1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

GH3 should be called,4/3rds as it's hardly micro-sized

Discussion in 'Panasonic Cameras' started by RichA, Sep 19, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 28, 2012
    Essentially, it's like a small DSLR. But it makes sense. I can see a point where mirrorless cameras with larger sensors than FF might become available. There is already a square, flat video camera out there (I forget the company) that offers professional video for about $3000.00.
  2. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, USA
    Panasonic is basically redoing standard 4/3rds minus a mirror. It still baffles me why Olympus doesn't release some sort of PDAF adapter for their 4/3 line?
  3. Art

    Art Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2011
    San Francisco, CA
    It really doesn't matter what features Panasonic put into GH3. It was time for on-sensor PDAF for tracking and especially video which Panasonic is supposed to be good at. Nothing else matters as much.
  4. CUB

    CUB Guest

    For a still photographer, the GH3 makes the Pentax K-5ii look very attractive.
  5. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Only if you like the Pentax lenses (not to mention pricing structure).

  6. jloden

    jloden Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 15, 2012
    Hunterdon County, NJ
    I don't get the fixation on body size with Micro Four Thirds - and this is coming from someone who explicitly got into this format for a smaller camera with good image quality.

    1) We already have multiple small body options from both Panasonic and Olympus

    2) The GH3 isn't even available yet. No one has a production sample, and until people have them in hand, it's a little early to be predicting the death of the micro in Micro Four Thirds.

    3) There's more to cameras than body size. Lots of people like DSLRs and "pro" cameras because they have lots of easy to access manual controls. You can't feasibly pack 5 function buttons and a bunch of dedicated control buttons on a body the size of a deck of cards. It's a trade-off.

    4) The point of Micro Four Thirds is reduced system size. Key word being "system". Even if the GH3 is the same size as an entry level DSLR, the smaller sensor and shorter flange focal distance means smaller lenses.

    Let's assume for the sake of argument the GH3 eliminates the point of m4/3 so you'll just go with APS-C or full frame (which IMO is a stretch). Add up all the weight and bulk for the body, lens, batteries, and accessories. If you still can't see the value proposition, then I don't know what else to say. Compare the 12-35mm f/2.8 with the equivalent 24-70mm f/2.8 with OIS on full frame, and what do you see (using the Tamron example because it was an easy to find image for a quick comparison):

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Go ahead and get a 200-600mm zoom and a DSLR body and put that side by side with the GH3 and Panasonic 100-300 panasonic or Olympus 75-300. Which one would you rather carry all day? It's not just about the body size, it's also about system size and overall ergonomics.
    • Like Like x 15
  7. Robstar1963

    Robstar1963 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jun 10, 2011
    Isle of Wight England UK
    Robert (Rob)
    Well said !
    • Like Like x 1
  8. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Sep 5, 2011
    Looks pretty small to me:

    Compact Camera Meter

    If only the answer was that simple. Canon's version, on the EOS M and Rebel T4i pretty much sucks. Current m43 CDAF systems work much, much faster for both S-AF and C-AF. Nikon's version works quite well in bright light, but shuts off completely in dim light. Not quite the complete answer, either. We don't really know about Sony's version yet, but I'll hazard a guess: The new A99 comes with Sony's on-sensor PDAF system. BUT, it also has the traditional PDAF system used in all the other A series bodies. It seems unlikely Sony would bother with the expense of two independent systems if the on-sensor system worked as well as the standard one. Especially since the Sony system even works for video.

    Maybe some day on-sensor PDAF will be superior to Panny and Oly CDAF. It's not there yet.
  9. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    LoL - Please tell this to all the never-ending comments here that always sound like...(paraphrasing):
    "...big, heavy, DSLRs..."

    • Like Like x 2
  10. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter Subscribing Member

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
  11. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Sep 5, 2011
    Fore me, the key word there is "heavy."

    I have nothing against the SIZE of my 50D. It handles better than the GH2 or OM-D I also own. It's the weight of that camera, with 10-22, 17-55, and 75-300 lenses I hate.

    A GH3 with 7-14, 12-35, and 45-200 is much, much lighter. And smaller, too, for that matter.
    • Like Like x 2
  12. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    That's fair enough.:smile:
    And personally, I think a heavier GH3 helps to balance out the 35-100 and the upcoming 150 ƒ2.8....
  13. Linh

    Linh Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Apr 14, 2009
    Maryland, US
    I suspect they can't do it. Or it's just taking very long. This seems to be the obvious option because it seems, to me anyway, easier than doing on sensor PDAF.

