@LongJohnSilver "mirrorless and dsrl are different markets so guessing gh3 price based on dxxxxx price is clueless."

How come, for 99% of people, their is only one determining factor and it is size. What M43 brought was nearly dslr quality in a nearly compact size camera. Tell most people if they know if one has a mirror or not and if they care. Now If the gh3 is bigger it might be at least the same size as entry level dslr. Look at 43rumors site when they said that the gh3 might be bigger and how many complained that m43 camera are becoming too big and that it was not the prime purpose. The gh2 started at around $ 800/900 body but you only had with kit lens. What people are saying that the price should be in the $ 1500 to $ 2000 body only that I find ridiculous. If when adding some accessories with xlr audio etc it comes at this price, that is another thing.

Just a little perspective, look at a general video-maker site like nofilmschool, yesterday they did an article on the rumors on the gh3 with all its juicy features. What 15 comment, with 5 being mine. Lets say it was about some fk lame rehashed barely hd moire/alias canon camera and it would be at least 50+. I am a Nikon photographer and I would really like the gh2/3 to be more well known outside of the small m43 world because it is an incredible video tool. But I can't see it if the price is too high.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev

By sourced I mean each one of those slow motion modes records at a specific frame rate and then slows it down to match a 24p frame rate. It is often called "sensor output". For 80% it would have to “sourced/sensor output” of 30p in order to get to 24p. For 50% it would have to be “sourced/sensor output” from 48p. And for 40% it would have to be “sourced/sensor output” from 60p.

What I didn’t think made sense is to “source” the 50% from 48 FPS video. It would make more sense to source it from 60p footage and output the final file at 30 FPS instead of 24 FPS. The difference between 40% and 50% slow motion is not really significant. However, outputting at both frame rates gives you the ability to easily inter-cut the footage in with either 24p or 30p footage.

I don’t think all of the slow motion modes will produce 24p files. I believe at least one of them will have a 30p final output. The FZ200 outputs at 30p for its 25% slow motion mode. I will be surprised if the GH3 doesn’t have that mode as well.

High Speed Video: 1,280 x 720 pixels [NTSC Model] MP4, 30fps (Sensor output is 120fps) [PAL Model] MP4, 25fps (Sensor output is 100fps) 640 x 480 pixels [NTSC Model] MP4, 30fps (Sensor output is 240fps) [PAL Model] MP4, 25fps (Sensor output is 200fps)

http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/compact/fz200/specifications.html

@danyyyel I really don't feel you need to worry about a few people willing to pay more spoiling it for those of us unable to pay more. Panasonic knows their target crowd, and knows they can't get carried away with the pricing. If the camera body was over 1K, I personally would be saving my penny's and waiting for the GH5 instead, no matter how great the GH3 is (and I am sure it will be tits), I bet allot of others would do the same. I do agree with Vitaliy, and don't think panasonic holds much stock in what we all say, wish, or actually think about pricing. I just don't think they will take over the market with a giant price jump on a well known and loved line of camera, because making the camera accessible for the masses is what will win them the race. IMHO.

@shian

I think future of such cameras like GH3 lies in completely customizable in camera raw processing, not in raw output. With all settings residing in very good tablet application.

@shian

I have lots of ideas. Trouble is, most of them suck. (c) GC

I'm a visionary; I'm ahead of my time. Trouble is, I'm only about an hour and a half ahead. (c) Same

I'm actually shocked that more companies haven't copied the R3D method.

I really love being able to output a LUT for monitoring and still recording "RAW" like with the RED. Having the option to record a flat image, but output a "look" makes post for me a lot more accurate and fun. A low cost camera that can do that (in the sub $7000 range) would be a real game changer. Being able to add a tablet interface to create and control the look, and option to bake-in or record flat if you so desire, would certainly meet with what others from the traditional video world might want.

If I owned a camera company, that would be my top priority. You can always add the latest chip, more megapixels, higher data rates, etc. But a flexible Log>Linear/Linear>Log - baked or unbaked in-camera workflow just makes sense in our time.

@Vitaliy So WHEN do you think we all start using raw format? Is the time of raw in all these cameras next year? 2014? What is your prespective for the future?

@kholi Regarding XLR input, I would expect (if rumor is correct) that it looks something like this:

http://visualjournalist.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/dxa-5d.jpg

With the amount of Data that raw needs, I personally don't see it being used in anything except high end commercial advertising or movie or arty work. A good log mode in 10/12 bit will be more than good enough for 95% of work. Something like cineform compress raw could be an elegant solution somehow for a wider usage of RAW.

Coming from a 35mm background, EVERYTHING is easier than the old 35mm workflow. This generation has become spoiled. Never had to edit on a reel to reel, splice and glue film, calculate the precise number of frames to perform perfect dissolves by hand, edit a work print to create a final negative, and then color time.

To those of us who have experienced (however brief) the old way of doing things, everything about digital is a breeze, and we don't mind if it takes a little extra effort... because it's worth it.

And the storage and high-end system knock is bullshit. 10 years ago, I was working with 4k film scans using lo-res proxies on a dual Pentium III 800 system with half a GB of ram, and software that was nowhere near as intuitive as what we have today. R3D is raw, and I've been editing and grading it on external FW800 drives on my Macbook Pro. Where there's a will, there's a way. But I don't envy those who want things to be easier. Chances are, you're in the express lane to mediocrity.

Nothing worthwhile is ever easy.

IMO this is a great sign from Panasonic. They learned from the customers what they needed to do and then they went and made the product people wanted. The fact that they took the GH3 in this direction rather than save these features for an AF200 or something tells me that they are in fact capable of change and adapting to the market rather than ignoring them and doing only what they want to do. A PRO GH is a wonderful thing IMO.

If we look at many of the things we listed on wish lists many of those things are rumored to be in this camera and if these things are true then I will surely be a continued happy customer. How can anyone find fault with this kind of camera at what I would assume will be a sub $2,000.00 price point? I can't wait to see what the changes in image quality are going to be. If they improved the DR and highlight handling, then i'm gonna be a happy camper. For me the toughest thing is dealing with highlights. I'm also hoping they give us a 4:2:2 color so we can have a bit more smoothness. All the other stuff is just icing on the cake for my needs.

Wrote a post about the rumored specs of the GH3 for my buddy. http://thenewcinematographers.com/?p=876