I have a wedding TOMORROW and for some reason I decided to upgrade the firmware on my GH3 to v. 1.2 which was released in 2013. About midway during the update process, the screen shut off and the power LED started flashing, along with the AF light that kept staying on. This continued to happen for 15 minutes, I tried pushing buttons but nothing. I tried turning the camera off but it remained on. I got the battery out, put it back in, then when trying to start the camera, absolutely nothing. Not even a single noise.

As you can imagine, I am desperate, any ideas please? Thank you so much!

since there are over 100 views on this thread, I guess I owe you guys an update.

I am lucky to have an awesome friend in my city who loaned me his Canon C100 to film my 2 events this weekend. While others would have been made ecstatic by such a thing, the C100 turned out to only make me miss my GH3 even more. It is not the camera for me, and it's made me feel happy and sad at the same time when I realized how absolutely AMAZING the GH3 is by comparison, especially when you consider its price. So much so that I could write a dissertation on this, it's not that I'm biased. I generally have an open mind.

This being said, I KINDLY ask you from the bottom of my heart to share any info you might have regarding a solution to this. If you know anyone within Europe (preferably) who might have experience regarding reflashing a GH3, PLEASE let me know. My only alternative is to take a huge loan and buy either a used GH3 or a GH4, since I already have 12 events booked this year.

Thank you guys.

Sorry to hear about your issue Luc,
Have you tried contacting Panasonic in your area? You may be able to have them fix it for you at a cheaper cost than replacing it.
Good luck whatever you decide to do.
Bryce

I am lucky to have an awesome friend in my city who loaned me his Canon C100 to film my 2 events this weekend. While others would have been made ecstatic by such a thing, the C100 turned out to only make me miss my GH3 even more.

No magnified focus assist, peaking, and terrible noise levels always trump the C100.

The GH3 does have magnified focus assist, it just doesn't work while shooting. It does not have peaking, but peaking on the C100 did not help me much, I turned it off. I was using a 24-105mm f/4 lens, which combined with a 1.5x crop factor brought a lot into focus, so it was very hard to determine EXACTLY where the focus was. As for noise levels, I can't defend the GH3, the C100 is clearly better. However, if you have the right lens on it, such as a Voigtlander f/0.95, noise is not an issue anymore.

As an update, it turns out that my GH3 is still covered by warranty, even though Panasonic says on its site that for Lumix cameras the warranty is only 12 months. I'm extremely lucky due to some pan European warranty which is 24 months. I shall be sending it to the UK soon and hopefully the problem will be solved. SO relieved.

If you would have lived in Belgium I would have lend you my gh3 until you got your stuff sorted out, the 2 year EU warranty can come in very handy at times :) Good to see you managed to get it sorted within the warranty period, repair cost would probably be not that far from a new gh3 which is almost half the price of a gh4 right now. My gh4 has been a good upgrade but I still use my gh3 as a fixed cam on my steadicam and if it would die I probably would get another gh3, it's a bargain at it's current price. I don't miss peaking on that camera, I use the autofocus to set focus once and that is very fast and reliable with the 12mm f2.0 that has a permanent spot on my gh3, one thing I do miss is the internal audio which is much better on the gh4 but sounds like crap on the gh3 but have that solved with a small external mike mounted on the camera.

Oh really, much better audio on the GH4? So much better that you don't need an external mic on it?

I thank you for your support Noa. As you can imagine, it's not easy when something like this happens, especially psychologically. I had to smile all day at that wedding even though I felt like crap. At times I was looking for a whole few seconds at the C100's body to find the buttons I needed, like a true pro. Just a horrible feeling.

By the way, I sent you an email on your hotmail address regarding your Samyang 7.5mm. I still want to buy it :) I know we're offtopic here, feel free to let me know if you still have it. My email is luc.biz@gmail.com - thank you!

edit: Gary, Noa made another very good point - you focus VERY QUICKLY using autofocus on the GH3 before you start shooting. even though the 24-105mm Canon lens is a very good lens, my 14mm Panasonic lens which cost me $200 focuses at least 3x faster. Noa's Olympus 12mm probably focuses almost instantly I'm guessing, as I also have a 45mm Olympus lens and it's just unbelievably quick.

