Member of the Month

abjectwoe
May, 2025

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Opinions on GH2 vs. GH3

profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
Hey guys,

Yes I have used the search bar, and no I havent found jack shit in most of the threads.

Thinking about making the switch from Canon EOS to a GH series. I have done some extensive research, and I have come up with some pros and cons, but ultimately wanted to hear NS's opinion.

I know there are rumors of the GH3 showing much more aliasing/moire.

From what I know, the GH3 has much more DR, better low light capabilities. 1080p 60fps, better menu layout, better photo capabilities.

With the GH2, some of the pros are: Hackable, much cheaper, ????



Whats everyones opinion?
12 years ago
14 4
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,798
Some of these may be inaccurate(e.g iq, ISO noise etc) but you get some info

http://snapsort.com/compare/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH3-vs-Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-GH2
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
Took a look at it, seems like a pretty meh comparison. Ive looked at many tests online, but want to hear someone from the ski community gove their input
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
m3owzza
Posts: 411 - Karma: 4,528
zac moxley switched from canon -> GH3

mike blatt switched from canon -> GH2

i think the "newschoolers" consensus is that yes the g series is beyond canon, when in reality it really isn't.

yes there are many points i can write as to why we see the g series as better but you've invested in the canon glass, you've gotten to know the brand so well, why change just to conform with what others are doing?

If you're predominately shooting for online viewers (ns/vimeo/facebook/youtube) then its not even worth comparing PIXELS on a computer screen

you can seriously put out the sickest edit ever with canon t2i as long as you 1) expose properly 2)choose the right frame rate/shutter speed/aperture for your situation, and most importantly 3) color correct and or color grade

i can't wait to get hated on for this post.. lemme have it

inb4 every NS filmer has = GH3+tokina 11-16 nikon mt+glidecam 2000 +rode vmp
12 years ago
2 0
profile picture
j-cal
Posts: 693 - Karma: 3,295
Blatt has a gh3
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61949 - Karma: 126,671
The gh3 has 1080p60 which is a significant difference, If you have a 1080p screen at home, you can notice the difference between 720p60 and 1080p60 especially with a camera that resolves 900-1000 lines (gh2/gh3, fs100/700) vs 700-800 lines (7d, t2i, etc).

Now, i agree with you in the sense that ns is all about following whatever is cool. First it was the hv30, then the t2i and now the gh2/gh3. Its a trend, it happens, if people wanna switch let them, they'll find out later if it was worth it or not. Of course if you own $2000k in canon lenses, switching is slightly illogical (unless you know what you're doing, ie moxely) but if this dude has a t2i with a 50mm lens and a 18-135 he doesnt exactly have a huge investment.

Now the part you said about making a good edit was partially true, correct exposure is key, frame rate/shutter not as much and correction and grading SOMETIMES. The key to a good edit is well composed, stable shots, creative editing and excellent audio. Can you do this with a t2i? yes you can. Will you do it better with a gh3? probably not.

I will say this now and I will say it again in the future, upgrading your kit will not make your videos "better" think outside the box, try something new, do something fun. Forget numbers, forget specs, great film making is created in your mind and you express that with original filming, unique editing and a better than average execution. Thats it guys.
12 years ago
3 1
profile picture
Juicy-J
Posts: 1903 - Karma: 1,785
this. so much this. 10/10
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
I agree with most of what you said, but id like to point out a few things.

I don't have too much invested in Canon at the moment. Sub $800 in glass (70-200, 17-50). So that isn't an issue for me. Secondly, I have owned my T3i for 2 years or so. I know what I like and what I don't like. Obviously, there are pros and cons to both. If I switch over to the GH2, I wont actually be losing any money.

The GH2/3 just provides a better image. Period. Im not gonna BS about reasons that don't matter. When the GH2 is hacked, it can produces images that are similar to something from a C300 or higher end cameras. The camera has to be in the right hands, but personally, being able to achieve that higher end look is worth it to me. Will some people even notice a difference in my edits? Maybe not, but I will.

I recently shot a project for my school's administration. When boosting the ISO to around 1600, the image becomes shit. This is also why I want to make the switch. Both of the Pannys have better low light performance. Next, easy adaptability of lenses make the GH series lovely.


I don't think switching will make my edits much better by any means. But I do think they will be positively effected. I plan on making a summer short film this year. With a hacked GH2, there is stuff that just absolutely cannot come out of a Canon Rebel series.


