I see a vastly improved dynamic range in the images, particularly with the girl against the lit up building. Superb.

Looks like 1299 body only.

I am sure just like everyone else, I've been trying to suck up as much information on this as I can. To me the biggest reason to upgrade:

DYNAMIC RANGE.
Just so everybody is absolutely sure what we're talking about, the dynamic range improvements are solely when taking STILL photographs, **NOT** video.

That should be clear from what is said about it:
"To cope with the extreme bright and dark contrast that you get, for example, with backlighting, consecutive photos are taken with different exposure levels and overlapped. Blown highlights and blocked shadows are then deleted and a single photo is composed."
Note "consecutive photos are taken with different exposure levels and overlapped"

I'd also be wary about worrying too much about the 1080p/60. The GH2 resolution true resolution was close to 700 lines - which is within the abilities of the 720p/60 system. Having 1080p/60 recording in camera won't make a lot of difference - you may as well blow the 720p up in post. In fact, it may even be WORSE, you're using your bitrate to encode a bigger raster with no more real information in it - hence likely more artifacting.

All that said, the GH3 looks pretty good for what it is and the price. Just keep in mind it is first and foremost a stills camera, and in the consumer camp.

I see a vastly improved dynamic range in the images, particularly with the girl against the lit up building. Superb.
But she's lit - I don't see how it's possible to draw any conclusion about the camera dynamic range therefore? (And nice lighting I have to say.)

Personal views did an interview with Panasonic at Photokina.

Here is a transcript:
questions:dieter-knuettel-questions [Photokina 2012 coverage] (http://www.personal-view.com/photokina/questions/dieter-knuettel-questions)

I'm becoming less impressed with this camera all the time.

The video is interesting, not bad for available light (sodium street lights according to the film maker who did a good job posing the model to the lights). It certainly looks cleaner than the GH2 would be in the same situation at ISO3200. Dynamic range, it might be better.

Just so everybody is absolutely sure what we're talking about, the dynamic range improvements are solely when taking STILL photographs, **NOT** video.

That should be clear from what is said about it:

Note "consecutive photos are taken with different exposure levels and overlapped"

I'd also be wary about worrying too much about the 1080p/60. The GH2 resolution true resolution was close to 700 lines - which is within the abilities of the 720p/60 system. Having 1080p/60 recording in camera won't make a lot of difference - you may as well blow the 720p up in post. In fact, it may even be WORSE, you're using your bitrate to encode a bigger raster with no more real information in it - hence likely more artifacting.

All that said, the GH3 looks pretty good for what it is and the price. Just keep in mind it is first and foremost a stills camera, and in the consumer camp.

Those are two totally different things. What is quoted there is the form of HDR mode Panasonic added to the GH3. It is used to create a sort of HDR photography look which is interesting if you like that sort of thing. Dynamic range is totally different.

Also the 1080p60 I have seen from the GH3 looks more detailed then 720p. It isn't always about resolving detail. 1080p60 has more chroma resolution 960x540 instead of 640x360 and can offer a cleaner video because it doesn't have to be scaled up. Nothing makes compression artifacts stand out more then scaling them up. If you start at native size you never have to scale it up. Plus the H264 encoder in the camera seems like it is going to be much more robust then the one found in the GH2. There was a discussion on how the new encoder can use 8x8 pixel blocks instead of the normal 4x4 of the GH2. This helps the encoder be more efficient. It is reported that the GH3 should be able to encode much cleaner video at lower bitrates. Combine that with 50bits and the 1080p60 has more then enough bits to work. Other cameras have very impressive 1080p60 with only 28mbps. An extra 22mbits is huge, especially on a better optimized encoder.

Personal views did an interview with Panasonic at Photokina.

Here is a transcript:
questions:dieter-knuettel-questions [Photokina 2012 coverage] (http://www.personal-view.com/photokina/questions/dieter-knuettel-questions)

I'm becoming less impressed with this camera all the time.

Didn't really see anything there that were not considered unrealistic rumors. I mean no DSLR has 4:2:2 so that is kind of a realistic outcome there. It is also pretty clear the person/people answering the questions didn't exactly have all the answers. Most of this stuff is right there on the Panasonic webpage and they couldn't answer it. It also seems like they didn't have time to get to know what the new camera actually does.