A external mike is always much better but for ambient sound the gh4 is fine without having to add on a external mike, the internal mike from the gh3 is pretty bad in comparison.

The autofocus on the 12mm is instant and accurate, even in very dark areas, but to be honest, I wish the GH camera's would have a better constant autofocus like the dual pixel autofocus on the c100, it probably is not accurate when it gets too dark but in good light it would be great to track a subject with a fast lens. The GH series are just not that good in continuous tracking focus.

If find the time this week I"ll show you a sample of the audio difference between the gh3 and 4

The GH3 does have magnified focus assist, it just doesn't work while shooting.

When it matters most.

It does not have peaking, but peaking on the C100 did not help me much, I turned it off.

Then you don't know how to read peaking.

I was using a 24-105mm f/4 lens, which combined with a 1.5x crop factor brought a lot into focus, so it was very hard to determine EXACTLY where the focus was.

Crop factor has nothing to do with it. You're used to m4/3 and were shooting on S35. You're not a full frame shooter, so you don't think in full frame anyway.

As for noise levels, I can't defend the GH3, the C100 is clearly better. However, if you have the right lens on it, such as a Voigtlander f/0.95, noise is not an issue anymore.

Except now you get CA.

He's happy with his GH3. Why begrudge him that?

He's happy with his GH3. Why begrudge him that?

I don't begrudge him anything. I have owned every single GH model since the GH2 (currently have the GH4).

It's simply not up to the level of the C100 and that's objectively. The C100 is better in lowlight, has better tools, and a better overall image, especially in 1080p mode (which is all the GH3 has).

Not that the GH3 is a bad camera, but come on, now. If he said he thought the GH3 was a better camera than a Dragon or an Alexa, that would be objectively wrong. There's simply no way that comparison works at all. The gulf isn't as wide with the C100, but it is most certainly there, as someone who has owned and used both and seen the results side-by-side.

He shouldn't be ashamed that he can't run out and buy one, but that doesn't mean this comparison is in any way apt.

I can't run out and buy even a GH4 for now, but I'm not ashamed because of it. I live in Romania and people here don't pay that much for wedding videos, or any other kind of videos for that matter. Most videographers here do their job with second hand 5D Mk2s. And even they make fun of my little camera with its little lenses. But that's okay, because I have the last laugh when I see what their 1080p footage looks like in comparison to mine. And speaking of 1080p footage - I tend to use a bit of slow motion in my wedding trailers. I had to shoot in 50i on the C100 because hey, they didn't bother to implement 50p on such an expensive camera. And as a GH owner, I'm sure you'll agree with me that the C100's 50i looks significantly worse than the GH's 50p.

I have shown my clients weddings filmed with both cameras (5D Mk2 and GH3), and without me telling them anything, they said "why does the video look better here than it did 5 seconds ago?" - and sure enough, they were referring to a clip filmed with the GH3.

I never said I was ashamed. I just said that if I were given the money to buy a C100, I'd use it to buy 2 GH4s without even thinking about it. And I swear it's the truth. I have 2 more weddings coming up in May for which I won't be able to use my GH3 (it will still be serviced), and while I could ask for the C100 again, for free, I'm thinking more and more about renting a GH3/4.

I had to shoot in 50i on the C100 because hey, they didn't bother to implement 50p on such an expensive camera. And as a GH owner, I'm sure you'll agree with me that the C100's 50i looks significantly worse than the GH's 50p.

If you're comparing 50i to 50p, then yes, it does lose quite a bit of resolution, and that what was what my GH3/4 combination with my C100 Mark I was for, shooting HFR. I upgraded to the C100 Mark II so that I wouldn't have to lug two camera systems around, and the 60/50p out of the Mark II is far better than out of the GH3.

Of course, you could have stated that it was the slow motion that made the difference and I wouldn't have had an issue with that, instead of a blanket "the C100 turned out to only make me miss my GH3 even more." Plus, the autofocus thing is also not accurate. The C100 not only has magnified focus assist while recording and peaking, you can also get it in Dual Pixel AF, which stomps hard on the GH3's autofocus. Not even close, especially because I have it on a toggle right under my finger.

