And if you wait another half year, you can add the GH3 to cameras to consider :king:
I will try to get some time to play around later.
Niels
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
G3 birds in flight (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Winterdune
- Start date
And if you wait another half year, you can add the GH3 to cameras to consider :king:
I will try to get some time to play around later.
Niels
Hobbes2
Well-known member
:-O Oh don't, lol
. The new Olympus (EP3 is it?) looks quite appealing too now that they have massively improved the speed of the autofocus. But, I want to get something in the next 3-6 months so it'll be between the GH2 and G3, I think (hope!)Thanks Niels. I appreciate it. :t:
Hobbes
I've been reading this thread with interest. I just wondered if anyone has any opinions/concerns about the grip on the G3 versus the GH2.
I have held a G3 with the 100-300 attached and I felt myself wishing for a bigger/deeper grip. it just didn't feel quite right to me.
Would the GH2 with its bigger size and more substantial grip handle better with a relatively large lens like the 100-300 attached?
Malcolm
I have held a G3 with the 100-300 attached and I felt myself wishing for a bigger/deeper grip. it just didn't feel quite right to me.
Would the GH2 with its bigger size and more substantial grip handle better with a relatively large lens like the 100-300 attached?
Malcolm
Hobbes2
Well-known member
Hi Malcolm
I've no experience (just done a lot of reading) but I did note one user say exactly that - they felt the G3 was too small with the big lens. However, I guess it depends what you're coming from. Maybe if you're used to a big DSLR then the G3 will feel very small. However, if you're coming from having been used to compacts then the size differential is much smaller. No doubt Sean can supply some user experience |=)|
Hobbes
Malcolm
I had problems holding Sony's Nex and the Olympus EP's, not the cameras fault, more the operator, but it didn't seem balanced. The GH2 was ok, but if you have big hands or fat fingers then problems could arise.
The new EP3 I think will have a choice of three different grip sizes.
The choice then becomes even more difficult, as it looks like Fuji are about to force themselves into this market according to their quarterly report. Then there's Leica, they will produce a professional camera set-up.
I had problems holding Sony's Nex and the Olympus EP's, not the cameras fault, more the operator, but it didn't seem balanced. The GH2 was ok, but if you have big hands or fat fingers then problems could arise.
The new EP3 I think will have a choice of three different grip sizes.
The choice then becomes even more difficult, as it looks like Fuji are about to force themselves into this market according to their quarterly report. Then there's Leica, they will produce a professional camera set-up.
Last edited:
I made a test using my GH2, using all manual setting (M), deactivated the focus lock to avoid any influence from that, and took a burst of 6 shots at iso 160 and another at 3200. I could not detect any difference, both took about or a little less than 2 sec. If the difference is really there in the G3 (in a controlled experiment) then it points to a difference in how the two cameras are attempting to control noise at high iso.
Niels
Winterdune
Well-known member
Niels I will do the same test tonight and confirm.
As to ergonomics I really love the feel of the G3. It's grip seems just right to me and the camera oozes quality. Using with the 100-300 you are mainly supporting the setup by having the lens on the flat of your hand, and I really like the balance.
Sean
As to ergonomics I really love the feel of the G3. It's grip seems just right to me and the camera oozes quality. Using with the 100-300 you are mainly supporting the setup by having the lens on the flat of your hand, and I really like the balance.
Sean
Winterdune
Well-known member
Just reset the G3 camera to defaults and tried a burst. ISO 6400 is definitely a tiny bit slower than ISO 160.
Sean
Sean
Hobbes2
Well-known member
Thanks Neils and Sean for doing these test and posting the results. :t: Doesn't sound too bad.
Hobbes
jimthomson
Well-known member
Winterdune
Well-known member
Excellent shot Jim. Was it AFS? I'm finding that more reliable than AFC at the moment, but it's early days.
How are you finding the G3 compared to the Canon?
Sean
How are you finding the G3 compared to the Canon?
Sean
jimthomson
Well-known member
Yes it was AFS focus. Haven't really had a chance to try other options yet.
I'm really enjoying the camera, had it for three days now. Took some shots with the kit lens on the first day, spent some time customizing the menu's yesterday and went out birding with the 100-300mm today.
It won't replace the Canon as my primary birding camera, but it is so light and compact that I can see carrying it on long hikes instead of the Canon.
I thought the touch screen was a gimmick, before I started using it. The ease of customizing and accessing options with the quick menu is great. Canon need to look at doing something similar.
The only downside so far is that Lightroom can't yet handle the raw files.
I'm really enjoying the camera, had it for three days now. Took some shots with the kit lens on the first day, spent some time customizing the menu's yesterday and went out birding with the 100-300mm today.
It won't replace the Canon as my primary birding camera, but it is so light and compact that I can see carrying it on long hikes instead of the Canon.
