Thanks!

I have to agree with it. I’m always blow away with the looks a FD or FL lens can give to a GH2 hacked footage.

but if the tests say it is a better camera, it’s a better camera. But for 1.9K I’ll stick with the GH2. Even the crop factor of the GH3 seems a little bigger than GH2 for what I’ve seen…

I can’t watch the second video right now, but I notice that the Vimeo player is playing a 720p version downscaled by Vimeo which could introduce moire and aliasing if the downscaler isn’t very good. Another thought is I see that they shot in 50p…if they edited the video on a 50i timeline in their NLE, then that could also introduce moire and aliasing because it would be throwing out fields.

Again by it sharing the same sony EM-5 sensor with HIGHER MBPS and internals is not really a bad thing but it has a completely different IMAGE quality , none of the new videos have that cinema with film grain look

Its funny because i read the article where the engineer was intereviewed and stated that they consulted engineers from all over the world to produce this new camera , he gave many details “oohs and awws” answered every question in detail but when asked if it was a SONY SENSOR he replied “no comment”

Again a lil dissapointed because instead of improving on the image quality of the previous sesnor they simply replaced with an existing sensor from a completely different company, Not a good look.

one thing is sure, i’ve, since i got the GH2, have invested in some lens from panasonic and olympus, so i’m glad to know GH3 is better than gh2 in these tests! :) I was not impressed by the aliasing in some of the new vids with it online.

thanks again! :)

GH3 has less moire than the GH2.

The GH2 is not, nor has it ever been, moire free. It was an enormous improvement over Canon DSLRs however.

GH3 seems to have lots of moire and aliasing (i don’t have one, i’m judging it by the vids i’ve watched). Better low-light, but low light for most of time is not a must, in my experience.

I don’t know why some people still pretend moiré and aliasing is ok for ‘web delivery’, etc. Personaly, I got sick with moire after a time with my 7D and 5D. For photos, i love my 7D, strong machine that I carry everywere, but for vid, the surprise of moire and aliasing can be unpleasent some times. That’s why, for example, i was in shock when I saw BMDCC has it too, so I run for a camera without it. Still I love the look my 2 GH2 with canon FD and FL lens can render, and ’cause of that I’ll keep using it, since i do like the form factor of small photo cameras for vid too.

But as a photo camera, GH3 sounds really great! :)

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/5344/official-panasonic-gh3-topic-series-3/p3

Can we please put the GH3 moire myth to rest? It seems to be based off a report on EOSHD on an unfinished GH3…that’s the worst basis someone could use for their information.

From what I’ve seen of the GH3 footage, the stuff that looks off seems not to have a proper roll-off in the shadows and highlights. I suspect this is because the camera in .MOV mode is using the full 8-bit range, which clips the shadows and highlights. This seems to be confirmed by Driftwood. This means you can bring the highlights and shadows out of clipping if working in a 32-bit floating point program (like Premiere or After Effects in 32-bit mode). This is also why people initially thought the GH3 didn’t have more DR than the GH2 (it’s becoming clear now that it has a definite improvement in DR). I typically associate bad roll-off handling with the Sony look, so perhaps that’s what you’re seeing?

If this would have been anyting else other than a gh2 successor then it wouldnt be so much of a let down, but knowing that it is infact a successor to THE amazing gh2 , this is the equivalent of Mercedes Benz/BMW annoucing that they will now be using Toyota DEVELOPED engines. This does not mean that engines would be bad ,but at the same time they are not Mercedes/BMW developed engines.

The one thing that made pansonic special was the look of the sensor, it had an amazing cinema grain film like look , the Black Magic Camera has a certian look to it, even the unhacked looked nice, So using a Sony sensor in a way defeats the purpose.

And its not just me, almost everyone that had a gh2 around the net are saying the same thing, basically that the gh2 had a different unique better look. The gh3 footage other than higher Mbps LOOKS very SONY’ish video look. Again not a bad thing but at the end of the day its not a “Panasonic thing ” either.

GH3 has Panasonic’s processing.

Keep in mind too that most of the tests are comparing GH2 .MTS with GH3 .MOV, so Quicktime and its gamma shifts could be mucking things up.