A dispassionate look at the differences between the GH3 and the GH4. Not in the lab but out on a job.

The King Kong, Mr. Spock and Beyoncé of the Micro Four Thirds Universe.

This is a must have if you are shooting m4:3 for a living.

The Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 X Vario.

Blog reader, David E., asked me in an e-mail just what the differences are between the GH3 and the GH4 and whether or not the GH4 was worth the extra $1000 represented by current pricing models between the two cameras. Interesting that I should come home last evening to that question because I spent the day shooting both of the cameras side by side. Same subject matter, same lighting and the same ISOs and settings.

It's been a full week of shooting and post processing at VSL. If you are a regular reader you know that I had a four day shooting assignment that started one week ago. That was followed by a full day of post production and comparisons between three cameras, the Nikon D7100, the Panasonic GH4 and the Olympus EM-5.  After studying my results I started packing for the full day of photography we did yesterday. 

In many ways the assignments were quite similar. Both were conferences about finance and business but yesterday's conference was about diversity and mentoring for minority MBA students at colleges like Harvard Business School, The Kellogg School, The Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth and many more. The job brief called for a range of images to include team building exercises under mixed lighting, speaker and panel photographs, audience reaction shots and coverage of the keynote speaker's address to the group. The project took place at the meeting and conference facilities of a global financial services company which hosted the 120+ students as well as speakers and facilitators. 

The group started at the crack of dawn with the arrival of the attendees right at 7 am. Yes, I was there by 6:30 to scout, do some preliminary custom white balances of the three major areas we'd be photographing in and also to meet, face to face, with a brand new client.

98% of what we shot was done with available light but we did sneak in some flash on the group shots of 120 people.

In my camera bag were only two camera bodies and only two lenses. I brought the GH3 and the GH4 along with the 12-35mm f2.8 X Vario lens and the 35-100mm f2.8 X Vario lenses and used them interchangeably for everything. I brought a dedicated Olympus flash (600r) which I never took out of the bag and a Yongnuo XXX (manual only) which I used at half power, bounced off white ceilings or at full power bounced off the ceiling in the big conference room for the group. I wish we could have done the group shot outdoors because the facility has a wonderful outside amphitheater but we had a wonderful, soaking rain yesterday and (delightful) sixty degree weather. 

I used both cameras in their manual modes and both lenses mostly between f2.8 and f4. I stayed in the 1250 ISO range except for my group shots, which were done at 400 ISO. While there are subtle differences in image quality in favor of the GH4 the noise looks very similar (small, black grain pattern noise, no color splotches...) between the two cameras. If you were to judge on image quality only and your use of video precluded the need to go to 4K I'd say you would be very happy using either camera interchangeably and, if you chose the GH3, keeping the extra grand in your wallet.

But life is never so simple for people with too many choices....

So, let's jump into the litany of differences that might make the newer camera more appealing for you. And there are operational differences that make the GH4 more fun and better. I haven't found a single metric by which I would judge the usability of the older camera to be better.

To my mind one of the major reasons to use a mirror less style camera is to take advantage of continuous live view through the EVF of the camera. That makes the quality of the EVF image; its sharpness and accuracy a major part of a camera's capability profile. A poorly done EVF undermines the rest of the experience and if you can't trust its feedback then why go down the mirror less pathway to begin with?

While the GH3 has an EVF that was competitive when launched the EVF area of camera design has evolved very quickly. The GH4 has nearly twice the resolution of the GH3 in the finder. It also is user settable to have double the refresh rate of the older camera's finder. That means less lag and faster response. The combination of higher resolution and faster refresh rate gets one closer to the look and feel of the traditional OVF. And of course both iterations give you all the benefits you want from an EVF including incredible amounts of information in the finder as well as pre-chimping abilities. 

The GH4 finder is just plain better all around. I am better able to see how the camera will deliver the final file while I am shooting. By that I mean that the newer EVF tracks color and exposure more accurately which means I can apply compensations while shooting that preclude the need for excessive (and in some cases, image damaging post processing).  Neither camera is perfect but that is also a result of the human eye making accommodations while trying to incorporate the finder image and the ambient (actual) image simultaneously. The GH4 just does it better. 

While on paper the GH4 has a faster frame rate than the GH3 it's pretty much meaningless to me as I tend to shoot in the S-AF, single frame mode almost all the time. But here's the difference between the two, the newer camera has a faster shutter mechanism and a faster internal processor and that makes the camera seem more responsive. The shutter seems a little more instantaneous and the appearance of a review frame happens quicker. In essence the shutter is real time while the faster processing reduces black out (present in both mirrored and mirror less cameras both, just in different manifestations...).  That makes the newer camera feel more responsive overall. 