Typically staff at a trade show only know so much. Lets face it some of us can ask some real curve ball questions at these things. A lot of these questions were fairly deep that even the lead engineer may scratch their head over.

There was a lot of no comment Thomas.
The one that really hit home was not knowing the Dynamic Range or if the HDMI was clean or not.

Aside from a few improvements, I really don't see where they will be able to justify the price.

I said this a few days ago. I can buy the Black Magic camera for about two times the price and really have the future camera now....

It may be after this is hacked if they haven't encrypted the firmware, and a workaround can be found for some of it's shortcomings, it may be worth me buying. But by that time the price will have come down anyway.

Now that's just my opinion and I'm not nearly arrogant to try to convince others to avoid the GH3. That'a a decision best based on personal need.

I doubt I will upgrade either. In fact I just recently upgraded from my GH1 to the GH2. The GH2 will still continue to be a killer camera and if it already does everything you need then there really is no need to upgrade. I think without a doubt across the board the GH3 is going to be a better camera but that doesn't mean it is a necessity.

Dynamic range may be better but it also may be a bit too early for Panasonic to say by how much. When the Blackmagic camera was announced at NAB there were certain things the staff either couldn't comment on or just didn't know the answer to. The firmware at NAB wasn't ready either and even those who used the camera couldn't really answer certain questions.

You also have to be a bit careful with the BMC in terms of price point. You may have to buy a lot of extra gear just to make it practical such as an external battery system and extra SSD's. Some people have figured about 4k to 5k for a decent kit to get started. Still very cheap for what it is of course. Shooting ProRes is a decent option but shooting raw is going to be a pain to work with. I work with Red footage at work and we use Assimilate Scratch for grading. Killer material and grading software but a very cumbersome workflow and just not practical for every project and budget.

A "no comment" just means they are not allowed to talk about it yet. I honestly think the people there were answering based on the spec sheet and nothing else. Things like the HDMI output quality is not a listed spec and therefore very few people at Panasonic will know the answer to that.

Those are two totally different things. What is quoted there is the form of HDR mode Panasonic added to the GH3. It is used to create a sort of HDR photography look which is interesting if you like that sort of thing. Dynamic range is totally different.
That they are two different things is exactly the point. HDR means "High Dynamic Range" and is a mode by which two images of different exposures are combined together to form a composite - it can work well, but only for still photographs. But it does have the effect of giving an end result with far higher dynamic range - the longer exposure gives the dtail in the shadows, the shorter the detail in the highlights.

You may understand the difference - but others don't. The point that HDR is a means of getting far greater dynamic range for some STILL photos is being missed. It's being seen that the GH3 has a super high dynamic range mode - and therefore must be applicable to video as well.

Is the video dynamic range better than the GH2? It may be a little - I doubt it's much.
Also the 1080p60 I have seen from the GH3 looks more detailed then 720p. It isn't always about resolving detail. 1080p60 has more chroma resolution 960x540 instead of 640x360 and can offer a cleaner video because it doesn't have to be scaled up.
I'll give you the comment about the chroma resolution, you're quite right. As regards scaling, then no DSLR or still sensor will (currently) give true 1080 resolution off the chip. Record 1080 with such a camera and the scaling just happens in camera, not in post.

Switch a camera with 3x 1920x1080 chips from 1080 to 720 and the difference is night and day - do the same with this sort of camera and you'll find the difference far less.......
Nothing makes compression artifacts stand out more then scaling them up. If you start at native size you never have to scale it up.
Having said that scaling up happens, it's a true point you raise that in camera scaling doesn't scale up compression artifacts. But a 1080 raster is more difficult to compress than a 720 one.......

Yes, there are likely other improvements in the coder compared to the GH2. Don't think I'm knocking the camera, just trying to get rid of unrealistic expectations.

I have no illusions, the camera will not be perfect and already fails to live up to the initial hype (e.g., XLR accessory, 4:2:2 output from HDMI, etc.) - but I stil think it's worth $1299 and I put one on preorder because of the things I really need such as weathersealing, headphone jack, fully manual audio, and 1080/60p - but also because I'm blown away by Panasonic's decision to provide serious codec alternatives to AVCHD. This is a great decision that they're not getting enough credit for.

