1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Is the G3 "near DSLR"?

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by Johnny1.33, Jun 8, 2011.

  1. Johnny1.33

    Johnny1.33 Mu-43 Regular

    113
    Jun 4, 2011
    Was reading this review:

    Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Review

    Don't know the person or the site. Just searching for G3 reviews. Anyway he describes the G3 as "near dslr" several times in his review. How can this be given the accolades he gives the camera, even giving it 4.5 stars, same as the D7000 and .5 more than the 60D. I suppose I should register on his site and ask instead of here but I don't get how he can say all that he does but refuse to put it on the level of the DSLR.

    How do you describe your m4/3? As near dslr, on same level different mount, something else?

    I don't want something "near dslr."
     
  2. shoturtle

    shoturtle  

    823
    Oct 15, 2010
    well m4/3 does not have the DR of the larger sensors of the big boys. They do not have the ability to shoot action like a dslr. So as good as the m4/3 are, they are still not at the level of a dslr in those regards. M4/3 still do not shoot well past 3200iso, and that is pushing the noise level. Aps-c and FF can put into 6400 ant 12800 respectively to get decent shots.

    What they do very well at is general photography. Landscapes and portraits. So image quality is at dslr level pretty much.

    So you can not say a G3 is at dslr level as there are still things it can not do that a dslr can. The m4/3 has a market segment that they excel in. But the DSLR has a market segment that they excel in. And the two might cross paths, but neither can do everything the other can do.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Luke

    Luke Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 30, 2010
    Milwaukee, WI
    Luke
    it should more accurately be called "near entry-level (or slightly better) DSLR.....for now"
     
  4. Johnny1.33

    Johnny1.33 Mu-43 Regular

    113
    Jun 4, 2011
    Something I don't understand. Why does every one say no sports when the camera will do four per second? Thanks.
     
  5. shoturtle

    shoturtle  

    823
    Oct 15, 2010
    EVF black out is a big problem, trying keeping a hs running back in the frame when he is romping and zigging on a foot ball field. You will see why it is a big issue for sports when shooting in burst. And though it has a high fps rate, the AF is still not at the speed of a dslr phase detect system. So getting it in focus can be a issue.

    Also for shooting sports you need a fast zoom with f2.8, does not exist in m4/3 world yet. The big aperture will let more light in to get quick AF and better subject isolation.
     
  6. Luke

    Luke Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 30, 2010
    Milwaukee, WI
    Luke
    fps is only part of the equation.... low light gathering is VERY important is sports action.....or high ISO. frankly no one need high frames per second for sports if you have great light gathering and great performance at high ISO.
     
  7. shoturtle

    shoturtle  

    823
    Oct 15, 2010
    FPS allows you with all the equation to hedge your bet in capturing that exact moment to the big hit or great catch. Start bursting as you think the hit will come and stop at the the and you might get a moment in the tackle or catch that is just prefect.
     
  8. shoturtle

    shoturtle  

    823
    Oct 15, 2010
    Better then the sony entry, but the pentax, nikon and canon. They are on par in many repects, better in some and not as good in other. They are different tools for different needs.

     
  9. Johnny1.33

    Johnny1.33 Mu-43 Regular

    113
    Jun 4, 2011
    I have a pentax k-x. Do you think the g3 will be better? I use it for general, track sports, and school plays on a stage, all kids stuff. That's what I mean by sports.
     
  10. shoturtle

    shoturtle  

    823
    Oct 15, 2010
    not for track sports for sure, and high school plays. The pentax will shoot well at 3200iso better then the g3, and if you need to push the k-x it will without a doubt out do the g3 at 6400iso. Low light is not a strong suit of m4/3 indoor events are not great form them where the light is really marginal. And a 20 1.7 really will not be suited for high school plays where you want to get close to your subject.
     
  11. Luke

    Luke Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 30, 2010
    Milwaukee, WI
    Luke
    Pentax is king unless portabilty is the main factor.
     
  12. shoturtle

    shoturtle  

    823
    Oct 15, 2010
    Pentax k-x can fit into a lumbar or fanny pack. It is one of the smallest dslr's out there. Not much different in size to the G2 or GH camera.

    What the G3 will even be a tad smaller, but it will out do it in HD.
     
