Specs and image quality of the Panasonic GH3

[BarbaraArmstrong]

Michael, pleased to see you are enjoying the GH3, and very much hoping that you are weathering your treatment regimen and will come through with a full recovery.  I have gotten much use out of my older GH1 and then the GH2, and was sorry that the announced GH3 would be larger and heavier; but then, what else would we expect, I suppose, with the emphasis on video, which hasn't interested me.  However, I was intrigued by your mention of image quality.  Is is improved, for stills, over the GH2?  The specs on dpreview are inconsistent.  The resolutions shown would suggest the GH3 does not have a multi-aspect sensor, a step down in my opinion from the GH2.  However, they show 18.3 total sensor detectors, a number associated with the larger-than-usual 4/3rds sensor.  Can you tell us about sensor size (do we get a longer-than-4608 pixels side on 3:2 and 16:9 aspect ratios or not?), and any comments on stills image quality compared with the GH2 would be appreciated.  From looking at specs, it appears that the sensor in the GH3 may be the same one as in the G5, which for stills would be the lighter, smaller package.  Looking forward to any comments now, and certainly to your future review.  --Barbara Armstrong

[deejjjaaaa]

However, they show 18.3 total sensor detectors, a number associated with the larger-than-usual 4/3rds sensor. 

official Panasonic spec's are here http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/gh3/specifications.html = 17.20 Megapixels / 16.05 Megapixels

[deejjjaaaa]

From looking at specs, it appears that the sensor in the GH3 may be the same one as in the G5, which for stills would be the lighter, smaller package. 

G5 has GH2 sensor w/ blocked true multiaspect feature, http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/g5/specifications.html = 18.31 Megapixels / 16.05 Megapixels (in 4:3 mode).

[BarbaraArmstrong]

Thanks! --Barbara

[John Camp]

About this "larger and heavier" business -- according to the specs on DP Review, the GH3 will be about 1/3 of an inch wider (.36), about an eighth of an inch taller (.12) and about 1/4 inch deeper (.24.) I have a GH2 which I like a lot, and if the operational and image reviews of the GH3 are good, I will buy one. I don't expect really to notice the difference in size, because 1/3 of an inch doesn't mean much to me -- it's about the width of my small fingernail, and I don't have large fingernails. It's a bit deeper, only until you put on a lens...that extra depth is mostly in the hand grip. As for the height, that's about the thickness of two pennies.

I'm also waiting impatiently for the 35-100mm zoom; if it's as good as the 12-35, then m4/3 will be offering a system that matches FF in everything but ultimate image quality (and perhaps the highest of ISOs) in a package that is far more compact. (I have a Nikon system as well, and placing the 12-35 against the 24-70 can make you laugh, the Panny is so much smaller, and I believe the contrast between the 35-100 and the Nikon 70-200 will be even more exaggerated.)
 
I've become an m4/3 enthusiast in the past couple of years, and have to say that a recently purchased Oly 75mm is a wonderful lens, as is their 45. I'd actually like to see Michael review the *system,* in addition to his thoughts on the DH3 (his brief comment on the opening page has made me even more eager to get my hands on the GH3.)

 

[BarbaraArmstrong]

I am a very enthusiastic advocate of the GH2, buying it as soon as it came out to get the additional mp after a pleasurable experience with the GH1, which had surprised me with an EVF I didn't mind using.  Also I have quite a stock of wonderful lenses for it.  You don't have to convince me.  What I am wondering is what about the GH3 would convince me to buy it for stills?  I shoot and process raw files at low ISO.  So I don't think white balance affects me, nor high ISO capabilities, nor the new video features.  The GH2 fits snugly into the top of my large-ish purse; I don't want a carry-around that is larger or heavier.  I was interested in hearing about improvements in image quality.  --Barbara

[deejjjaaaa]

I was interested in hearing about improvements in image quality.

it seems that EM5 and GH3 both have the same sensors (the jury is still out who actually designed and fab'd it) - so you might use EM5 images/raws as an indication (except if Panasonic stays true to their approach then GH3 will be exposing to saturate the sensor more, while EM5 is undersaturating to keep highlights safe for unexperienced JPG shooters - see what DxO calls the "measured" ISO vs "manufacturer" ISO = so if you are shooting raw then GH3 will be more convenient).

[BarbaraArmstrong]

Thanks again! --Barbara

[leuallen]

I hope the GH3 is close to the E-M5 in image quality. I ordered the camera and 35-100 and can't wait. Twas the logical thing to do since I have most of the lenses (good ones at least) and don't care for the handling of the E-M5. The larger size does not bother me, in fact I welcome it due to better handling with my large hands. Will miss the mult-aspect feature of the GH2 though.

If it is the same sensor as the E-M5 (Sony), I applaud Panasonic for using it to give us the best possible image quality, assuming they had nothing to match it.

Larry

[deejjjaaaa]

Sony

wishful thinking...