G3 over GH2?

Discussion in 'Panasonic Cameras' started by mqavila, May 17, 2011.

  1. mqavila

    mqavila Mu-43 Regular

    All of this talk about the G3 got me thinking... I've had my GH2 for around three months now and am very happy with it. However, there are some things that tend to convince me that I might be better off selling my GH2 and getting the G3 in its stead:

    1. I'm just a novice photographer who is more inclined to just point-and-shoot rather than fiddle with manual controls.

    2. I'm even less of a videographer, only using video whenever it involves my kids.

    3. While neither camera is really "pocketable" in its true sense, I'm seeing that the G3 is actually smaller and lighter than the GH2 - although I understand that if I do decide to still keep my 14-140mm lens (or even my 14-45mm lens for that matter), even the G3 will still be hefty and too large for anonymity.

    Do I give up my GH2 for a G3? Or am I just a sucker for new releases? Actually, just to throw it in for good measure, do I even give up M43 completely and go back to a FZ35 superzoom? HELP!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Grinch

    Grinch Mu-43 Top Veteran

    813
    Jan 9, 2011
    Canada
    Easiest way to find your answer is what was/is your motivation that you want to accomplish? Then assess how you want/will be able to do this. Is it a question of equipment, situation, or user? Better equipment does not equal quality, the user does for the greater part. A camera, lens, etc will not get you the shot, you will. I may be wrong, but are you feeling overwhelmed by the abilities/features of your GH2? If so, I don't think another similar beast is going to solve your problem.
     
  3. mqavila

    mqavila Mu-43 Regular



    My motivation for getting the GH2 was to "graduate" from a P&S and get better images than a P&S would be able to.

    At this point, I'm not really overwhelmed by the GH2. It's more of, I'm blissfully ignorant of its many features since I use iA more often than not. :)

    To put things into better perspective, I got the chance to play around with a friend's GF1 recently and I felt that, in my untrained eye, I got images from the GF1 that were as good as what I would get from the GH2, less the bigger body.

    Hence, I'm wondering if the G3 would be the better fit for me...
     
  4. photoSmart42

    photoSmart42 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    628
    Feb 12, 2010
    San Diego, CA
    May I suggest another option:

    4. Take a photo class before you make a camera decision. I'd bet real dollars that the reason you're not overwhelmed by the GH2 is not because of the camera, but because you haven't given yourself a chance to develop your photographic eye. Simply moving from P&S to a more advanced camera won't result in any better photos - trust me, I did the same thing and failed. So take a class, learn as much as you can, then go out for a while and shoot with the GH2. You won't "graduate" from P&S until you can go out in the field and become comfortable with the manual controls: adjusting aperture, shutter, ISO, aspect, lighting, etc.

    Once you do that, then you'll be in a far better position to determine the gear you need for your photographic style. I did that and ended up moving all the way to large format, with everything in between. Some do that and go back to a P&S. Either way, don't give up on the GH2 just yet.

    Just my $ 0.02 FWIW.
    -Cheers!
     
    • Like Like x 5
  5. MegaPixelTravel

    MegaPixelTravel Mu-43 Regular

    73
    May 14, 2011
    Canada
    My thoughts exactly, if your just using the Ai mode all the time, your not really expanding beyond P&S...

    If you don't want to take a course, take your GH2 out for a walk set to Manual and play with the shutter speed, apateure, and iso and get to know your camera.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. mqavila

    mqavila Mu-43 Regular

    Thanks for your input guys! Right now, I'm just a bit busy to actually take formal photography classes but I just might do take my GH2 out for a bit of a walk on weekends to see if I can learn from my camera. :)
     
  7. If I think back to when I got first DSLR, it was no magic bullet in terms of the pictures I was making with it, and if anything was worse until I learnt how to work with the inherently shorter depths of field. A digital camera is the ultimate learning tool though with feedback that is instant and plain to see. Even a more advanced camera like GH2 can be as simple or complicated as you want to make it i.e. the G3 is probably no more user-friendly than your GH2.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. MegaPixelTravel

    MegaPixelTravel Mu-43 Regular

    73
    May 14, 2011
    Canada
    +100,000 on this comment. When I moved from a SLR to a Digital P&S (way back in the day when 2.1MP cameras where all the rage) my photography skills actually improve because of the instant feedback. So when I finally got myself a DSLR I was ready for it and just took off.
     