Setting your focus once and not adjusting it works okay if you're primarily shooting wides. I, on the other hand, strive to deliver a variety of shots that have to be pulled off in one continuous record. I even had a client pick my current C100 Mark II over the GH4 with a Shogun simply because Dual Pixel AF will allow shots with a small crew that my GH4 simply cannot do as easily.

I have shown my clients weddings filmed with both cameras (5D Mk2 and GH3), and without me telling them anything, they said "why does the video look better here than it did 5 seconds ago?" - and sure enough, they were referring to a clip filmed with the GH3.

Not sure why you switched gears here to the 5D.

I never said I was ashamed. I just said that if I were given the money to buy a C100, I'd use it to buy 2 GH4s without even thinking about it.

You actually didn't say this.

Luc, the email you send me never arrived? I also tried to send you an email but you don't have that option enabled in your profile.

Just send me an email, address is luc.biz@gmail.com - thanks Noa!

I have a great deal of time for the C100; I don't own one as the lack of 4K is an issue. But I really wish the Mark II added this and it was sitting in my range of cameras.
Still I can understand Luc's statement; yes the implication was made the C100 is inferior - objectively I'd say not. However if you're use to using the GH3, switching to a C100 suddenly isn't an easy transition. I recently used my AF101a for continuous shooting reasons, and hated it. The real reason wasn't quality of footage - I didn't edit it, but because I wasn't as smooth and relaxed using it. My GH4 is like second nature; I don't have to even think about the controls. With the AF101a, it was a case of where's this control, how do I do this and boy do I miss the touch screen. Quality isn't always the reason for liking a camera. Sometimes the camera just fits the person. Personally I disliked the GH3, halfway into 2013 I was back with the GH2, but my GH4 and I are a perfect fit; never had an issue with it.

However if you're use to using the GH3, switching to a C100 suddenly isn't an easy transition.

Of course, but it doesn't mean that one camera is harder to use than another. I use both and am comfortable with both, so I can tell you what the difference is and which one is actually easier to use.

Guys, I did NOT say the C100 is inferior! I am fully aware of its capabilities. When you see ISO 80.000 selectable for video, you know it's no joke. Especially compared to the GH3's max of 6400.

However, I do have to agree with Steve. The GHx cameras are SIGNIFICANTLY easier to use and just feel friendlier. And I mean that in every way possible: weight (especially) for both the body and the lenses, ease of operation (not saying having more buttons is worse, it's just that we Panasonic users learned to make do with fewer and are happy that way), and maneuverability. In tighter spaces the C100 becomes a problem, especially with its big lenses. I also found out that shooting from a high angle is difficult (like a fully extended Manfrotto monopod), since the screen does not tilt down enough. You don't get this problem with a GH3.

Oh, and Gary, even though the GH3 has a smaller screen than the C100, I can determine where focus is more accurately on it. During the 2 years of filming events with it, I don't remember having to delete a single shot due to bad focus. And I'm sorry, but that's impressive for a camera with such a small screen and no focus peaking. And no, I don't use a loupe.

Well Luc, we have had a long standing motto here at DVI, that the best camera to use is the one that feels most comfortable in your hands. Camera specs aside, it just means we do our best work when the ergonomics are working with us, rather than against us. And since we are all different, one man's perfect fit can be another man's straight jacket.

Hope it all works out for you with whatever camera you use.

-gb-

Exactly Greg, that's a great way to put it. And while I recognize that the C100 is a more powerful tool than the GH3 (for the most part; I couldn't live without 1080/50p), to me it felt like a straight jacket during this weekend. And I wanted to like it, I was actually somewhat excited to be using such a pro camera. But... I didn't, and I doubt I ever will.