I thought the touch screen was a gimmick, before I started using it. The ease of customizing and accessing options with the quick menu is great. Canon need to look at doing something similar.
The only downside so far is that Lightroom can't yet handle the raw files.
John Cantelo
Well-known member
This is what worries me too - the G3 grip isn't bad but with a larger lens felt a tad insecure. Pity, as it seems the move towards a smaller grip was more determined by being able to sell the camera as the smallest of its kind rather than ergonomics/functionality,
I wouldn't be too worried. I find myself doing the same I did with my long lens on the now ancient film SLR, mainly holding on with the left hand and on the lens, then when I bring the camera up, support further with right hand -- and I use the GH2 with the 100-300!
Niels
Niels
Winterdune
Well-known member
Grip is fine for me. As Niels says, most of support is done by left hand, leaving right to provide stability and control the camera. I have now got it set up so I don't have to use touch screen for anything and everything I need to do regularly during shooting is easily accessible by buttons.
Sean
Sean
John Cantelo
Well-known member
Thanks for that. It looks like, after years of dithering, I'll actually get a 'G' series camera somewhen soon. The only question is whether I'll get one before I nip out to Spain in August or wait until the price drops a little (as it surely will) and get it for my winter or spring jaunt out there. See what I mean abiut dithering ......
Well, after many months of "researching" (aka dithering), yesterday I took delivery of a GH2 and 100-300 lens.
I'm still not sure that I made the right decision, as the G3 is undoubtedly a great little camera, but for me the GH2 just felt more comfortable in the hand, and you can't go on dithering for ever. (No doubt the GH3 will be announced next week)
I have a Canon 40D, which I will still use as my main camera, but I was looking for something that was like a DSLR but lighter and more compact for when I'm just out for a walk with the family or doing a longer hike rather than birding, or just don't feel like carrying all the big gear around.
I've had a couple of Panasonic superzooms (FZ18 and FZ38) but I've never been very impressed by them and the GH2 is a huge improvement. Then again, it should be at the price.
I took it out today to my local Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust reserve for a first go (I wanted a "captive audience"). I wasn't doing any scientific testing, just trying out different ISOs, the tele-zoom function, Raw versus Jpeg etc. Just finding out how it handled in the "real world".
I have to say that overall I was delighted with how the camera performed. Today was overcast, with the sun breaking through occasionally. I shot mainly at ISO 400 and 800. I did go up to 1600 which was OK, but not too good (see moorhen pic), certainly not as good as I had been led to suppose from various online reviews that I read. Then again, what is "acceptable" is a matter of personal opinion, and 1600 on the 40D isn't that clean.
The camera has fast start-up and focus; decent ISO 800 images; generally fast and accurate focus; it's very quick and easy to change settings; the extra tele-zoom is useful, the viewfinder is excellent; you have the option of HD video with autofocus and, of course, the whole package is delightfully small and lightweight compared to the 40D and 400 F5.6 L lens.
Downsides: if you shoot in burst mode and raw, as I prefer to do, you can read War and Peace while you wait for images to write to the card. Very frustrating. And, of course, the usual electronic viewfinder problem of blackout when shooting in burst mode and trying to follow a moving subject. Battery life doesn't look too great, and the shutter seemed a tad loud to me.
Anyway, one or two images attached. The woodpecker was in a fairly overcast woodland setting at ISO800. The juvenile wood pigeon was in a tangle of branches, but the focus locked on instantly. The moorhen was at ISO 1600.
All the images have been processed in Photoshop Elements and, where necessary, converted from raw in Silkypix. They have all had noise reduction applied via Neatimage.
Apologies for such a long post, but I just wanted to give an idea of my first impressions of this camera/lens combo. It is undeniably expensive (I keep thinking about what a nice L lens I could have bought for my 40D), but based on initial impressions I am happy that I took the plunge. For all those fellow ditherers out there, I honestly don't think you will be disappointed with this camera.
I'm looking forward to putting its through its paces in more detail over the next few weeks.
Malcolm
I'm still not sure that I made the right decision, as the G3 is undoubtedly a great little camera, but for me the GH2 just felt more comfortable in the hand, and you can't go on dithering for ever. (No doubt the GH3 will be announced next week
)I have a Canon 40D, which I will still use as my main camera, but I was looking for something that was like a DSLR but lighter and more compact for when I'm just out for a walk with the family or doing a longer hike rather than birding, or just don't feel like carrying all the big gear around.
I've had a couple of Panasonic superzooms (FZ18 and FZ38) but I've never been very impressed by them and the GH2 is a huge improvement. Then again, it should be at the price.
I took it out today to my local Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust reserve for a first go (I wanted a "captive audience"). I wasn't doing any scientific testing, just trying out different ISOs, the tele-zoom function, Raw versus Jpeg etc. Just finding out how it handled in the "real world".
