Member of the Month

hi_vis360
November, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

You've all waited: Panasonic GH3

profile picture
1337
Posts: 31059 - Karma: 29,329


This was on Panasonic US's youtube channel, probably wont last long though, so this embed is from 43rumor's. Looks like Phillip Bloom got to shoot a test body, so I'm sure he'll have a good filmmaker's take on it as soon as the official announcement comes the 17th Sept.

Thoughts?
Sep 14 2012 2:09AM
5 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31059 - Karma: 29,329
well actually, not exactly. It's just a number to kind of standardize and compare different codecs with.

Codecs work by taking the information from the image sensor, and compressing it into algorithms and translated later. Codecs usually are rewarded when they can compress the most data to take up the least amount of space, while still retaining as much image quality as possible. USUALLY, the more info/second (bitrate) can tell you that a codec has more info and is hopefully translating that into better image reproduction on your computer. But, it's possible that a codec could store tons of information (high bitrate) and still look like shit because it did a poor job translating the data into an image, and a high compression/low bitrate could have amazing quality and take up very little bandwidth.
Sep 17 2012 9:06PM
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
Thanks for the heads up Jame.


Wish they would have included higher frame rates for lower resolutions. 120 at 720p would have been sweet. I guess im expecting to much..


Anyone thinking about or already have bought it?
Sep 19 2012 3:52PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61649 - Karma: 123,487
If I needed a Bcam, this would be it, no doubt. Fuck, ill just sell my fs100 and use this haha
Sep 19 2012 4:06PM
0 0
profile picture
MatRich
Posts: 4789 - Karma: 1,813
I hope that was sarcastic... was it?
Sep 19 2012 4:20PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61649 - Karma: 123,487
Yes. Im not going to sell my fs100, i love it too much. But for ski filming, the gh3 could do pretty much the same shit. Obviously less control with the picture profile, but 72mbp 1080p60 sounds wonderful. Im guessing the resolution is around 900-1000 like the gh2 and fs100. Not much else you need, minus audio of course. Id really miss xlr ports.
Sep 19 2012 4:39PM
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,809
Didn't realise the gh2 had such a high resolution, Pretty impressive if it does that at 60p. What's the website where they do all the tests on cameras called again? can't seem to find it
Sep 19 2012 4:43PM
0 0
profile picture
123+ski
Posts: 2832 - Karma: 581
there were rumors about some sort of xlr accessory from panasonic, but I haven't heard about it lately. Also, I'm no audio genius, but I do know enough to know that there is more to it than just xlr ports, but just figured I'd throw it out there
Sep 19 2012 4:44PM
0 0
profile picture
MatRich
Posts: 4789 - Karma: 1,813
yah I definately agree for the skiing, just the low light on the fs100 is worth keeping this beast.
Sep 19 2012 5:04PM
0 0
profile picture
VT_scratch
Posts: 8796 - Karma: 6,290
what exactly do you mean by xlr accessory?

I have the GH1 and I bought an adapter that goes from whatever the small size mic port on the cam is, to XLR. that way I can use a rode mic etc with it. adapter was like $2.50 at radioshack.
Sep 19 2012 6:26PM
0 0
profile picture
VT_scratch
Posts: 8796 - Karma: 6,290
wow fuck me, disregard that post.
Sep 19 2012 6:30PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61649 - Karma: 123,487
I mean, 900-1000 lines at 720p60 is pointless (as its only 720 lines) but for 1080p, 900-1000 is so nice.
Sep 19 2012 6:51PM
0 0
profile picture
Coalescent
Posts: 4871 - Karma: 2,063
Don't worry Evan, I've been contemplating the same thing haha. Not kidding though. The fs100 is a great camera, but I also could actually make more money by selling the fs100 and all the lenses.
Sep 19 2012 6:52PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61649 - Karma: 123,487
As tempting as it is, I love my fs100 too much haha. Plus, mine is in bad shape, id be lucky to sell it.
Sep 19 2012 7:05PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
ding ding ding

I likely won't upgrade from my GH2 (unless it completely dies) because the GH3 isn't able to do completely new things. It's definitely a nicer camera and a great improvement, but they are just luxuries to me. Upgrading to a GH2 won't increase my margins in any way, and it's over double the resell value of my GH2...
Sep 19 2012 7:10PM
0 0
profile picture
SSteezle
Posts: 9300 - Karma: 7,700
there's always the beachtek and juicelink. I have no experience with the juicelink, but the beachtek is highly underrated.
Sep 19 2012 7:11PM
0 0
profile picture
goodiepocket
Posts: 950 - Karma: 641
you're in the same scenario as I am haha
Sep 19 2012 9:02PM
0 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,295
If I'd ever get into video it would definitely be a Gh2 with a bunch of FD glass. That shit is so cheap.

Quick ebay search:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-FD-Lenses-20mm-28mm-35mm-50mm-85mm-200mm-400mm-Accessories-/320985250544?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item4abc363af0

Won't probably sell for that, but the fact it's listed as that and there's no bids say enough about how cheap it is.
Sep 19 2012 9:28PM
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
Just curious, why would you prefer FD glass for this? But you dont seem to like it on Canon's bodies. Is that because its easier to adapt on a gh2?
Sep 19 2012 9:32PM
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
^ sorry, that was directed towards tijmen. Im on mobile and cant quote.
Sep 19 2012 9:33PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
The GH2 is insanely sharp; almost too sharp sometimes. One flaw with the software is that the profile settings don't have much of an impact on the image, so turning sharpness down all the way has a subtle effect at best. This is one reason why vintage (optically imperfect) glass is such a magical combination with it. And for other unknown reasons, Canon FD and Nikon glass somehow spits out amazing images with the m4/3 format.