Both lenses should be working with the new focusing method of the GH4 and both do seem fast and assured, even under low and low contrast light sources, but I never felt that the GH3 was particularly show to focus. Maybe that is more a result of the way I use the cameras than changes in the cameras. 

I did try using continuous focusing with face detection on both cameras and found that the GH4 gave me a much higher keeper rate (defined by very fast, on the money focusing lock and shoot performance). 

Moving on to file processing.  I shot both cameras in the raw mode because I somehow convinced myself (incorrectly) that I wouldn't be shooting that many frames and since the lighting was low and mixed and the range of complexions ran from light to very dark and I thought I might want some play room for precise noise reduction, etc. I ended up shooting more than 1500 images between the two cameras and, for the most part I ended up with the default noise reduction. I did shoot a few shots in Jpeg for myself to see the difference between the two cameras when setting the iResolution control to the standard setting. The appearance of correct and incisive sharpness was much better on the GH4. I chalk it up to the faster processing and evolution of the camera software. I noticed that the iRes is also functional in raw so I stayed with standard in the GH4 and "low" in the GH3.

I was happy with the camera choices for sharpening in the GH4 and I did some mild sharpening in Lightroom with the GH3 files. 

Looking side by side at similar shots from both cameras at 1250 ISO I don't see a lot of difference between the raw files in color, contrast or overall tonality. 

I chose these cameras for my job because I knew that the fast feedback loop of the EVF viewing and pre-chimping capabilities would be very useful. I enjoy composing on the screen and like being able to see how my settings on the camera will be implemented in the files before I commit. I knew that I could get the quality I needed from both cameras if I was careful to custom white balance and make sure I nailed exposure as well as possible. I did three custom white balances on each camera because the three different auditoriums I worked in each had their own mix of LEDs, fluorescent lights and some small MR-16 tungsten spots.  Working with good custom white balances takes some of the difference between cameras out of the mix. In the auto mode the GH4 is a bit more accurate in most instances than the auto WB in the GH3. Applying custom white balances when shooting minimizes or eliminates that difference. In daylight situations the cameras are equal. It's only under nutty mixed lighting scenarios that I see and difference and I'm not always sure which camera is most accurate or if I'm happily trading accuracy for a pleasing color rendition. Which I almost always prefer. 

Had Panasonic not come out with the GH4 I would probably have kept my 3's (mostly for video) while picking up and EM-1 for the better EVF and image quality improvements. Even owning a GH4 I am intrigued by the allegedly better finder of the Olympus EM-1 and might have to get one. I'm on the fence because the longer I use the EM-5s the better I am able to predict the results of the final images based on that camera's EVF presentation. The sensor in the EM-5 is also very nice for portraits (while the tonal distribution is a bit heavy in the shadows...).

To sum up...and to answer David's question: I was happy to shoot the GH3s and especially happy (thrilled) to shoot 1080p video with them. In fact I think the GH3 and the GH4 are pretty much head to head for many (ample light) video situations in 1080p. I think the GH4 is worth the money if you shoot professionally. The handling and ability to more accurately predict results from the GH4 over the GH3 are the deciding factors for me. The faster, more assured focus and the "crisp" handling feel of the camera are bonuses. 

While I might really love an EM-1 (and I have now, grudgingly, mastered the awful Olympus menus..) I do love the body of the GH series cameras. It fits my hand perfectly for a full day of shooting. 

Wrap up: How do I know I like a certain camera more than others? I shoot with it. If you add up the five days of shooting I did this week I spent over 40 hours with cameras in my hands just this week. 

I spent another sixteen hours picking my way through and post processing or throwing away some part of over 5,000 images. With this kind of use you see what works and what doesn't. After you shoot enough images from any camera you know that your two best strategies are to precisely nail exposures and color balance. No matter which cameras you use a darker exposure that must be pulled up in post always looks noisier and lacks some shadow detail. No matter how great your sensor in your camera is it's always better to absolutely nail color at the time of shooting instead of dicking around in the raw processor trying to find some elusive sweet spot. All the cameras on the market right now have the capability to provide the image quality you need for most jobs. The real issue is usability. That's the point so many people miss. Especially in the arguments around mirror or no mirror. To me it's not really all about smaller and lighter it's mostly about predictability and reliable color.  The EVF is a powerful tool. Much more powerful than smaller lenses. 