I have to say that overall I was delighted with how the camera performed. Today was overcast, with the sun breaking through occasionally. I shot mainly at ISO 400 and 800. I did go up to 1600 which was OK, but not too good (see moorhen pic), certainly not as good as I had been led to suppose from various online reviews that I read. Then again, what is "acceptable" is a matter of personal opinion, and 1600 on the 40D isn't that clean.
The camera has fast start-up and focus; decent ISO 800 images; generally fast and accurate focus; it's very quick and easy to change settings; the extra tele-zoom is useful, the viewfinder is excellent; you have the option of HD video with autofocus and, of course, the whole package is delightfully small and lightweight compared to the 40D and 400 F5.6 L lens.
Downsides: if you shoot in burst mode and raw, as I prefer to do, you can read War and Peace while you wait for images to write to the card. Very frustrating. And, of course, the usual electronic viewfinder problem of blackout when shooting in burst mode and trying to follow a moving subject. Battery life doesn't look too great, and the shutter seemed a tad loud to me.
Anyway, one or two images attached. The woodpecker was in a fairly overcast woodland setting at ISO800. The juvenile wood pigeon was in a tangle of branches, but the focus locked on instantly. The moorhen was at ISO 1600.
All the images have been processed in Photoshop Elements and, where necessary, converted from raw in Silkypix. They have all had noise reduction applied via Neatimage.
Apologies for such a long post, but I just wanted to give an idea of my first impressions of this camera/lens combo. It is undeniably expensive (I keep thinking about what a nice L lens I could have bought for my 40D), but based on initial impressions I am happy that I took the plunge. For all those fellow ditherers out there, I honestly don't think you will be disappointed with this camera.
I'm looking forward to putting its through its paces in more detail over the next few weeks.
Malcolm
Attachments
Hobbes2
Well-known member
Great post Mal - thanks for taking the time to share your initial experiences. The results look very good too. I particularly like the Woodpecker shot - it's silky smooth, pin sharp and a great background.
Hobbes
Hobbes
Well, after many months of "researching" (aka dithering), yesterday I took delivery of a GH2 and 100-300 lens.
I'm still not sure that I made the right decision, as the G3 is undoubtedly a great little camera, but for me the GH2 just felt more comfortable in the hand, and you can't go on dithering for ever. (No doubt the GH3 will be announced next week
I have a Canon 40D, which I will still use as my main camera, but I was looking for something that was like a DSLR but lighter and more compact for when I'm just out for a walk with the family or doing a longer hike rather than birding, or just don't feel like carrying all the big gear around.
I've had a couple of Panasonic superzooms (FZ18 and FZ38) but I've never been very impressed by them and the GH2 is a huge improvement. Then again, it should be at the price.
I took it out today to my local Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust reserve for a first go (I wanted a "captive audience"). I wasn't doing any scientific testing, just trying out different ISOs, the tele-zoom function, Raw versus Jpeg etc. Just finding out how it handled in the "real world".
I have to say that overall I was delighted with how the camera performed. Today was overcast, with the sun breaking through occasionally. I shot mainly at ISO 400 and 800. I did go up to 1600 which was OK, but not too good (see moorhen pic), certainly not as good as I had been led to suppose from various online reviews that I read. Then again, what is "acceptable" is a matter of personal opinion, and 1600 on the 40D isn't that clean.
The camera has fast start-up and focus; decent ISO 800 images; generally fast and accurate focus; it's very quick and easy to change settings; the extra tele-zoom is useful, the viewfinder is excellent; you have the option of HD video with autofocus and, of course, the whole package is delightfully small and lightweight compared to the 40D and 400 F5.6 L lens.
Downsides: if you shoot in burst mode and raw, as I prefer to do, you can read War and Peace while you wait for images to write to the card. Very frustrating. And, of course, the usual electronic viewfinder problem of blackout when shooting in burst mode and trying to follow a moving subject. Battery life doesn't look too great, and the shutter seemed a tad loud to me.
Anyway, one or two images attached. The woodpecker was in a fairly overcast woodland setting at ISO800. The juvenile wood pigeon was in a tangle of branches, but the focus locked on instantly. The moorhen was at ISO 1600.
All the images have been processed in Photoshop Elements and, where necessary, converted from raw in Silkypix. They have all had noise reduction applied via Neatimage.
Apologies for such a long post, but I just wanted to give an idea of my first impressions of this camera/lens combo. It is undeniably expensive (I keep thinking about what a nice L lens I could have bought for my 40D), but based on initial impressions I am happy that I took the plunge. For all those fellow ditherers out there, I honestly don't think you will be disappointed with this camera.
I'm looking forward to putting its through its paces in more detail over the next few weeks.
Malcolm