    However, with the looming partnership with Sony, both technologies might be closer to them now. Maybe they've just been stalling for this.
  14. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    I'm with jloden on that issue.

    I have restrained from raising this argument so far, but, for me personally, the most annoying thing about the GH3 is how much it tries to look like a "serious DSLR" (sic!) camera, in the conventional use of the term. I'm viewing it in tandem with Panasonic insistense in calling it a "DSLM" and statements about being the first pro type mirrorless camera, etc.

    I'm dissapointed but I understand the general public has to see a camera that "looks" like a DSLR to be convinced it's "serious". Personally, I always thought modern DSLRs looked like the product of the unholy union of an industrial tractor with an oversized black jellybean. Old SLR or rangefinder look is more aesthetically pleasing to me. And I'm not convinced at all that the modern paradigm is the best possible, from an ergonomic point of view.

    All that said, the GH3 still is "small enough" as part of a system to retain the main advantages of :43: in this department. The marketing scheme of "making it look more serious" will certainly work for some markets.
    • Like Like x 2
  15. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Wanted to write just that. Sony has both a similar adapter available for their NEX line and on sensor PDAF in their latest offerings. I personally believe both of these options will be available next year, with a "pro-level" OM-D successor.
  16. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Hence the OMD.
    How many times have we seen here posts from OMD owners stating it's been mistaken for an SLR....
  17. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Agreed, but Olympus actually has a tradition in photographic equipment vs a tradition in home air-conditioning systems :biggrin: (just teasing fellow Panasonic fans here :cool: :smile:) .

    In the retro tradition they decided to name and give visual hints in the design of their :43: cameras reminiscent of their analog cameras. At least it's THEIR cameras not someone else's (e.g. Fujis looking like Contax/Konica). But that's irrelevant and a lifestyle issue.
  18. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Sep 5, 2011
    I'm not sure about the general public, but for me it's pretty simple. I care much more about how a camera works than how it looks. I believe that DSLRs have evolved the way they have not for the sake of a "look," but because this shape is effective and efficient. Look at the evolution of SLR design from the days of the OM-1 and similar cameras. First they got little finger grips on the right front. Then slightly larger "grips" that you could sort of wrap your fingers around (think Canon AE-1). The pro-level cameras like the Canon F1 got accessory winders and motor drives that included good sized grips with shutter releases on them. The OM-D sort of mimics this era of design.

    Then we got the cameras like Canon's film EOS line, with grips built in-from the get go. DSLRs, freed from the need to have room for a film canister and take-up reel have continued to evolve from there. Making the left side of the body narrower (no film canister) saves a little space, but also makes it easier to cradle the lens, I think. Raising the shoulders allows room for more electronics without increasing the overall size of the body (overall height, width and depth, and allows more room on the rear of the body for controls. It's all a pretty logical progression.

    The OM-D trades that roomier control layout and more ergonomic grip that virtually every other maker has adopted for a retro look and smaller size. It's a legitimate design choice, but certainly not the only option, nor necessarily the best in terms of usability. Panasonic, with the GH3, has adopted the opposite approach. Is it because of stying? I think not. I think it's because this approach works, and (as long as consumers are unwilling to accept radical new designs) it's the best way to get room for all the controls they wanted to put on this camera.

    Old SLR designs may be more aesthetically pleasing (although that's a matter of taste), but I think it's hard to argue they're more ergonomic and comfortable to use. I will, however, agree there are likely better design approaches than the modern DSLR style. A few makers have tried much different approaches, but without much success in the market. We consumers tend to be fairly conservative as a group, and accept change only in small increments.

    • Like Like x 2
  19. Brian style

    Brian style Mu-43 Regular

    Sep 5, 2012
    I knew the GH3 grew, but I was a bit surprised it is actually Rebel sized now. It will still inherently hold a weight advantage in body and especially lenses, so it will just be easier to hold without too much more weight.
    I just am really anxious to see what this bad boy does when it is released into the wild!
  20. zapatista

    zapatista Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    Mar 19, 2012
    Albuquerque, NM
    Mike Barber
    I think now is an excellent opportunity to bring out of the depth of field argument. :p 
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.