And last but not least, Im not thinking about making the switch due to "NS Trends". I agree that there are trends, but I have been thinking about this for a while. Hence why I didn't invest much into Canon glass in the first place.
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61949 - Karma: 126,671
Im sorry, this is just wrong dude. until you sit at a 30" 1080p screen and compare raw c300 and gh2 footage, you can not make this statement.

All being said, you contradicted yourself in your own statement saying that it has to be in the right hands. In the right hands, your t3i can look amazing too. Honestly dude, you wanna buy a camera to make your edits look better and im sorry man thats a bad fucking idea.
12 years ago
1 1
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
The C300 comparison was a little bit of an exaggeration. My bad on that part. But you know what I mean.

I never said a T3i in the right hands can't produce a good image, im just trying to say overall the GH2 is a better camera. Theres no debating it, for video at least. As you stated before, more lines of resolution, better low light capabilities, and more DR.


And yeah....I do want to buy this camera to make my videos look better. How is that not a valid reason to switch? Not trying to be hostile. Just saying.

Investing in Canon lenses is plain stupid. From what I know, some FD primes on the GH2 compare in sharpness to L series lenses, with a fraction of the cost.


12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61949 - Karma: 126,671
You care way too much about specs, sharpness, bullshit. Just go shoot man stop worrying about your gear so much.

If you wanna switch to the gh then do it man but don't do it to make a better video, at least come up with some sort of other justification.
12 years ago
1 1
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,329
i don't really see why he would need a justification, it's not like he's going to lose much if any money from the switch. even if he can't obtain the image quality the gh2 is capable of right away, then it's something to strive for. more and more people are going to start switching to panasonic, if he can see himself doing it even a few years from now, there's no point in investing in more canon glass just to sell it.
that's the way i see it. the relatively insignificant pros outweigh the minuscule cons.
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61949 - Karma: 126,671
I just think he's trying to fix something in the wrong way, that's all.
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
sweatshirt
Posts: 1357 - Karma: 483
Camera Body is one of the least important aspects of filming
12 years ago
2 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,798
only in the case of interchangable lens cameras imo.

& whoever said they wanted a gh2 for the noise performance, I thought txi's had better noise performance than gh2s?
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
Not what from what I hear. Look up low light tests between GH2 and any rebel series.
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,798
Difficult to find, would you mind?
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,798
my bad, got it.
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
Yeah I sport a gh3, not a gh2. After having shot with both and coming from an eos background, gh3 all the way. I sometimes see a little moire but 99% of the time there's none. My biggest gripe about the gh3 is that the screen is always changing brightness when I shoot on hill (or I'm just a scrub who doesn't know how to use the camera I own). But yeah the gh2 is still sick but I found working with it to be a pain in the ass.
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
plorr
Posts: 3131 - Karma: 520
I agree. I get great images out of my GH2 but it is built like a happy meal toy and MTS files are a huge pain to work with. I plan on forking out the money for a GH3 pretty soon pretty much just so I don't have to deal with running all my footage through 5DtoRGB anymore.
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61949 - Karma: 126,671
Doesn't the GH3 shoots mts avchd?

Premier works great with MTS :-)
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,798
Quick question, is the gh2 pal/NTSC specific? Or is it just a setting? Can both of the shoot 50p/60p like the t2i?
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
Not with a gh2. Cuts out audio
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
quixotic
Posts: 6937 - Karma: 2,980
heath is 100% correct gasper.

Focusing on composition, focal length, aperture, exposure, audio, proper lighting, color grade, stable shots, and smooth editing, etc, is what is important.

Switching over is not worth it in my opinion. The amount of time to sell your equipment and probable loss in money is not worth it. It would be like having surgery on your dick to make it an 1/8" bigger. Is your dick bigger. Yeah. Was all the time and money wrapped up in gaining an 1/8" worth it? Probably not. Is your girl going to notice a 1/8" increase? No way.


12 years ago
3 0
profile picture
m3owzza
Posts: 411 - Karma: 4,528
in all seriousness, this is probably the best way my point (and eheaths) can be explained.

thank you.
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
As said earlier, im not disagreeing with Heath. I agree with everything you are saying. However, as said earlier, im really not invested that much in Canon. Selling 2 lenses and a body wouldn't be too bad.


Great analogy though.
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
Keeping in mind that your camera is the least important part of making a good video...

...the GH2 has a huge advantage over any Canon DSLR. It isn't "pixel peeping" by any means; the GH2 is in a whole league above the 5Dmk2/3. Honestly I'd rather shoot a GH2 than an fs100 or fs700 simply because it has a way smoother knee.

