Panasonic DMC-GH3 in digiscoping (1 Viewer)

musti · Dec 8, 2012

This model seems to have some intresting options

In menu you can tell [Shoot w/o Lens] put ON, after then you can use P-mode and camera calculates shutter speed, you can select best ISO-value

And also electronic shutter are very useful.

Looks model that I will use in digiscoping

JGobeil · Dec 8, 2012

I was also interested in the GH3 but after handling one in a store, I decided against it. It is probably a very good camera but it is also quite big. IMO, the main benefit of going to MFT format is size and weight and this one is as big as a DSLR, but lighter. For what it's worth, I ordered an Olympus OMD EM-5.

Neil · Jan 27, 2013

JGobeil said:
I was also interested in the GH3 but after handling one in a store, I decided against it. It is probably a very good camera but it is also quite big. IMO, the main benefit of going to MFT format is size and weight and this one is as big as a DSLR, but lighter. For what it's worth, I ordered an Olympus OMD EM-5.

Jules
I'm also thinking about the GH3 or the OMD
.
Are you still happy with your decision?
Neil

JGobeil · Jan 27, 2013

Hello Neil,

The OM-D is a very sophisticated camera and needs to be tamed. The menus are quite complicated and the documentation is not that great.

Focusing is extremely fast, faster than any camera I have tried. It is also very accurate. Unfortunately, it is not that great on fast moving objects like BIF. The way it focuses is also different from other cameras: you choose a focus box, 1 small box, a nine box square or a large box square and it will find an object to focus on within that box. It needs getting used to but it works fine.

Manual focus is very efficient. You can magnify the screen to focus accurately or use a mock focus peaking feature that works quite well.

IBIS is is a beauty ! It works very well and you can set it to work in the viewfinder, which is extraordinaty helpful for focusing when working with a high power lens.

I also had to get used to the size. It is so small and light compared to my former Canon SLR. However, the buttons are well laid out and I LOVE the size. This was the main reason for changing and I'm glad I did. I purchased the JLM grip and it improves the handling - extremely light and only 50$.

I have the Oly 12-50mm lens and the Pana 100-300mm. I love the 12-50: small, extremely fast focusing, nice zoom range, super macro and cheap... The 100-300 does the job but the zoom ring is creepy and sometimes jerky - at 300mm, it is ok but not as good as my Canon 300mm with 1.4X TC. There are strong rumors that new long lenses will be announced this Spring.

My digiscoping tests have been somewhat limited because of weather. Last week, the temperature has been below -20C. every day... However, it works very well. Size and weight are a bonus.

Regular digiscoping: using the 12-50mm lens, I get no vigneting from about 20mm. Auto focus and IBIS work fine. The limit seems to be the scope: I wish I had a Swaro or a Kowa instead of a Pentax.

Astro-scoping: manual focus works very well. IBIS works with manual focus if you want to use it; it helps a lot for focusing by stabilising the image in the EVF. I hope to do as good as the other regulars on BF with practice.

Well, this is it. IMO, the Camera of the Year award on DPreview is well deserved for this camera. Don't hesitate if you want more info.

Regards
J

Neil · Jan 29, 2013

JGobeil said:
Hello Neil,

The OM-D is a very sophisticated camera and needs to be tamed. The menus are quite complicated and the documentation is not that great.

Focusing is extremely fast, faster than any camera I have tried. It is also very accurate. Unfortunately, it is not that great on fast moving objects like BIF. The way it focuses is also different from other cameras: you choose a focus box, 1 small box, a nine box square or a large box square and it will find an object to focus on within that box. It needs getting used to but it works fine.

Manual focus is very efficient. You can magnify the screen to focus accurately or use a mock focus peaking feature that works quite well.

IBIS is is a beauty ! It works very well and you can set it to work in the viewfinder, which is extraordinaty helpful for focusing when working with a high power lens.

I also had to get used to the size. It is so small and light compared to my former Canon SLR. However, the buttons are well laid out and I LOVE the size. This was the main reason for changing and I'm glad I did. I purchased the JLM grip and it improves the handling - extremely light and only 50$.

I have the Oly 12-50mm lens and the Pana 100-300mm. I love the 12-50: small, extremely fast focusing, nice zoom range, super macro and cheap... The 100-300 does the job but the zoom ring is creepy and sometimes jerky - at 300mm, it is ok but not as good as my Canon 300mm with 1.4X TC. There are strong rumors that new long lenses will be announced this Spring.

