C100 VS GH3, thoughts?

[Steve Nunez]

Hey guys, has anyone here used a GH3 and C100, if so, what did you notice about the image quality differences?

I have a GH3 and am very satisfied with it but am wondering about the image quality improvement (if any, or to what degree) the C100 would have over it......anyone use both?

Thanks guys~

[Pavel Sedlak]

Wait a moment. Goes new cameras and better as usual, this will solve your question .-) .

But I like my new C100, it's only what I can say (sorry, I don't have GH3).

[Nate Haustein]

They are both very good cameras. The C100 is a little sharper, and a little better in low light, but it's not major in my opinion. I was able to shoot how and what I wanted with both cameras. The biggest difference is the ergonomics and feature set on the Canon - XLRs, NDs, etc.

If you're happy with the GH3, keep shooting with it. I don't think that the C100 is a significant upgrade in image quality for the cost involved unless you can't live without the extra features it offers. Besides, the GH3 shoots 50mbps, which trumps the 24 of the Canon...

[Jim Giberti]

And it has the very important 1080 60p which is why we picked up a pair of them for production rather than the C100.
I've got a short film premiering at the cinema tomorrow that has 2 5Ds and 2 GH3s cut together and they look great. The clients love the look and frankly, it looks really nice on a big screen, using those cameras - and we got things from them that neither the 100 or 300 would have given us for this project - FF and variable frame rates.

FWIW, I still prefer the look of the Canon and always have, and also prefer the look of FF.
When Canon eventually releases a FF 1080 camera with variable frame rates, then I'll reinvest there...unless someone else gets our attention at NAB - but I'm really hoping Canon wakes up from their "crippling" phase with codecs and frame rates and using older processors on wonderful new sensors.

We've had a budget for new cameras for over a year but the lack of 60p on either the 300 or 100 has kept us on the sideline.
If I were you I'd enjoy the GH3. It's a great camera with great detail and nice slow motion.
NAB will be interesting.
Eventually Canon will have to address theses short comings or this segment of the market will move permanently.

[Dave Mercer]

Don't have the GH3 but used a hacked GH2 as my main camera for a year and a half before getting the C100. Low light the two are in different categories, no question. And other than that, for the type of work I do (news features, etc) I am getting way more useable images out of the C100, and have just started using it.

Then of course there's the NDs, XLRs, ergonomics, etc

[Steven Keller]

I have both and agree that the C100 is better in low light, by about two stops or more (noise), and not just sharper but more detailed. DR is also slightly better with C-log, and moire is less of a factor. I can't see the difference in 24mbps vs 50mbps, I think because Canon did AVCHD right. And you get XLR's and audio control, a waveform on the LCD, peaking, etc. And way more IQ control. And the C100 is built like a tank compared to the flimsy GH3. But you get 60p on the GH3, along with auto focus, and even auto ISO if that interests you. And the GH3 is so small and light it's shocking.

[Erik Naso]

Two very different cameras. If your comfortable with the workflow of DSLR's then heck yeah! The GH3 is a great little camera, but if you want to have less add ons and a more ergo camera I think the C100 is a great choice. Either way your going to get very good IQ from both cameras. I'm more inclined to use a proper video camera with XLR inputs and waveform but I love my GH3 and I like to use it when it's appropriate. Have you used a dedicated video camera before? I'm not being sarcastic because a lot of people started out with the 5D MKII.