A BIG part of what makes a video great is selling the illusion. Minor differences in camera specs are not deterministic when it comes to lighting/composition/gesture/form. However, the one exception to this is moiré, which, to me, immediately kills the illusion and ruins everything from an aesthetic perspective. Hence, while the camera body/specs are essentially trivial, the presence of moiré is hugely important to me, and for that reason I make an exception when it comes to camera specs. If the camera has moiré, I don't want anything to do with it, and it's the main reason I have no desire to "upgrade" to a GH3.
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Evangelista
Posts: 481 - Karma: 1,583
Is the moire really THAT much worse with the GH3? Not doubting you, just wondering if you have any first hand experience or if you have any links to a comparison?
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
=nick=
Posts: 10472 - Karma: 2,185
keeping in line with what landis is saying...nobody has mentioned that canon EOS series records in fucking h.264 codec. shit is terrible in post, you get clipping almost immediately as soon as you begin even slightly altering your image
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,798
What do you mean by clipping?
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
Thanks for the input. Appreciate it.


Other than moire, is there any disadvantage you could think of when purchasing a GH3 over a GH2?
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
=nick=
Posts: 10472 - Karma: 2,185
clipping is when you lose detail in the image from altering it in post (color correction, light correction etc)
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,798
what sort of detail?
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
=nick=
Posts: 10472 - Karma: 2,185
basically, h.264 is an export codec...unlike Prores. so when you start color correcting h.264 shots of snow, for example, you lose details in the texture of the snow, etc
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
CrotchKiller
Posts: 9037 - Karma: 6,944
Yes and no.

Clipping refers primarily to the lose of detail in the whites( also in the blacks.) This happens when the luminance in a image goes over the max white level.
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
m3owzza
Posts: 411 - Karma: 4,528
like clipping highlights for example

where the brightest part of the image ie snow is blown out/overexposed
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
CrotchKiller
Posts: 9037 - Karma: 6,944
or below the minimum black level.
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,798
Thanks guys, that's what I thought.

How would a different codec make it easier to clip highlights?
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
CrotchKiller
Posts: 9037 - Karma: 6,944
it doesn't, not sure why he is saying that. Improper exposer is how you end up with clipping.

I don't think he meant clipping, I think he just meant that you loose detail during correction using h264. Wheres the codec the gh2 produces can be altered in post with much less detail loss.
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
=nick=
Posts: 10472 - Karma: 2,185
pretty much what i said crotchkiller? a cracked gh2 for example shoots in avchd with a higher bit rate, pretty much your shots have much more detail and will withstand color correction much better without degrading the image
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
CrotchKiller
Posts: 9037 - Karma: 6,944
"clipping is when you lose detail in the image from altering it in post"

no it's not.

That's all i was saying. Losing detail in post is not called clipping.

You are pretty much right about the other stuff. The avchd codec is in fact more malleable then the h264 codec, which allows post work with less loss of detail.

pandysloo wrote a good analogy about the two codecs in another thread but i can't find it.
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
Ive never dealt with avchd. How much better is it than h.264? I know some people say its a bitch to work with in FCP.
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61949 - Karma: 126,671
as a recording format, its so much better than h264. Its still very compressed but it doesnt fall apart when you add a grade to it. It can also record at a slightly higher bit rate, 28mbps which is key for 1080p60.

As for how it works with what system, its quite easy (sometimes time consuming, depending on your system) to convert mts -> prores. I use adobe now though, so i use mts files in premier, but apparently some people have trouble with mts files carrying over audio from gh2/gh3 but im pretty sure there is an easy work around.
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,798
why do lots of people bitch about consumer camcorders having avchd then?
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61949 - Karma: 126,671
Because they're pussies?
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
Probably because it doesn't play back in finder very well, and it requires transcoding to edit with (Premiere sucks).

Still, I'm willing to put up with those minor problems because at the end of the day, h.264 sucks in post, whereas avchd works pretty well.
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61949 - Karma: 126,671
lol landis you should try premier, its like using final cut but its a different color, its faster, it works with more codecs and its easier to use.
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
I have Premiere CS5 and the only redeeming qualities I see are the interpret feature, and the darker GUI (easier on the eyes). It isn't any faster, isn't any more compatible with .MTS than FCP, and it glitches on me more.

If I were editing RED footage on a PC, I'd agree that Premiere is much better. But for AVCHD on a Mac, I see no benefits.
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61949 - Karma: 126,671
There is your problem, you have cs5. Try cs6 and get back to me
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
Meh; the only features I need are the razor tool, ProRes compatibility, and XML. DGAF about that superfluous stuff.
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61949 - Karma: 126,671
Its also way fucking faster...
12 years ago
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4); Currently it's 9:03AM