  13. John M Flores

    John M Flores Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 7, 2011
    Somerville, NJ
    I haven't touched a G3 but am quite familiar with it's slightly older, slightly bigger, and arguably better brother the GH2. I am also quite familiar with the K-x, having borrowed my wife's pretty regularly. The G3 will likely be smaller than the K-x, but not but a huge margin if this comparison between the K-x and the GH2 is any indication:

    5331505387_4475450aa6.
    Panasonic GH2 20mm F1.7 vs. Pentax K-x 40mm F2.8 Limited by john m flores, on Flickr

    The G3 will also outdo the K-x in video by quite a margin. It might also have slightly better low light AF thanks to the focus-assist light. But the K-x will still likely beat the G3 when the ISOs go up. It will also be a better sports shooter, and has built in image stabilization.

    Just as importantly, Pentax has fast zooms that are the key to indoor events, the DA*16-50 F2.8 and the DA*50-135 F2.8. Note that their SDM motors aren't as fast as equivalent Canon or Nikon, but you can still shoot indoor sports with some practice:

    4517222642_2dedc10fd9.
    Classic Mats Wilander (stop-motion) by john m flores, on Flickr

    The money for a G3 could be allocated towards one of those fine lenses. As of now, there is no equivalent in the M43 world.

    Ultimately, is the G3 a big step up from the Pentax K-x? In video, yes. In size, kind of. In stills, probably not.

    Good luck with your choice
     
  14. Art

    Art Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2011
    San Francisco, CA
    I was trying to shoot indoor badminton last weekend weekend with E-PL2 and panny 20mm. It was quite a challenge. In order to get sharp pictures I really needed shutter speeds close to 1/1000s. Even at f1.7 I had to use ISO3200-6400. The pictures came out quite unusuable.
     
  15. Johnny1.33

    Johnny1.33 Mu-43 Regular

    113
    Jun 4, 2011
    oh well. I guess I can't get an m4/3. Thanks for all your help.
     
  16. shoturtle

    shoturtle  

    823
    Oct 15, 2010
    for what you are shooting a dslr is the better option.
     
  17. Johnny1.33

    Johnny1.33 Mu-43 Regular

    113
    Jun 4, 2011
  18. Camera reviewers tend to focus more on high ISO performance nowadays because it is the only area where they can find significant differences between models to allow them to pad out a review. If the tests were performed only at low ISOs where the cameras are used the majority of the time it would make for a very boring review when comparing image quality!

    Good high ISO performance means good indoor performance for still or slow moving subjects as a minimum, but for a camera to be ideal for following fast moving action at indoor sports events you would also want fast and accurate AF, especially continuous AF, and minimal viewfinder blackout at high frame rates. Note that I did not say that it would be impossible without those features, but they will make the job that much easier.
     
  19. shoturtle

    shoturtle  

    823
    Oct 15, 2010
    To make a camera sound like it can take good photo like a dslr. But if you got to image resources compare image section. You will see that once past 1600iso, all the aps-c dslr just out preform m4/3. The G3 at 3200 vs the k-x at 3200 iso it a substantial difference in noise. Especially if you look at the mannequins face area.

    And all main brands tout 3200iso in their point in shoot, as most people are very disappointed in point and shoots low light ability. 400-600iso are really the max with 1/2.23 sensor. But the cram in 3200 to make them sound better. So if you do that to with the point and shoot, you really need to tout m4/3 with even higher iso. At 3200iso, m4/3 is worlds ahead of all point and shoot, but still does not match the larger sensors. Physics can not be change that larger surface area will out preform in low light. That is why FF camera do so well in low light shooting, they just can process 3200-6400 and 12800 so much better with the current generation of technologies.


     
  20. John M Flores

    John M Flores Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 7, 2011
    Somerville, NJ
    In my experience, shooting a well-lit scene at high ISO is a very different thing than trying to catch a subject in a dim room with bad lighting. With the K-x, I know that I can push the camera to ISO3200 and get the shot. I'm not as confident with the GH2. Yes, there are times when I get a good result with the GH2 @ ISO3200, but I'm just not as confident yet.

    There is some talk about the G3 being even better with the GH2 with respect to high ISO. But even then, I'm not sure if the G3 would be significantly better than the K-x with respect to still photography to warrant a switch.

    But if you are a gadget hound that likes shiny new things....that's another story...