What's wrong with the GF3?

<p>I've noticed a lot of negative comments about the LUMIX GF3, including in the current discussion about expense of mirrorless cameras.<br>

I'm a D300 user and recently purchased the GF3 with the new retractable 14-42 zoom), pretty much all of the pics on the first two pages of <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/afewtoomany/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/afewtoomany/</a> were taken with this camera and lens combination (or 20/1.7)<br>

I'm not flogging my photos here, but was wondering how a different camera like the GX1 would give "better IQ" using the same lens. I initially hesitated because of the lack of thumb wheel and hot shoe, but I find the touch screen along with the regular wheel is effective, and I can trigger off camera flash with the pop up. ISO performance is not bad either.<br>

What am I missing out on by having the GF3 instead of the GX1?</p>

<p>I don't have the GF3 and I just checked dpreview to see the spec. My opinion is that if people complain about the GF3, very likely because:<br>

- No viewfinder: This is also very important to me because it makes it very difficult to shoot even though it should not have any direct affects on IQ<br>

- No Hot Shoe: This makes me remember my old Minolta film SLRs, the cheap ones were different from the better ones only in not having a hot shoe</p>

<p>[[What am I missing out on by having the GF3 instead of the GX1?]]</p>

<p>If the GF3 meets your needs, then nothing. </p>

<p>The GX1 has the faster autofocus system and more MP. Those may be important to some people. </p>

<p>just don't want to get on board a sinking ship that's the future of m4/3 and Lumix...</p>

<p>I fail to understand why you think the introduction of the GX1 an indication of a "sinking ship" ? </p>

Professional reviewers (such as Jeff at DCresource) have been disappointed by the reduction of photographer features between the GF1 and GF3, so the GX1 is probably Panasonic's reaction to that.

 

Peter, do you find the zoom lever on your 14-42 X to be totally usable? Judging only by photos, it seems hard to reach.

<p>Peter, why do you think that m4/3 is a sinking ship? It's currently the number growing system in Japan, and it's growing well enough everywhere else. The GH2 has cemented itself as a serious enough photographer's camera who wants to carry a lighter setup and is aware of the current disadvantages of the system, and it is being gushed over as a videographer's camera: go check out the EOSHD or DVXuser forums. Panasonic is a huge company, and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.</p>

<p>Matt, there are basically two reasons that the GF3 is getting panned. First, as mentioned above, the GF1 was a great camera which had wonderful ergonomics for serious photographers that wanted to slim down their kit. It was a scaled-down camera, but still had on-camera controls and buttons, instead of having to dive into menus. However, the GF2 removed many of these controls, in the interest of scaling down the camera. The GF3 took this even further, and removed even more from the camera, so that it is basically an LCD with a lens mount and shutter button. The online reviewers were angry about this, because they were wanting the GF2 or GF3 to be a successor to the GF1, fixing the various issues that a camera has, and when Olympus started releasing scaled-down cameras every year, you heard about it.<br>

The second reason that it was panned is because overall, it is still using the same sensor as the GF1. Overall, that's not necessarily a bad thing. On one end, it means that you now have a truly pocketable camera that is capable of having the exact same image quality as the old GF1, but in a much smaller package. On the other hand, many people saw it as Panasonic rebadging the same-old same-old and trying to resell it as something new. I think if they hadn't called it a GF1, and instead called it something else that let everyone know that it was a lower camera than the GF1, instead of a successor to it, then the camera wouldn't have gotten such a backlash. Imagine, for example, if your D300 had all of the handling improvements that it came out with (new grip, larger screen, better battery life) but overall it still had the same 10 megapixel sensor as my D200, without all of the high ISO and color/dynamic range improvements. I'm sure you can see why many would be angry about that.</p>

<p>People say that the GX1 is a better photographer's camera than the GF3 for two reasons: First, the GX1 is the "true successor" to the GF1. It has all the controls that a D300 photographer like you is used to, so that he or she may switch settings without having to dig into menus. Second, just like the difference from my D200 to your D300, the GX1 has a better sensor than the GF3. The GX1's sensor has more resolution, better dynamic range, and better high ISO capability. The sensor performance increase is about the same as the difference between the D200 and D300. However, I'm still enjoying my D200 with no care to upgrade, and you should enjoy the GF3 if you enjoy the output it produces. The GF3 has many things going for it that the GX1 doesn't. For example, as I mentioned, the GF3 is much smaller and portable than the GX1. The GX1 also has a measly battery for the size camera that it is, and it is rather expensive for what you get. Given that you likely paid 2/3 of what the GX1 with 14-42mm X lens costs, I'd say you did well, especially as you immediately put those savings towards the 20mm lens. As you've realized, the camera takes great pictures, and it's a good thing that overall, you're too busy making the camera produce some great output instead of worrying what people are saying about it online. The GF5 will be out soon (they skipped the GF4, crazy Japanese) and although they restyled some stuff, it's STILL using the same sensor, so for most intents and purposes, it's the same thing repackaged. It may look a bit different, but if you care about looks, take the $200 you'd save over a GF5 and go buy yourself a pair of Versace shoes.</p>

<p>No hot shoe or PC sync connection that's the biggest problem. It's uglier than both the GF1 and GF2.</p>

<p>Right, the camera body that is the size of a deck of cards was not meant to be used with a flash hanging off of it. Call the New York Times, they'll want to hear this breaking unexpected news! Also, you could make my camera look like the Hunchback of Notre Dame, for all I care. Make my camera as ugly as you want; if it has good handling and takes great photos, that's all I need (which, I don't even believe that Panasonic to be ugly). As I said above, when I want a fashion accessory, I'll buy something labeled Versace or Louis Vuitton.</p>

<p>Thanks all esp Ariel for the insights. Yeah I kinda avoided the hot shoe as it is a bit strange to mount a flash that is bigger and heavier than the camera. I thought the GX1 might be a bit overkill for someone who intends to continue using a DSLR also, but your comments about the sensor make me want to give it a go.</p>

<p>I think the problem is that people want a camera with an optical viewfinder, easy to hold, with a hotshoe and PC connection but that must also fit in your pocket with a 14-300mm f/1.7 lens attached. Panasonic's have failed to provide this ;-)<br>

I've been gradually going smaller. Even the G2 was too big to fit in a pocket. I now have the GF3 with 14mm on me at all times and that makes it (for me) the best camera in the world. yes I miss the viewfinder and flash options afforded by the G2 but I don't miss lugging a camera bag around or - more often - not having the camera with me because I can't be bothered to carry it around. If I want to put a bigger lens on it and carry a bag with me I still have the option of course. Given enough cash then have two camera systems, or three etc.</p>

<p>To me the GF3 is a fine camera if it has a PC sync for flash (or hot shoe is ok). I've been using a Nikon Coolpix 5000 with my Metz 60CT4 flash. There is no problem of hunch back. Most of the time I would carry the camera only and never use the built in flash. When flash photo is needed, the built in flash wouldn't do and I rather that the camera has no built in flash.</p>

<p>Well I just bought a GF3 with 14mm pancake lens new for £200 in the UK and I'm delighted. For 2/3 of the price of a quality compact camera, I have pocket-sized DSLR equivalent (admittedly without a viewfinder or lots of buttons.) Surely this is a bargain.<br>

I also have a G1 with 14-45mm and 20mm lenses and a LX5.</p>