Yes, BMCC-like or C300-like DR would have been nice, but what Panasonic really needed was better low light performance than the unhacked GH2 - and Bruce Logan's use of practical lighting in the traffic stop scene from Genesis seems to indicate that the GH3 delivers that.

Cheers,

Bill

Under the hood there are major improvements to this camera, as you point out Bill. I don't care how jaded a person is, one cannot imagine such a price increase would be attempted for this camera were there not plenty of reasons to justify it.

This is a major upgrade, much more significant then the GH1 to GH2. The increase in image quality may or may not be as dramatic, but in the many other improvements, yes, this is big.

There will be the usual crop of folks who initially purchase the camera who will be disappointed that it cannot capture perfect images in unreasonably dark conditions using a slow stock lens, or other similar nonsense, but I suspect this camera will make plenty of people happy.

Upgrades are always just that, upgrades. I still stand by what I said that a lot of expectations of products today are typically unrealistic. I would love a camera to pour me a beer but I know it isn't going to happen.

We see it happen all the time with Apple products and then when people don't get an iPhone with all the hyped features they are disappointed. It really seems like more people want to judge the GH3 for what it doesn't have then for what it does have.

I can't imagine what more anyone could want, Thomas. In my case, an HDMI output that is not cripple as it was on the GH2 would be something I would be thrilled with.

I can't imagine what more anyone could want,

All I really want to see is the colors I see with my eyes, showing up on the screen. I want those colors to pop, just like the real thing. The GH1 didn't. This GH2 doesn't either. I don't think that by the third version, getting color right is too much to ask for.

Which cameras get the color spectrum correct, for example? And which hues does the GH2 shift?

Hi William.... not sure about other cameras, not looking to switch systems.

But the first glaring example came when I tossed the GH2 out my front door to do some testing. There's a stop sign, relatively new stop sign, 79' away. My eyes see a bright blood red. The footage, that's a nice orangey red color. Tried 6 different modes and got six orangey red stop signs. That's when I really started looking and found my disappointment in these camera lying on these washed out colors. The more I look, the more I see they are "close but no cigar" when compared to the real thing. Maybe no one else sees it. Maybe no one else cares. For me it's something that I find aggravating.

Chip, which lenses do you shoot with? For example I have shot stunning video using the Olympus 12-60mm F/2.8-4.0 lens, with picture perfect colors that were a joy to behold, and I have shot horrible looking stuff using a Tamron zoom lens that had horrible color rendition for me.

I found for me that the LCD is unreliable, very tricky. For me a lot of guesswork.

I almost always use the LCD for video. The only times I use the viewfinder is when I'm taking photos. For me the LCD always looks different than how the footage comes out so I guess I'm used to it by now.

I think the gh3 will be a nice upgrade. Maybe not a camera I will rush out to get but I'm sure eventually I will. The gh2 that I have still does everything I need quite well.
The gh3 should be a great product either way.

I have long given up on exact colors but then I never really did any work for corporate clients who must have their product a certain color or all hell breaks loose. Way back in my film days there was always color differences in film stocks especially between the warm natural looking Kodak films and the intense blues and reds of Fuji stock. Later on when working with top of the line Ikegami video cameras there would occasionally be a subject who would be wearing a shade of purple that would not come out purple, either blue or red depending on which hue the purple was leaning to. Other purples worked fine. I have worked with other cameras that did the same thing with blue-greens, you would get a green or a blue but not the shade in front of the camera. Then the monitors have their own issues. A truly accurate monitor costs thousands of dollars.

I look to accurate flesh tones first and the rest later. The first question is, does the result look good on it's own?

Chip, I've found the same thing as Jeff. The lens has a tremendous influence on color, especially red. Distance seems to factor in also and I think some of it is that we aren't really seeing some of the reds we think we are.

I've also found the different hacks make a difference. I've been shooting the last few days with a new hack that seems to reproduce the reds very well and eliminate the yellow in foliage.

William is also right and he's also telling his age. I remember those days all too well.