  9. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    Its all about the lenses.
    If you've not got any superior lenses for your GH2 and you're not going to take a load of high-quality video (That's what the GH2 does!) using a swathe of alternative lenses ... then your compact superzoom or any pocketable camera will be better for you provided you can get some serious money by selling your GH2.
    As for buying the G3 : perhaps also not suitable for your preferred use.
     
  10. Kosta

    Kosta Mu-43 Veteran

    435
    Sep 29, 2010
    Australia
    I don't think the lenses are the issue here (but they do greatly affect image quality), I'm with mr.penguin and photosmart. these are highly capable cameras, but the learning curve can be steep.

    I highly recommend you read your manual - hell, if you're busy, just leave it in the bathroom for some good reading material.

    nothing like usage and instruction to learn how to use it!
     
  11. mqavila

    mqavila Mu-43 Regular


    Point well taken. I guess I deserve this painfully obvious advice. That's what I get for being too lazy to read the manual! :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator

    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    I'd say if you hadn't already bought your GH2 and were just shopping for a camera now, the G3 might have been a better choice. But since you already have the GH2, I don't think there's anything to be gained by selling it and getting a G3. I doubt you'd make any money on the deal, and the G3 is not a BETTER camera, even if it may be as good for your needs. The GH2 has more capability and control than you need or are comfortable with right now. So it gives you a lot of room to grow. If you do, great - its likely a bit better camera for that than a G3 given the greater level of control. And if you don't, no problem - the GH2 can be used as an awesome P&S too and nothing is lost by having it.

    As others have said, the main thing is to spend some time on photography, develop your eye and your skills and see how far you take it. You may have bought more camera than you need, but its not like having it is a burden, so I'd sit tight and just USE your camera a LOT.

    -Ray
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. mqavila

    mqavila Mu-43 Regular

    I really appreciate your words of wisdom. Somehow, you've hit it right on the head and you've made me feel a whole lot better with my camera choice and removed any lingering doubts. Thanks!
     
  14. Wasabi Bob

    Wasabi Bob Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sensor comparison

    Some great comments being shared here. I think that if motion video is your 1st priority, the GH2 offers more performance over the G3. I’m surprised no one has compared the image sensors.

    I was able to obtain a simplified comparison of the GH2’s image sensors compared to G3’s

    Ø The GH2 uses a digital live mos sensor while the G3 uses an analog live
    mos sensor.
    Ø The noise performance of the digital live mos sensor is slightly better.
    Ø The analog live mos is probably less expensive, and requires an additional A/D converter. However, while the native noise performance may be slightly less, the updates made in G3’s Venus engine are said to maintain or exceed the noise performance of GH2.

    For those of you who may not understand how the image sensor works, the image sensor converts the “image” into an electrical signal that is proportional to the
    light intensity. In the analog version, that voltage is fed to an A/D converter (Analog to Digital). Any “noise” that may be part of the analog signal is also passed through to the conversion to digital data. Later, down the image processing chain, noise reduction (NR) is applied.

    With the digital version (GH2) the noise can be identified earlier in the overall process chain. No analog to digital conversion is required. It is generally recognized that any “conversion” can add artifacts that may not be part of the original signal.

    The bottom line is that GH2 costs more, and you will get slightly better performance for the added cost. G3 is smaller and perhaps less intimidating for anyone who is graduating from a point and shoot camera. No right or wrong here - just different strokes for different folks!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. everythingsablur

    everythingsablur Mu-43 Veteran

    412
    Aug 4, 2010
    Toronto, ON
    Barring taking classes, you can always happen down to your local library and pick up some books on photography fundamentals. The real trick isn't so much your equipment, but understanding composition and some basic know-how to get a look you want. A good photographer can still take good pictures with a good P&S, just need a little knowledge and practice.