My digiscoping tests have been somewhat limited because of weather. Last week, the temperature has been below -20C. every day... However, it works very well. Size and weight are a bonus.

Regular digiscoping: using the 12-50mm lens, I get no vigneting from about 20mm. Auto focus and IBIS work fine. The limit seems to be the scope: I wish I had a Swaro or a Kowa instead of a Pentax.

Astro-scoping: manual focus works very well. IBIS works with manual focus if you want to use it; it helps a lot for focusing by stabilising the image in the EVF. I hope to do as good as the other regulars on BF with practice.

Well, this is it. IMO, the Camera of the Year award on DPreview is well deserved for this camera. Don't hesitate if you want more info.

Regards
J

Thanks Jules. I'm considering it against the GH3,G5 and Nikon V2. Luminous Landscape review praised the camera for stills but said it's video was only average. As I'm shooting a lot of video these days that is very important, although I already have the Sony Nex 7 and RX100 which have good video.
I would be shooting it with the Swarovski TLS APO so the lens is not so important.
Neil.

JGobeil · Jan 29, 2013

Neil said:
Thanks Jules. I'm considering it against the GH3,G5 and Nikon V2. Luminous Landscape review praised the camera for stills but said it's video was only average. As I'm shooting a lot of video these days that is very important, although I already have the Sony Nex 7 and RX100 which have good video.
I would be shooting it with the Swarovski TLS APO so the lens is not so important.
Neil.

I cannot really comment about video since I've tried it only once. I don't know much about video but it looked ok to me.

This camera is very good for still pictures. The sensor is state of the art and the IQ is great. The EVF is also quite good as well as the LCD which is easy to view in the sun. Auto focus is very fast. Manual focus is easy to do with the magnify and focus peaking features which work in both the LCD and the EVF. You've got tons of adjustments to customise the camera to your liking. Finally, it is small and light weight.

All these features are important for digiscoping and I found it easy to use with my spotting scope. But, I'm no expert at digiscoping.

The GH3 is said to be a great camera that has the best video available. I was considering it but discarded it immediately after handling it for a moment because it is as big as a DSLR. There are reports of problems with the EVF.

The G5 is a step below the GH3 and the OM-D. It does not have a the latest generation sensor and is more noisy. Both the GH3 and the G5 have an electronic shutter which may be a nice feature for digiscoping. I don't know much about the V2.

Have fun ! Choosing a camera is not easy.

J

njlarsen · Jan 29, 2013

See this review of the GH3 (used with a 100-300, not with digiscoping): http://www.naturalexposures.com/cor...nics-newest-micro-four-thirds-camera-the-gh3/

Niels

JGobeil · Jan 29, 2013

njlarsen said:
See this review of the GH3 (used with a 100-300, not with digiscoping): http://www.naturalexposures.com/cor...nics-newest-micro-four-thirds-camera-the-gh3/

Niels

Thanks for the link Niels. It confirms my opinion on the GH3.

The only plus over the OM-D seem to be better video and better handling (at the expense of a larger size). IMHO from reading many reviews and using the OM-D (but not the GH3), the OM-D has better stabilisation, a better EVF, costs less and is much smaller, if size and weight are important to you.

Considering the Panasonic 100-300mm, my opinion is that it has so-so construction quality but produces good images. All this for 500$. Micro 4/3 lenses really have a strong price advantage over APS-C and full frame lenses. Glass is expensive...

By the way, I was not impressed when Cox blames the shutter speed of the GH3 for his poor aiming at a flying bird...

regards
J

njlarsen · Jan 29, 2013

JGobeil said:
By the way, I was not impressed when Cox blames the shutter speed of the GH3 for his poor aiming at a flying bird...

regards
J

What I see in the review of blame is in this quote:

When in Continues AF which allows capture of up to 4fps, even when the Preview option is turned off, there is still a split second vision of the image captured as it’s being written from the digital chip to the buffer. One image by itself is not a problem, you virtually don’t even notice it. However, with a 4fps burst or more, 4 split second views all run together, effectively creating what looks like a normal Preview as those images are being sent to the buffer. This choked off the view of EVF and ultimately my ability to follow the eagle as it moved across the sky.