But the ability to enjoyably hold and use a camera for a long time+the advantage of real time viewing and pre-chimping is what makes the whole equation work for professional event shooters. The GH4 and the EM-1 are the best of the breed. Get either if you do still work. Get the GH4 if you see yourself doing more and more video work. The GH3 is a generation behind. You'll notice it more if you shoot it a lot. It's a lot like color sense. Humans are horrible at discerning color shifts without a referent but they are extremely proficient at seeing the differences between two things that are sitting right next to each other. The GH3 is a highly capable camera----until you use it on the opposite shoulder from your GH4. 

David, I hope this answers your question!

Mini-Celebration for the Visual Science Lab. Kirk pops the metaphorical Champagne cork.

In the master control booth of the main VSL bunker.

I took off the tin foil cap for this selfie.

And I actually took it with an official selfie-cam. Yikes.

I was scrounging around in the HQ refrigerator wondering whatever happened to those two cases of Bollinger Champagne I had stashed away when the non-sequitar alarm started blaring. Two ducks can be happy. And I rushed to the computing machine to see what was up. I was expecting Armageddon or at least an early Fall stock market crash but it was a tiny bit less earth shattering than that. My little sub-routine had just popped over the 18,000,000th page view if/then and was letting me know. 

So, in case any of you are keeping track we've had our 18,000,000th page view in the short history of the blog. It happened this week. 

A few predictions: The market for technically competent and socially adept photographers is looking healthier and will keep improving until the governments of the world (or crooked bankers, or both) conspire to collapse it again. Nikon and Canon will keep making versions of their existing cameras until the last gray haired practitioner shuffles off to the great darkroom. Studio flash systems will become as scarce as open ended purchase orders. Continuous lighting systems will continue to grow and evolve as our relationship with video grows, evolves and becomes more comfortable. Fewer people will take up photography as a primary and passionate hobby. More people will shoot more images of people drinking: beer, wine, shooters, slammers, coffees of all varieties and anything that comes in a retro designed bottle or austere cup. Phones will get larger as dedicated cameras get smaller. All phones will become cameras. All small cameras will become phones. Serious photography will revert back to being a hobby that nerds, AV club members and weird, electrical engineer uncles do while unserious photograph will be so ubiquitous we'll just leave the cameras running 24/7 and wait until a software company makes an app that looks through your footage/images and selects shots it thinks you might like. This will be based on AI and the program will learn to look for stuff it knows you prefer as you both grow together. Once you and the program are comfortable with each other you will allow it to auto-select and auto-upload images to your social networks until it accidentally uploads one of your psychotic, gun collecting ex-girlfriend who will then stalk you and make you cry. As soon as all social network imaging is automated (both capture and presentation) people, en masse, will get tired of looking at it all but will be afraid to back away from "sharing" and "commenting" on the images and will then adopt a service/software product that automatically acknowledges and gives feedback on images that are received on your network. You will no longer be involved as the computer and camera will create a perfect closed loop system engineered to give you and your friends the appearance that your opinions matter to other people out in the void who are equally dependent on virtual acceptance and are looking for reciprocation. 

As the economies of the world improve there will be a mass exodus from the commercial photography fringes of previously un-employed or under-employed people from other disciplines. They will have realized that the market for buying and selling "artistic" available-light-art filtered- cellphone-style images is less lucrative than the day shift at McDonalds. Clients will clamor to find that very last people who still know how to light big sets, direct people and think up novel visual translations of marketing research dreck. Those people will be in high demand. And the cycle will start all over again. And we at VSL might be right in the middle of it all writing more fun and inflammatory blogs. 

Please stay tuned for the next 18,000,000 impressions. Unless drones are now you new hobby...

I'm done with aerial drones. I'm on to drone submarines. What could possibly go wrong?

A long week of photography and some thoughts about the winners and losers in the camera bag.

And the winner of "Kirk's Favorite Corporate Event Shooting Camera Shoot Out is...." No drama or build up here: The GH4. Love EVFs and fast focus and good low light AF and great files? Stop reading, get the credit card out and go to town.

I've been out working since Sunday at a conference about finance, real estate and the process of taking 80,000 single family houses into a corporate portfolio, re-habbing them and then, ultimately securitizing them. The conference is by invitation only and the attendance is limited to the kind of people who wear really nice suits to the office, every day.

The event took place at the W Hotel here in Austin and also at the Moody Theater. The Moody Theater is where the filming is done for Austin City Limits and the "A" list of musicians who have performed there is...amazing. I was there for the registration and social events at the theater on Sunday and then spent 12 hours a day in the Moody and W on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday photographing every speaker, panelist and keynoter to hit the stage. I also worked in very low light to get audience reaction shots and I worked from the balcony to get wide stage shots to show off the amazing (mostly LED and arc) lighting for the wide stage set. I did "classic" social photography of the dinners and cocktail parties.