I videoed the Slut Walk this morning and the color of the sign in this grab is about perfect

The what walk?

Jeff and Don..... it was the Panasonic Leica 45mm. So, if anything should have been optimized for the system, I would think that one should have been. BUT, if it's nice out tomorrow, I'll try a few I have here and see if that makes a difference. The video from France linked to earlier in this thread, although done under sodium lights, the saxophone also is completely washed out. The white balance for sodium lights have to be taken into consideration and may be why the sax isn't a nice brassy golden.

William, now that you mention it, I now think remembering having some of those same issues with my GSs when I was shooting those. I wasn't that fussy back then, was more worried about blow out imagery, than getting colors perfect.

When I am on some of the stills forums and seeing some of the images guys are getting, the colors are stunning and just seem to jump out at you. I suppose the difference between a still and video is the amount of information each "image" contains though.

Anyways, that's my bitch du jour and the one thing I really would hope we can see corrected.

It's certainly a legitimate gripe Chip.

Getting the most out of the GH2 is work. There are so many variables, I've never found a magic workflow.

Today I shot a group and had a total of 312 clips. Working on each individual clip to get the best color, then trying to grade it all to match takes forever and 3 days.

Then to make it worse, I just watched a comparison video of the 5D III to the Black Magic camera and the BM blew the MK III so far out of the water I hate to look at my finished product.

There is no end to it!

Who are you calling a slut?

Jeff and Don..... it was the Panasonic Leica 45mm. So, if anything should have been optimized for the system, I would think that one should have been. BUT, if it's nice out tomorrow, I'll try a few I have here and see if that makes a difference. The video from France linked to earlier in this thread, although done under sodium lights, the saxophone also is completely washed out. The white balance for sodium lights have to be taken into consideration and may be why the sax isn't a nice brassy golden.

William, now that you mention it, I now think remembering having some of those same issues with my GSs when I was shooting those. I wasn't that fussy back then, was more worried about blow out imagery, than getting colors perfect.

When I am on some of the stills forums and seeing some of the images guys are getting, the colors are stunning and just seem to jump out at you. I suppose the difference between a still and video is the amount of information each "image" contains though.

Anyways, that's my bitch du jour and the one thing I really would hope we can see corrected.

I am not surprised that the sodium lamp would wash out a golden saxophone since that color is right in the range of the sodium lamp. No contrast.

Still photographers have an arsenal of color correction techniques that video people can only get from high end software. Lately I've been seeing a lot of striking stills that are great to look at but are essentially supernatural in their color rendition

Who are you calling a slut?

I'm still doing the research for a mini doc but the slut name came from a Canadian cop who told a group of women they wouldn't be raped if they didn't dress like sluts.
That kinda PO'ed them I think.
Richmond’s first “Slut Walk” brings up sexual assualt awareness | WTVR.com ? Richmond News & Weather from WTVR Television CBS 6 (http://wtvr.com/2012/09/23/richmonds-first-slut-walk-brings-up-sexual-assualt-awareness/)

From one of my clips yesterday:
They all dressed up in interesting outfits and marched 2 miles in protest.

Wow, the ignorance of some people is amazing. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up.
Now back to camera talk. I hope this thing has 422 HDMI out. If it does I will really be interested in picking one up.

According to Panasonic, it doesn't Ron.

I've read that the GH3 HDMI output is 4:2:0 (like HDV and XDCam EX) but since that color space is not in the HDMI standards that I have seen, I am not sure how that would work with other equipment. Perhaps the 4:2:0 is converted to 4:2:2 before outputting to the HDMI port but we are not getting any better color than what is recorded on the SD card. Unlike an AF100 where the SDI port is supposedly giving you video directly out of the image sensors before processing for AVCHD files.

If the GH3 puts out a clean 24p HDMI signal that I can record on an external recorder, I will be happier.

The last word I heard on it William, was that it would be a clean 4:2:0, 8 bit HDMI out.

Regardless, it will be minus AVCHD compression which is a big help. What I really want a backup recorder on my GH camera in case the SD chip fails in any way. That's how I shoot with my HDV cameras (a FireStore disk) and with the JVC HM750 (it has dual chip recording)..

Keep in mind that many HDMI ports on even pro level video cameras put 24p inside of a 60i stream. So if you wanted to use an external recorder for 24p shooting you may have to remove the 3:2 pulldown with software. Not a huge deal but something to think about.

I have had cameras with 100% uncompressed 4:2:2 HDMI output for years but I never used them in that way because of the extra hassle involved. Honestly I have become a fan of the progressive flavor of 4:2:0 and find it to be very sufficient even for visual effects work. Most of the software I use can filter the 4:2:0 into 4:4:4 so it doesn't make as big of a deal for me. Sure a true 4:4:4 would be better but I can live without it with a bit of care. The difference between progressive 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 isn't as big as it once was. Well at least when dealing with progressive footage. 60i is another story but then again I avoid interlaced like the plague these days. If I need a 60hz video I shoot 60p instead.

Guys, I agree there are SO many variables to getting a great image from the camera.

First the LCD is unreliable, so I have to guess based on past experience. Secondly lenses each render colors so differently, IMO. Chip, I find the 45mm does tend toward less great color rendering, but my 12mm F/2.0 is always beautiful, as long as my settings are great. The 45mm has indeed produced images that looked somewhat washed out for me also. The secret I suspect is learning how to set white balance, etc., as needed for each lens to at least maximize the image quality. Then I find when I switch to the 25mm F/1.4 color can be too warm or cool, it it maddening. The 25mm can really drive me to distraction but at times it's just perfect, it depends on the light.

I have now moved to using primarily the Canon XA10s as my primary cameras for my weddings. I am not a cinematographer, and at my price point it is plain dumb for me to fool unnecessarily with lenses and cameras when I get absolutely stunning images with a real video camera. Images from the large sensor of the GH2 are gorgeous, no question, but I'm focusing more on getting the job done simply and efficiently. I don't have time in post to color correct mismatched cameras I"m so behind in my editing anyway.

The differences in colors with the various primes does drive me nuts, and it just saps my time and energy. For special projects, I will use the GH2 for sure, but for grunt video work like my weddings I am settling in to using the GH2 as third and fourth cameras, and the rest of the time they sit in my case.

Once I attached the Varavon LCD EX-Supporter loupe, the GH2 became very stabile for handheld, even with non-stabilized lenses. I assume that the same will be true for the GH3.

Ergonomics alone may be worth it to me. Handheld with the GH2 is just as bad if not worse than handheld with the Canon XL2.

I find the opposite to be true. I use no loupes or rigs on my GH2. Just hold it like a still camera. Love the EVF. That is one of the strengths of the GH2 is that it is the only HDSLR that does not need a rig or loupe for shooting. And no extra cost.

I like the EVF as well but while using the 20mm pancake lens I just couldn't stabilized the camera enough especially with manual focus. The Varavon GH2 loupe fixes that. Other loupes that mount directly behind the camera didn't excite me at all.

Also during a long job with the EVF where I couldn't relax from looking thru the viewfinder for long stretches, I found that I was breathing on the camera so much that condensation was collecting between the folded LCD and the body. That's not good.

Stabilization is a major issue with my 25mm Takumar Super Muliti Coated Vintage lens (50mm after crop). Amazing footage, but holding her steady handheld leads to hand cramps very quickly. Will need a rig of some sort soon.

Try a Gorillapod as a simple handhold stabilizer... multiple ways to make it work for you. Cheap and multi-use.

Guys, I agree there are SO many variables to getting a great image from the camera.

First the LCD is unreliable, so I have to guess based on past experience. Secondly lenses each render colors so differently, IMO. Chip, I find the 45mm does tend toward less great color rendering, but my 12mm F/2.0 is always beautiful, as long as my settings are great. The 45mm has indeed produced images that looked somewhat washed out for me also. The secret I suspect is learning how to set white balance, etc., as needed for each lens to at least maximize the image quality. Then I find when I switch to the 25mm F/1.4 color can be too warm or cool, it it maddening. The 25mm can really drive me to distraction but at times it's just perfect, it depends on the light.