That has more to do with EVF blackout than anything else the way I read it. It is not a behavior I can recognize from my own GH2, but whatever. Maybe it is just that I never use the fastest burst rate anyway.

Regarding the shutter speed the important words to me are

I’m guessing it was me.

And I love this quote from the conclusion, even if he is not going to sell his nikon stuff yet:

Overall I’m extremely happy with the results I shot on my trip to Kenya. The GH3 did a superb job, especially taking into account how inexpensive this camera is, as well as the lenses that go with it. Will this system replace my Nikons at this point? No. But I can’t help thinking the cat’s out of the bag with this Micro Four Thirds camera system. I’m quite confident that any camera company not paying serious attention to Panasonic does so at their own peril. The GH3 exceeded all expectations and will remain a major part of my current photographic tools. Don’t let it’s diminutive size fool you. It’s a serious contender.

Niels

Jim M. · Jan 29, 2013

JGobeil said:
The G5 is a step below the GH3 and the OM-D. It does not have a the latest generation sensor and is more noisy.

Interesting. Just wondering--what is the source of your information on noise?

Regards,
Jim

JGobeil · Jan 30, 2013

J. Moore said:
Interesting. Just wondering--what is the source of your information on noise?

Regards,
Jim

Hi Jim,

I've seen that in many reviews. Here is an abstract from the DxOMark review: "However, the G5 delivered a lackluster low light performance. Its score lagged behind the already poor low light performance of the G3, contradicting Panasonic’s claims that the G5’s digital’ Live MOS sensor would improve upon its older brethren. All three cameras struggled to produce good image quality at about 700 ISO, making them subpar tools for sports and entertainment photographers."
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Panasonic/Lumix-DMC-G5

In fact, it it is the main reason I didn't get one because the price is quite interesting, as well as WiFi and the electronic shutter.

Please, do not see my comments on the G5 and the GH3 as reviews and recommendations. I'm merely giving my humble opinion here and I don't own any of those.

Regards
J

JGobeil · Jan 30, 2013

Hi Neils,

One sure thing about both the GH3 and the OM-D: they are quite good performers. It is nice to see top of the line cameras using this sensor size. This is proof that cameras don't have to be big and heavy to perform well. Yes, there is room for improvement and there always will be.

IMHO, the main and only important weakness of those cameras is focusing ability on fast moving objects. I hope they will improve the CDAF system or add PDAF to it.

Regards
J

Jim M. · Jan 30, 2013

JGobeil said:
Hi Jim,

I've seen that in many reviews. Here is an abstract from the DxOMark review: "However, the G5 delivered a lackluster low light performance. Its score lagged behind the already poor low light performance of the G3, contradicting Panasonic’s claims that the G5’s digital’ Live MOS sensor would improve upon its older brethren. All three cameras struggled to produce good image quality at about 700 ISO, making them subpar tools for sports and entertainment photographers."
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Panasonic/Lumix-DMC-G5

In fact, it it is the main reason I didn't get one because the price is quite interesting, as well as WiFi and the electronic shutter.

Please, do not see my comments on the G5 and the GH3 as reviews and recommendations. I'm merely giving my humble opinion here and I don't own any of those.

Regards
J

Thanks. As these are new camera models, I wasn't aware there were already many reviews. But I think one's opinion may depend on which reviews one reads! When the G3 first came out, DP Review praised it in July 2011 for its low light performance:

Images from the G3 represent a clear step forward in comparison to output from the G2. Fine detail is preserved throughout a wide range of ISOs. Noise-related artifacts simply are not an issue at ISO 800 and below. In low-light scenarios that demand a high ISO the G3 delivers the most impressive output we have yet seen from a Micro Four Thirds camera aside from Panasonic's own GH2. The G3's rendering of finely detailed subjects stands up surprisingly well against entry-level DSLRs. Along with the more expensive GH2, the G3 represents a benchmark for Micro Four Thirds image quality at this point in time.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcg3/19

I understand the review you cite is more recent and that the technology has advanced somewhat, but the opinions in each review still strike me as in conflict.

Best,
Jim

JGobeil · Jan 31, 2013

...
I understand the review you cite is more recent and that the technology has advanced somewhat, but the opinions in each review still strike me as in conflict.

Best,
Jim

Hi Jim,

Yes, different reviews, different opinions. This is exactly the problem: reviews are opinions, not facts. Remember DPreview a few years back; they were biased in favor or Nikon over Canon - I remember some posts that were not very nice... with good reason !