I wore a suit and tie and shoes that had been polished within the last 30 days. It was the complete package. I can't show the work from the show or discuss exactly what was discussed (NDA) but what I can do is pick apart what worked photographically and what didn't. And since I am crazy enough to try out three different camera models all within the same show I can say what worked for me and what worked less well. I was surprised actually and what I found out made me reconsider almost everything...

Behind the scenes shots of our marketing shoot for "The King and I."

Mel Maghuyop as "The King."

I was happy to see "The King and I" on the 2014-2015 season listing at Zach Theatre. It's one of the most enjoyable and visually enchanting musicals from Rodgers and Hammerstein. On a show like this one we'll end up doing two or three different kinds of photographic shoots to help visually charge the marketing. Last week I covered an event that brought in a group of VIPs and donors to see a typical evening rehearsal. No costumes and no full band, but lots of energy and hard work. I was able to capture images of the interplay between the director and the cast. I was also able to get reaction images showing this small audience's appreciation of the details that go into bringing a rich and complex show like this to life. 

On Friday last week we had a fun, little shoot. Just the kind I like. We were able to photograph the two adult leads and one of the lead children, together and separately, for marketing images that Zach Theatre will use on the web and in direct mail (which still seems to be very effective). 

"The King and I" A marketing shot for an upcoming production at Zach Theatre.

We shot against a white background but I spent some time adding color and texture to the background just for fun.

Morning Notes. It's Friday and we're off to a good start.

"It's all about the light."

A scene from 'A Christmas Story' at Zach Theatre

November 2013.

I started my day out walking with the remaining Austin contingent of my family, Belinda and Studio dog. I'd cleaned the studio yesterday and set up a lighting design for a portrait I was hired to shoot, scheduled for this morning. The assignment was to make a portrait, for marketing, of a new radiologist who has joined a large, central Texas practice. I've been making marketing images for the group for over a decade and one of the things we provide often are head shots. 

I was anxious to use the K5600 HMI's that I got last week. I've used HMIs on video projects before and worked with them as a still photographer on other peoples' video projects but I'd never had the chance to use a lower output set to create portraits in my own studio. 

I put the open face Joker 200 light, with a front glass filter that gave me a nice light spread, where I usually put my main light. Up about 45 degrees and about 45 degrees off camera axis. I was pushing the photons through a 48 by 48 inch Chimera ENG panel with two layers of diffusion on it. One layer was a very thin, half stop silk and the next layer (with a quarter inch gap between the two) was a one stop silk. The light was gorgeous and I used the diffusion about four feet from my subject. While the HMI was the dominant front light there was indirect fill coming from the day light outside through my ten foot by ten foot, northwest facing bank of windows. The color temperatures matched perfectly.  I also put up a 3x3 foot chunk of white foamcore to the other side as additional fill.

Books, Depth of Field and Days Spent in the Studio.

Many years ago I was running a regional advertising agency and our biggest client was a company called, BookStop Bookstores. They were the first, serious category killer in the book business. A forerunner in the merciless slaughter of small, independent book stores. As they grew from a local, Austin retailer to a national chain with over 100 locations, our little ad agency grew along with them.

Bookstop's main value propositions were the facts that each store had large inventories (over 100,000 books in stock!!!) and lower prices (20 to 80% off, everyday). 

When we were busy running an agency I didn't have time to photograph the books that needed to be photographed for cooperative advertising and marketing in general so we subbed that out to various photographers. Eventually the chain became large enough to become a juicy (and very willing) takeover target for a bigger fish; Barnes and Noble. In the matter of a few months we said goodbye to our client and, after careful introspection (prodded by a downturn in the Austin economy) we decided to shutter the agency and move on. 

I moved into commercial photography and started my business in the deep economic trough created by the mid-1980's real estate free fall engendered by the savings and loan bust. Fortunately the design work for Bookstop ended up at a design firm run by a good friend. As the book business (and the inflow of new capital) improved the designers seemed to be churning out three or four newspaper co-op ads per week and some sort of four color catalog or flyer at least once a month. And since the account originally got steered to them by our referral I got the lion's share of the photography work. 

It was a two edged sword. On one hand my business was in the black from the very start but on the other hand I spent the better part of two years shooting hundreds, maybe thousands of books. In those days a fair amount of the book advertising, running full page or double truck in newspapers, was done in black and white. This meant that I'd shoot the books, soup the film and print a final reproduction print under a nice, tight deadline. Sometimes we'd get the books in the late afternoon and the final prints would be due the next morning....