"soft glass" on an unhacked GH2:
Click for larger image
Sep 19 2012 10:02PM
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
^ Damn. That screen shot was very impressive. If i do end up getting the GH3, i think i will keep my SMC tak 50mm, buy an 11-16, then a few fast vintage primes (24,35,85).
Sep 19 2012 10:59PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
I use this lens with mine all the time. Awesome portrait lens.
Sep 19 2012 11:35PM
0 0
profile picture
Brock.
Posts: 5698 - Karma: 1,332
That sounds totally fucking awesome

But I would be lucky to be traded a piece of string for my 3 season old T2i
Sep 20 2012 12:02AM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,329
wat. since when are old nikon/pentax/whatever lenses not sharp?
Sep 20 2012 12:15AM
0 0
profile picture
SSteezle
Posts: 9300 - Karma: 7,700
^ I'll literally do that deal right now
Sep 20 2012 12:16AM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
It's hard to explain. It's not that they aren't sharp per se (they're extremely sharp); it's that they have a more subdued overall character to them. They often don't have that archetypal L glass "pop" to them, so to speak. There's so much to lenses that can't be measured...
Sep 20 2012 12:23AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61649 - Karma: 123,487
wheres that full res son
Sep 20 2012 12:27AM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
That's why I prefer all the pre-"G" series Nikkor glass, none of that nano-coated stuff, generally the D series stuff, even for photo.
Sep 20 2012 1:47AM
0 0
profile picture
CrotchKiller
Posts: 9037 - Karma: 6,943
this alone has made me begin the switch over to gh3
Sep 20 2012 2:59AM
0 0
profile picture
CrotchKiller
Posts: 9037 - Karma: 6,943
this is a drunk post, may feel the same tomorrow htough
Sep 20 2012 3:00AM
0 0
profile picture
Randy_Quench
Posts: 5447 - Karma: 4,343
god damnit. It was hard to keep myself from abandoning my t2i for the gh2, pretty sure Im gonna have to upgrade to the gh3 after xmas bonuses.
Sep 20 2012 10:38AM
0 0
profile picture
family_vacation
Posts: 6200 - Karma: 7,840
If Canon doesn't do anything special in the next couple months I'll probably be jumping ship next spring...
Sep 20 2012 11:15AM
0 0
profile picture
goodiepocket
Posts: 950 - Karma: 641
after a few other purchases that I need to make, I will probably be making a gh3 my new b-cam. Seems like an FS-100 and gh3 would go side by side perfectly...excited!
Sep 20 2012 11:18AM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
well shit I might pick up a gh2 in a couple months.
Sep 20 2012 11:39AM
0 0
profile picture
snowisawesome
Posts: 447 - Karma: 76
Quick question.  I know that Nikon glass will work with the GH3 but will I need an adapter?  If so approximately how much do they run?  Not switching ships yet but always keeping an open mind.
Sep 20 2012 11:59AM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
They are cheap:

http://fotodiox-inc.amazonwebstore.com/Fotodiox-Lens-Mount-Adapter-Nikon-Gtype/M/B003Y2XN9G.htm?traffic_src=froogle&utm_medium=CSE&utm_source=froogle

You can use G glass with it (no aperture ring). Pretty sure I saw a newer or at least better looking version of this recently as well.
Sep 20 2012 12:43PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61649 - Karma: 123,487
Cheap adapters work, but I ended up replacing mine after the first time I used it in bright sunlight. Its definitely worth investing in a nice adapter if you can afford it.
Sep 20 2012 1:05PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
What adapter do you use and what are the benefits? this one is definitely a little shaky.
Sep 20 2012 2:37PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61649 - Karma: 123,487
Novoflex. Its tight, no light leak, just overall very solid. Fotodoix work for the price, but theyre normally decently loose and unless you tape the release button you get a nasty light leak. They arent bad for vintage glass because you can lock it down, but with a G lens its loosy goosy
Sep 20 2012 2:42PM
0 0
profile picture
snowisawesome
Posts: 447 - Karma: 76
eheath.  this is what your talking about then?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/646931-REG/Novoflex_MFT_NIK_Nikon_to_Micro_Four.html
Sep 20 2012 3:13PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61649 - Karma: 123,487
For the GH2/GH3 yes. You can find them cheaper used sometimes.
Sep 20 2012 3:15PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
If you're using a vintage lens, why on earth would you use the flimsy G adapter when you could use their very solid one-piece adapter?
Sep 20 2012 3:15PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61649 - Karma: 123,487
because why would you buy two adapters when you only need one?
Sep 20 2012 3:20PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31059 - Karma: 29,329
I think he's talking about when he uses his 11-16
Sep 20 2012 3:20PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
ha no shit. I'm saying if you plan on using Nikon lenses with a manual aperture ring, why would the lockdown feature even be of any concern when you can drop another $14 for a one-piece adapter that is just as solid as a Novoflex?
Sep 20 2012 3:37PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31059 - Karma: 29,329
ahh, i see what you're getting at. Like having an adapter for every lens. Well, keeping the G one for G lenses, and then giving each manual one it's own one.
Sep 20 2012 3:42PM
0 0
profile picture
Dub_Digital
Posts: 2794 - Karma: 636
anoyne know when its expected to be in stock/ship? ....are we talkin several weeks, or several months...
Sep 22 2012 2:17PM
0 0
profile picture
CrotchKiller
Posts: 9037 - Karma: 6,943
interested to know this as well
Sep 22 2012 3:35PM
0 0
profile picture
CrotchKiller
Posts: 9037 - Karma: 6,943
several sources are saying mid november
Sep 22 2012 3:36PM
0 0
profile picture
NPF
Posts: 5152 - Karma: 12,119
threads
Sep 22 2012 3:58PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)