DxOMark is a different beast however. They don't publish reviews based on opinions but test results on sensors and lenses based on instruments. What is nice about this is that you can compare the results of one camera to a camera you know, so you can evaluate the differences.

Also, don't underestimate the time factor. The G3 was announced in May 2011. Cameras, and in particular sensors, have improved during that time.

Regards
J

Jim M. · Jan 31, 2013

JGobeil said:
DxOMark is a different beast however. They don't publish reviews based on opinions but test results on sensors and lenses based on instruments. What is nice about this is that you can compare the results of one camera to a camera you know, so you can evaluate the differences.

Also, don't underestimate the time factor. The G3 was announced in May 2011. Cameras, and in particular sensors, have improved during that time.

Thanks for introducing me to that site; their methodology looks intriguing. But I think their description of the G3's low light capabilities as "poor" in the passage you quote is misleading and puzzling. Their own tests of low light capabilities rank the G3 above the much more expensive GH2 and well above the well-regarded and newer Sony RX100, and the more expensive and newer Olympus OM D is not that far above the G3. I'll be interested to see how the GH3 and V2 rank in their tests.

Jim

JGobeil · Jan 31, 2013

J. Moore said:
Thanks for introducing me to that site; their methodology looks intriguing. But I think their description of the G3's low light capabilities as "poor" in the passage you quote is misleading and puzzling. Their own tests of low light capabilities rank the G3 above the much more expensive GH2 and well above the well-regarded and newer Sony RX100, and the more expensive and newer Olympus OM D is not that far above the G3. I'll be interested to see how the GH3 and V2 rank in their tests.

Jim

As I wrote, what is nice about DxOMark is to compare the results of a given camera with a camera you know.

Here are the Low light or ISO results for 5 cameras, in order of performance:

854 - Canon 7D. I've used one a few times and know how it performs.
826 - Olympus OM-D EM-5. I own one now.
696 - Canon 50D. I've owned one for a few years.
667 - Panasonic G3.
618 - Panasonic G5.

In rough numbers, the 7D and the OM-D are about equivalent, the 50D is below the the middle (which would be 736) and the the G5 is at the bottom. Knowing how much difference in terms of noise there is between top and middle, I can evaluate how big is the gap between top and bottom and, believe me, this is quite a bit.

Of course, this doesn't make the G5 a bad camera. Knowing this, one will be careful not to generate too much noise by using a lower ISO value when possible, stable shooting techniques and lower speeds while lowering ISO, and choosing faster lenses. IMO, it is also a good idea to avoid JPEGs and shoot RAW to have more control in post processing in order to remove as much noise as possible and open the shadows when needed.

If you look at the Overall Score for the same 5 cameras, you can use the same reasoning to evaluate the global performance of the cameras. As you can see, there is an important difference between the G5 and the G3, and this include its Low Noise/ISO counter performance - this is to be expected, the G5 is the newer camera in this category.

71 - OM-D
66 - 7D
63 - 50D
61 - G5
56 - G3

This is the reasoning I used to select the OM-D, plus weight and size wich were extremely important to me. The DXoMark results for the GH3 were not available but I quickly disqualified it because of its large size. The only negative point was its so-so focusing ability on fast moving objects (BIF).
Regards
J

RJM · Feb 1, 2013

Jules, the "gotcha" with the OMD is that it over reports its true ISO value by ~1 stop, e.g., DxO Mark measured ISO100 while camera reports ISO200. When looking at the DxO performance graphs, there is probably very little difference in output between these m4/3 cameras with perhaps base ISO being the exception. Only 15 overall DxO Mark points, or 1 stop, seperate the G3 from the OMD but for our purposes the OMD brings ~1/3stop faster shutter speeds. Any other advantages would come down to feature set, ergonomics and handling.

JGobeil · Feb 1, 2013

RJM said:
Jules, the "gotcha" with the OMD is that it over reports its true ISO value by ~1 stop, e.g., DxO Mark measured ISO100 while camera reports ISO200. When looking at the DxO performance graphs, there is probably very little difference in output between these m4/3 cameras with perhaps base ISO being the exception. Only 15 overall DxO Mark points, or 1 stop, seperate the G3 from the OMD but for our purposes the OMD brings ~1/3stop faster shutter speeds. Any other advantages would come down to feature set, ergonomics and handling.

