot of what blackmagic does, Take the pocket cinema camera which I own (FAN BOY TALKING), It's under $1000 and shoots Prores 422 and will soon Shoot 12bit RAW CinemaDNG. No other camera does that, The GH3 is a lot easier to use and it produces fanastic images, it's also got a great view finder and it's files are smaller and easier to manage, guess what, I don't care about any of that stuff, I and my clients care about the end image, not how I got there, just what it is. The GH3 does not produce better images, I don't care what you say, it just doesn't. For me colour grading matters a lot, and RAW enables me to push it much further than any non hacked DSLR, the GH3 crumbles if you push it too much in the grading department. Even the pocket cams prores grades beautifully without RAW.

 

I thought I would just give a different perspective, I wasn't going to comment but I seen too many GH3 users saying why the GH3 is good enough and overall a better camera when you factor in it's easy of use. Like that's all that matters. I read someone saying in regards to Dynamic range, there was only a little difference between the 5D and the BMPCC, i'm sorry but I can tell a huge difference. 

 

I know i'll probably get shot down but i'm sorry I think a lot of people are missing the point, which is the end image. For run and gunners, yeah the GH3 is the way to go. For me, at the moment Blackmagic is my brand, expecting good things from the 4K version.

 

Where do i start!?

 

I started off using Sony cameras around 20years ago when I worked as a corporate shooter. Betacam, BetaSP, Digibeta....I suppose I was a Sony fanboy because they had the best cameras and formats back then. I then worked as a camera assistant (high budget) and operator (lower budget) on music videos and promos all shot on 35mm. The cameras we went for 90% of the time were Arri 435 & 535's. So I guess I was an Arri fanboy? Then the 5D came out and for my own personal use (and a lot of paid work) I used the 5DII so I guess I became a Canon fanboy? Nine months ago I used a GH3 on a shoot and was sold on one. Went out and bought one a week later. I guess that makes me a Panasonic fanboy now? Or, do I just choose the tool that I feel is right for the job regardless of brand? I am not a 'fanboy' here defending Panasonic to justify my purchase.

 

I good camera is more than just the end image. What if the camera you were using hindered your ability to capture that image in the first place?

The BM cameras may be great for narrative where you can do retake after retake but imagine shooting something that needed to be captured first time with no second chances and then your card being full because the camera gives no indication how much remaining time or space the card has? Your end image doesn't exist, no amount of DR or bit depth will get back that shot you missed. Going back 20years I can't remember a camera that didn't give the operator any visual indication of remaining media. You could, I suppose, ask the interviewee to re-say that last response to the question but how unprofessional does that make you look in front of them and your producer?

 

I find it amazing how new technology makes people forget their art. VFX aside, an 8bit camera can generate fantastic images if you know what your doing. All of a sudden everyone wants RAW so that they don't have to white balance, can get sloppy on exposure etc. Yes, RAW has it's place but many of the productions I work on don't want me to hand over RAW files.

 

The BMPCC is almost a fantastic camera, if BM can fix a few of its querks as well as reliability then it would be a cheap camera to complement the GH3.

Nice comparison.

 

Hmmm, the GH3 looks a hell of a lot better than the 7D in low light. Not sure how they both share a score of 5? The 7D in RAW seems to have less DR than the stock GH3 also. Whats going on there?

 

Dealing with RAW is not an option for many people. The most complete camera of the bunch here is the GH3, especially with the Speedbooster. For narrative, sure the 5DIII with ML Raw is a great cam but for most other uses the GH3 still wins in my eyes.

 

I use my GH3 for paid work having moved over from the 7D. The 1080p50 has proved essential on some shoots, a feature some cameras costing 15 times as much don't have. The Black Magic cameras are nice but not knowing how much time is remaining on your card is simply not acceptable when using/relying on a camera in the field. Its a non starter.

You already have that. It's called...the 5d mark III with magic lantern.

Really, the 5DIII does 10bit 422 (not interested in RAW workflow)? the 5D is moire free? No 1080p50 on the 5DIII and I'm not interested in the oversized sensor.

Why don't manufacturers concentrate on making better cameras rather than higher res ones. High res and quality do NOT go hand in hand.

 

1080p, no moire, 13+ stops DR, 5DIII low light capability, 10bit 422 codec, Peaking, Zebras etc.......... this will be a much more valuble production tool to the 'consumer market' than a 4K, 9stop DR, 8bit codec, No Zebra, No Peaking camera.

 

Most people who bought the GH3 for video use it for Low/No budget shoots, corporates and events. Having 13 stops DR, great low light ability, Zebras and Peaking makes your shoot sooooo much easier than having 4K in a crappy camera.

Hang on, why do we need to wait 2-3 weeks for a rumor? If there is rumor out there spill it, isn't that what 43rumors is all about?  Or is 43rumors only allowed to publish what Panasonic and Olympus allow it to publish?

 

Hmmmmmm

I don't want 4K at the expense of high dynamic range , lowlight performance and 50p.

 

If they can do the MFT sized sensor with 13 stops DR, 50p and recording to switchable RAW/ProRes or DNxHD that would be perfect.

 

Oh and don't forget the FOCUS PEAKING!

 

I'm sorry to say it, but all John Brawley's videos look like s..hit.

 

Why the hell Blackmagic gave him a test camera?

 

Bothered seeing what else he has shot other than BMCC test footage?

 

Here's something he recently shot. https://vimeo.com/70027687

EosHD, your losing me. Everything here is RAW this RAW that.

Most people here really don't need RAW or want to deal with the workflow and data rates. I'd very welcome a camera with reduced moire, better codec, 1080p50, peaking, zebras over a camera that shoots RAW any day.

"The 5D III is the image quality king"..... If your happy shooting RAW, if not, it still leaves a lot to be desired. That doesn't make the 70D's image improvements any less worthwhile.

I hope Canon really have improved the video image quality greatly over the 7D and 5D's. it's about time they have us 1080p50 too.

Which proves the old adage: "Is not the camera, is the story" 

Not sure that statement works in this case as the images look great!

 

If it was shot on a crappy camera and looked awful but still had a captivating story that held you attemtion then you could say that.

 

The GH2 looks great but ultimatly its the lighting and techniques that seperate this from what 99% of GH2 owners shoot.

Hi all,

 

I mainly shoot corporates and TVC's and invested in the 7D when it first came out and have been happy enough with it. I knew it's shortcomings (for video) when I bought it but now things have changed and I need a sharper camera that does 50/60p. I know that there will soon be a 70D or 7D II but given Canon's recent form I don't think they will be that great.

 

Enter the GH3. I know the BM Pocket Cam is being released soon but it lacks 60p and I need that more than the RAW, 13 stops and ProRes, plus I like shooting stills with the same camera. The GH3 seems like a great camera and with the Metabones Speedbooster for M43 being released some time this year, I think the M43 mount has great appeal in lens choice.

 

For the 7D I have the Canon 17-55 2.8, Tokina 11-16 2.8 and some other lenses and accesorries. The 17-55 and 11-16 are fantastic lenses but, should I sell them or keep them in the hope I can use them on the GH3 with a Speedbooster to get the APS-C look plus extra stop?

 

Any other cameras I should consider for around the GH3 price range?

 

Cheers