Quite frankly between all the cameras I have worked with and owned in the past ten years, the easiest most versatile have been and still are the JVC HD video cameras which is why I am really interested in their new 4K offerings over upgrading to a GH4 even though the price is quite a bit higher. Quite a number of higher end cameras tend to be less friendly to single person crews and the GH3 series, while filled with difficulties, tend to be easier than similar DSLR/35mm style digital cameras. Sure a C100 is better in many technical and image aesthetic aspects but ease of use is an important quality.

And it's possible that in certain filming situations the C100 focus peaking isn't helpful, I certainly have experienced that with many cameras over the years. However this is the Lumix forum not the "C100 is a better camera, how could you not like it" forum. He could have said that he tried a BlackMagic camera and didn't like it also and I wouldn't have blamed him at all. Here's to hoping that Luc's GH3 is repaired as fast as possible and that his next temp replacement camera is easier to work with at his upcoming job.

but ease of use is an important quality.

However, pointing out "ease of use" features such as peaking and magnified focus assist during recording doesn't seem to resonate. That's the issue.

And it's possible that in certain filming situations the C100 focus peaking isn't helpful,

Never been an issue with me. It's only an issue if you don't know how to read the peaking, much like not getting exposure correct because you also don't know how to read a waveform monitor (which the C100 also has and the GH3 does not).

I certainly have experienced that with many cameras over the years. However this is the Lumix forum not the "C100 is a better camera, how could you not like it" forum. He could have said that he tried a BlackMagic camera and didn't like it also and I wouldn't have blamed him at all.

It mostly started as a sly gibe against the "C100 turned out to only make me miss my GH3 even more." comment, which then turned into an attempt to turn the negatives into positives, and it struck me that he doesn't really know how to use the camera. That's fine, just pointing it out.

Thank you very much William for your kind words, let's hope that will be the case :)

Gary, I wish you the best of luck with your C100. I hope its peaking, the magnified focus assist functions and the waveform help you get the best possible footage. I, on the other hand, will continue to use just "the force", because it's worked very well for me over the last 2 years. That, and I consider zooming in 8x (or whatever the ratio is) when you're filming to be a bad idea, especially at weddings when you never know what's going to happen next. Not to mention you might be zooming in on a portion that you don't want to be focusing on, in which case I'm guessing you have to use the joystick to move around. Not my cup of tea.

And this is probably the best demonstrated example of trying to make negatives sound like positives (there was a similar thread on this about a waveform display).

As part of my workflow, I prefer repeatability, i.e. I can deliver repeated results and don't have to rely on "the force" and the missed focuses that plague that style of shooting (which I can attest to since I have done so, and with a GH3 no less).

Magnified focus assist and peaking means that the frequency of missed focus is far lower than trying to eyeball everything, just like knowing how to read a waveform monitor means that you'll never have to eyeball or guess exposure. Not having these are both negatives for the GH3.

However, from a competition standpoint, it's probably good that there are people who think in this way, so please, continue.

I really don't understand this repeated emphasis on negatives sounding like positives and what it has to do with anything discussed here relevant to this forum. I understand, you love being completely right 100% of the time and can never accept even part of a counter-argument, not even when the other person uses his few years of experience as solid facts instead of just pure theory. And I'm not just talking about myself.

Out of all the people on this thread, you seem to be the only one with a negative and/or superior attitude, from its beginning, and continue to do so even after it has been generally agreed (including by myself) that the C100 is a more powerful tool, overall.

This attitude is something I have dealt with repeatedly in Canon and Nikon DSLR video shooters and, to tell you the truth, it is also a reason why I love my GH3 so much - once they see my results, they shut up.

Rest assured, everybody understands the importance of all those functions you so highly praise. At the same time, they can do quite well without them.

I understand, you love being completely right 100% of the time

You misunderstand then.

and can never accept even part of a counter-argument

Counter-argument? What counter-argument? The counter-argument that eyeballing is just as good as the tools? Because then you go on to say:

Rest assured, everybody understands the importance of all those functions you so highly praise.

Because if those functions are important, then there is actually no counter-argument.

At the same time, they can do quite well without them.

