G1,G2 to G3 ? The new G3 looks to be a really nice improvement over the earlier G's in some ways, but are other user's concerned about the removal of the mechanical/physical controls we now have?

A first time user won't notice, but I'm spoiled by the auto EVF, the control lever for burst/bracketing/etc., the landscape/portrait/action modes direct on the dial, and the film mode button. I can live without the focus control as long as the AF+MF is still available, but I'm not crazy about scrolling through menus to change settings I routinely use.

I'm not sure I'd like the smaller grip with the 45-200 I normally use. And with my slr lenses adapted, I like the added support of the extended grip.

I'm not being negative, I think the performance improvement is fine. But it looks like I'm getting pointed more toward the GH2 despite the much higher cost.

Anyone else noticed any positives/negatives vs: the earlier G's? I do almost exclusively nature/landscape for related perspective.

(And for reference, these posts only appear in the color posted. If you post on the red G3, it won't cross over to the blue or black.)
asked by Les Schmader on June 17, 2011
Sort: Most Helpful first | Newest first | Oldest first
Showing 1-5 of 5 answers
A
2
votes
To keep it simple, the difference between the three camera are as follows. The G1 is a great camera but it does not shoot video. The G2 (CR Best Buy) does shoot video, but it has a cheaper camera lens then the G1, which affects picture quality. The G3 is has it all, including the high price tag.
Moises R. Rosario answered on August 4, 2011

A
1
vote
The GH1 and GH2 have multi aspect sensors. They both have video. They also have the external dials and controls that the G3 lacks. The G10 is a budget version of the G2. It has the smaller EVF, no touch or tilt screen nor auto EVF.

All these models have external dials and switches for full manual control. They have a large protruding grip making the long telephoto lenses quite easy to use hand held. Comfortable when using adapted slr lenses. A button for depth of field preview. A switch for burst and bracketing. A dial for manual or auto focus. A direct button for film modes.

And yes, the 14-42 is less expensive than the 14-45. I have both. And if I look real hard, I can tell the difference in images. The 14-45 is a better lens physically, but overall, there's nothing wrong with the 14-42.

I use all these features, every day. From my G1 to a GH2 is an upgrade. I'm not sure the G3 is. And the G3 is cheaper and has the "cheaper" 14-42 lens.

The G3 is an impressive little camera, but would you go from a current G/GH to a G3?
Les Schmader answered on August 5, 2011

A
0
votes
I got my G3 a week ago and have played around with it a bit. At first I was very excited about its features, capabilities and its size compared to my aging Canon G1 and Digital Rebel. But after receiving it and holding the camera, I find it not very ergonomic. I have not tried the G1, G2, GH1 or the GH2 as yet but I feel a camera should fit nicely in one's hand, specially a DSLR. Now, I am not a big guy (only 5'10" around 150 lbs. and my palms are 8" by 4"), and although I do appreciate the fact that is lighter and less bulky than any DSLR out there, I feel a camera built more like a D5100, rather than a T3i would be better for me. Maybe I need to try the above mentioned G series cameras for size/feel.
I am wondering if I should return the G3 and get a GH2 with the 14-144mm lens or just wait for the GH3? That way, I can have one camera with a better lens and still have all the capabilities of shooting stills and video. I would also have preferred the motion picture button somewhere else {maybe swapped with the rear dial) and the AF assist lamp on the right instead of the left of the body.
Raymond Jhirad answered on September 29, 2011

A
0
votes
Hi Raymond,

The GH2 would be somewhat bulkier, most noticeably the extended grip, thicker, wider and slightly heavier than the G3. All the previous G/GH bodies are nearly identical, so if you could get your hands on any to get an idea of how they feel. The buttons and controls are slightly different on all of them from model to model.

The GH2 with the 14-140 is definitely the overall choice for both video and stills. Add the 20mm f/1.7 and you're pretty well covered. Everyone prefers the bigger body with the heavier telephoto lenses. I want one just for the high ISO and the multi-aspect sensor.

I'm not sure about waiting for a GH3. Nobody knows what it might be. And if it takes as long for them to be available as the GH2, you might not get one 'til this time next year. The GH2's are still really hard to find and they could be gone altogether by the time the GH3 hits the market.

My hands measured @7 1/2" x 3 1/2" if that helps. The G1 with 14-45, 45-200, or 3 Pentax K primes adapted just fit me like a glove. I'm a perfect fit for the G/GH 1 &2.

Panasonic moves dial and buttons with no particular rhyme or reason. As soon as you get familiar with something they change it.

The Panasonic FZ40 and FZ100 are almost identical in physical size to a GH body with a 14-42 lens if you can find one of those to handle. It took me a few weeks to get "comfortable" with the G1, now I can't put it down.
Les Schmader answered on September 29, 2011

A
0
votes
Thanks Les, I have been looking for a store to try out the G bodies or even an FZ40 or 100, but no one seems to stock them - at least in Orlando. Will have to hunt one down and try it. In any case, I think i will go for the GH2 with the 14-140mm lens. I might as well spend the extra money on one camera that does it all and feels right, instead of having two - i.e. the G3 and GH2 or G3 and GH3.
Raymond Jhirad answered on October 1, 2011
‹ Previous   1   Next ›