I have now moved to using primarily the Canon XA10s as my primary cameras for my weddings. I am not a cinematographer, and at my price point it is plain dumb for me to fool unnecessarily with lenses and cameras when I get absolutely stunning images with a real video camera. Images from the large sensor of the GH2 are gorgeous, no question, but I'm focusing more on getting the job done simply and efficiently. I don't have time in post to color correct mismatched cameras I"m so behind in my editing anyway.

The differences in colors with the various primes does drive me nuts, and it just saps my time and energy. For special projects, I will use the GH2 for sure, but for grunt video work like my weddings I am settling in to using the GH2 as third and fourth cameras, and the rest of the time they sit in my case.

Are you happy with the 24p on the xa10? Ive been wanting one for a while to use along with my gh2 and I shoot primarily 24.

I'm extremely happy, Mike. The images are just amazing to me. I love my XA10. I probably would not want the bigger brother to it, I actually love the small size, it works really well for me. Audio quality from the cam is stellar too.

I must be in the small minority here that find GH3's form factor a big turn off. A major reason I came to GH from Canon DSLR was its more portable size, especially with pancake lenses. I think the appeal of micro4/3 to many people was its smaller size relative to APC-S with little compromise of IQ. Panasonic just put GH3 out of their consideration with its decision to target the niche pro-video market.
In fact, only after the GH3 announcement did I decide to settle on a GH2 instead; GH3 is just too big for a hobbyist.

Lee, if you need small size and weight, the GF-1 and GX-1 are great cameras in a tiny packet...and the GX1 performs very close to the GH2 in terms of video and stills images (or the G3, which has video/stills performance equal to the GX1).

Thanks Tony for suggestions. I think GFs and GX1 lack EVF and manual video. Those would be features any video enthusiast would want and cannot live without. I would imagine there are ways to put some bulky cover over a small body so that if people want better handling they can get a larger grip and look, and people like me would have the option of having a more portable body.

Lee, we each have different likes about the camera, but many of us, me included, find the small size of the camera an issue.

Most of us here purchased the camera because of price and the amazing video quality, not for it's small size, the small size was a downside for many of us.

For day to day use in the field it is fiddly and too easy to hit buttons unintentionally. As a hobbyist, I can see the small size would be a plus. But as a pro shooter it's a different thing altogether. Just my two cents.

Another interesting interview with Panasonic:

Q&A with Panasonic: The story behind the new video-centric GH3 and other compact system camera tech advances - Imaging Resource (http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2012/09/28/qa-with-panasonic-the-story-behind-the-new-gh3-and-compact-system-tech)

For day to day use in the field it is fiddly and too easy to hit buttons unintentionally. As a hobbyist, I can see the small size would be a plus. But as a pro shooter it's a different thing altogether. Just my two cents.

It's not just pros. Even for some of us hobbyists, the GH2 size is an issue. I'm not a big guy but I'd say I have slightly larger than average hands. I find using the GH2 buttons to be difficult at times. I'm not ready to spring for a GH3 but I do like the larger size.

D

Put a handle on it. I borrowed this from my Craftsman drill that cost about $50.
I use it for any camera I have, Coolpix, GoPro when I'm in the water, GH2.
It takes the big mitts out of the equation.
I saw a guy with a retractable monopod that looked like the ticket for on land run and gun use.

I've gotta say that the small size is a blessing and a curse, depending on how it's set up.

One GH2 is on rails with a Rode Videomic and Loup and depending on what lens, a follow focus. It's far from small but easy to handle.

The other is in a Shrigg Rig with a smaller mc. Smaller than the rails but still easy to use.

Anytime I need small to get into a "No Professional Cameras" venue or just because I don't want the bulk, I can take them off and use the bare camera.

Put a handle on it. I borrowed this from my Craftsman drill that cost about $50.
I use it for any camera I have, Coolpix, GoPro when I'm in the water, GH2.
It takes the big mitts out of the equation.
I saw a guy with a retractable monopod that looked like the ticket for on land run and gun use.

Great idea but you still need to use your fingers to adjust settings. That's as much of a problem for me as just holding the camera. I don't see any solution to that other than to be careful and watch every move so the wrong button doesn't get pressed.

But thanks for the tip.

D