A stopped-clock is right twice a day as the saying goes. But a running clock can be depended on for having the correct time. That's what I am saying. I'm not saying you can't get shots in focus by just eyeballing, or that you cannot have correct exposure with just eyeballing. You most certainly can. But the tools allow you to be sure. That's all I am saying here.

not even when the other person uses his few years of experience as solid facts instead of just pure theory.

Who here is speculating based on pure theory? Are you saying that using proper tools for focusing is just theory? That sounds an awful lot like lack of experience to me.

This attitude is something I have dealt with repeatedly in Canon and Nikon DSLR video shooters and, to tell you the truth

So what? I'm not a Canon and Nikon DSLR shooter. I am an EOS Cinema camera and Lumix mirrorless shooter, just like you are. So why even attempt an ad hominem here? I switched from the GH2 to the C100 primarily because of the tools I got in-camera. I understand you cannot afford a C100 camera (especially not the Mark II which has the slow-motion you use for your shooting), but what I'm saying is don't act like the lack of peaking and other tools is a positive for your GH3 simply because it's not a financially smart business decision for you at this time.

I really don't understand this repeated emphasis on negatives sounding like positives and what it has to do with anything discussed here relevant to this forum.

I wouldn't continue this argument if I were you; Gary is like a bulldog in winning the final point and will hold you to everything you say and everything you say will be used against you. :) Just let the matter drop and enjoy your GH3 when its back from repair. Hope you find a worthy replacement in the meantime that fits your style of shooting.

will hold you to everything you say and everything you say will be used against you.

Ha, yes, heaven forbid having me point out someone contradicting their own point! :-)

I wish you peace with your C100, your loyalty and defense of it is admirable. Please direct us to a place where the laudible features of the camera are taught (for free) so we can learn why you are so protective of it's reputation.

Please direct us to a place where the laudible features of the camera are taught (for free) so we can learn why you are so protective of it's reputation.

There's this thing called the Internet, and within that Internet is something called Google. It is your friend, and within it you can find out why peaking, magnified focus assist, and even the waveform monitor, are important, professional tools.

Ha, yes, heaven forbid having me point out someone contradicting their own point! :-)

Didn't you just contradict a point you made several months ago on some distant thread that bares no relation to this one. Shame on you!!! :) Okay I'm being fictitious - no call for it I know. But I contradict myself on many occasions often because I have a different opinion the next day or because I change my mind on a subject. It is allowed. One day I'll say I hate Weddings, the next I love them. Don't hold me to everything I say all the time. Same with cameras. That's the frustration of opinions, they're both right and wrong depending on whose listening.

I'm assuming you would agree that there's a big difference vs contradicting your own position in the same post.

I'm assuming you would agree that there's a big difference vs contradicting your own position in the same post.

Oh yes, but there's also being pedantic in pointing it out. Like me mentioning that you should substitute 'in' for 'vs' in the above quote. :) We're only human. Cutting people some slack never hurts.

Actually the "vs" is against your scenario, though I can easily see how you could miss that.

And it's only pedantic if it's something commented on the side, not part of the actual discussion. So if Luc wants to talk about how those tools are not important and then immediately says they are important, that's germane to the whole idea of usability of a camera that has said tools vs one that does not, would you not agree?

And, to be honest, you have jumped on this side comment that says nothing about the conversation at hand,
so who is really being pedantic here?

Actually the "vs" is against your scenario, though I can easily see how you could miss that.


Ah I see, your post was to be read as "I'm assuming you would agree that there's a big difference 'in what you're saying' vs contradicting your own position in the same post." You're right I did miss those words. :) I thought you were saying "I'm assuming you would agree that there's a big difference in contradicting your own position in the same post." You're a very confusing fellow Gary. I just can't keep up with you.

No I'm not guilty of being pedantic in this instance, I'm just teasing you Gary. :) You take these comments way too seriously. But you're right, I'm hijacking the thread with my bit of fun, so I'll stop now and bid adieu.

You're a very confusing fellow Gary. I just can't keep up with you.

I tend to be more confusing when posting via by iPhone, mostly because I'm making myself wait to upgrade until the 6s Plus.

You take these comments way too seriously.

I'm actually not taking your comments seriously at all. Bam!