Hi Rick,

I've seen that review but I don't remember where. The problem is, like most reviews, it is based on an opinion from a user that compared both cameras. "Took some pics and compared the images".

It is probable that the ISO values of the cameras are not entirely exact but I would suspect that DXoMark is checking this somewhat. I also know that the OM-D has a much better ISO performance than my 50D and about similar to the 7D (yes I know, this is another user report...). Does the 7D also has optimistic ISO values ?

Also, how would you explain that the G3 is less noisy than the G5 ?

I'm not trying to say that my dad is stronger than yours and that I own the best camera there is. In fact, I don't really care as long as it suits my purpose. However, I have better trust in instruments than guesstimates to evaluate camera sensors.

We are far from digiscoping and I hope Musti doesn't mind us hacking the thread !

Regards
J

RJM · Feb 1, 2013

Jules, my info is taken directly from DxO Mark

Here is the DxO Mark comparison for the OMD, G5 and 50D.
Click on Measurements/ISO Sensitivity tab and you will see what I am saying about the OMD over reporting.

Now click on Measurements/SNR 18% and hover your cursor over each individual datapoint and you will again see where the OMD consistently over-reports its ISO value. At similar ISO data values shown on the graph, the noise difference between cameras is really negligible, less than 2dB or 1/3 stop in most cases.

Where the OMD gets its DxO bonus points in the Overall Score is with DR and Tone/color, but only at base ISO. However, these DR and Tone/Color values at base ISO are somewhat "empty" in that they already exceed output capability and the typical range we see in most outdoor daytime lighting conditions.

JGobeil · Feb 2, 2013

RJM said:
Jules, my info is taken directly from DxO Mark

Here is the DxO Mark comparison for the OMD, G5 and 50D.
Click on Measurements/ISO Sensitivity tab and you will see what I am saying about the OMD over reporting.

Now click on Measurements/SNR 18% and hover your cursor over each individual datapoint and you will again see where the OMD consistently over-reports its ISO value. At similar ISO data values shown on the graph, the noise difference between cameras is really negligible, less than 2dB or 1/3 stop in most cases.

Where the OMD gets its DxO bonus points in the Overall Score is with DR and Tone/color, but only at base ISO. However, these DR and Tone/Color values at base ISO are somewhat "empty" in that they already exceed output capability and the typical range we see in most outdoor daytime lighting conditions.

Hi Rick,

First, I have to mention that it is quite a surprise to me. Thanks for bringing this.

I get it and I don't. I see that DXoMark measured ISO values 1 stop lower than stated for the OM-D but I also understand that the ISO score is based on the measured values, not on the stated values so all performance measurements and comparisons still stand.

I have 2 questions unanswered:

Why didn't DXoMark write in big bold letter that the OM-Ds ISO values are overstated by one stop ? I understand that they use the measured values to calculate the ratings but I think the readers need to know this.
Have they been using an early sample or a defective camera to measure that much difference ? Maybe this is why they didn't bother to mention it. I'd like to know.

My opinion about the camera hasn't changed after having used it for a couple months. I like it a lot, it is a huge improvement over my former 50D and it suits my purpose perfectly. My opinion on Olympus may change however if I find that they have done this on purpose...

By the way, for what it is worth, I see bigger spreads between the 7D, the 50D and the OM-D than the measurements show. I felt comfortable to use the 7D up to ISO 3200. For the 50D, going further than ISO 800 in modest light conditions was looking for trouble and I used the flash with Better Beamer most of the time in those conditions. I feel safe at ISO 1600 (or is it 800 ???) with the OM-D and I have the impression that 3200 would also be OK - however, I'll have to use the camera a bit longer to be able to say this for sure. Of course, my comparison is flawed: I'm using an eye-meter, the 3 cameras have not been tested under similar conditions and I used different lenses. This is why I don't believe in reviews...

Regards
J

Panasonic DMC-GH3 in digiscoping (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Nature Photographer

Well-known member

Nature Photographer

Well-known member

Nature Photographer

Gallery Moderator

Nature Photographer

Gallery Moderator

Member since 2007

Nature Photographer

Nature Photographer

Member since 2007

Nature Photographer

Member since 2007

Nature Photographer

Don't Worry, Be Happy!

Nature Photographer

Don't Worry, Be Happy!

Nature Photographer

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread