Lumix GH3 Review Part 3, Size

LUMIX GH3 USER REVIEW PART 3,  SIZE

It's Huge, It's ENORMOUS......Really ?

Author AndrewS  April 2013

Thanks to  camerasize.com   for several images used in this article. This is a very handy site for anyone wanting to make camera body/lens size comparisons with many makes and models available for viewing.

Introduction  When the Lumix GH3 was released to market several contributors to user forums expressed surprise, disappointment, dismay even,  that it was larger than any previous M43 camera body and indeed larger than any other Mirrorless ILC to date.  It's body  is  even larger than the smallest APS-C  DSLR, the Canon EOS 100D (Rebel SL1).  One blogger deemed it "enormous, nearly the size of a (Nikon) D7000 and considerably larger than the (Olympus) OM-D".  So has the Lumix product development team lost the plot completely or are they moving forward in a way which will enhance the appeal of the M43 system to discerning buyers ? 

Lumix GH3 body with Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 lens mounted. On the left is a Lumix 7-14mm f4 lens. On the right is a Lumix 35-100mm f2.8 lens. This body and these three lenses make a compact, high performance photo kit suitable for a wide variety of uses.

The promise of Micro Four Thirds and the mirrorless ILC concept  Early marketing for the M43 system strongly emphasized the way in which removing the mirror and prism of a DSLR allowed designers to shrink the dimensions of a camera body and some lenses, especially wide angle types.

This is the kit shown above in a Lowe Pro Adventura 160 bag with lens hoods in place reversed on the two f2.8 zooms,  lens cloths, puffer, wired remote shutter release, 2 spare batteries, lots of memory cards, close up lens. Total mass, 2.33 Kg.

The cult of smallness  Manufacturers competed with each other to make the smallest interchangeable lens camera body, as if smallness was an intrinsic virtue.  But very small cameras present the user with two main problems.

The first is ergonomic. Makers can shrink the camera but not the hands which operate the device. For snapshooters this may not be much of an issue, but for the photographer who wants to take control of the photographic process, very small cameras just lack sufficient real estate to provide a decent handle and a suite of user interface modules [UIM] such as buttons, dials, levers etc with which to drive the camera.

The second is lens size, which is largely determined by sensor size. Designers can shrink camera bodies but the current state of optical technology determines lens sizes.  In consequence there are some unbalanced body/lens combinations on the market.

On the left, Lumix G5 with Lumix 14-45mm f3.5-5.6 lens. On the right, Lumix GH3 with Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 lens.

The way forward for the M43 system I believe that if M43 is to break CaNikon's hegemony over the interchangeable lens camera market they need to make and actively market some high end bodies and lenses with appeal to the expert/professional photographer. The Lumix GH2 gained traction as a motion picture camera but was less convincing as a still photo device. The Olympus EM5 is an excellent still photo camera with some user interface idiosyncrasies, but is not a top tier motion picture device. It is clear from  Lumix promotional material that the GH3 is intended to be the "do everything well" camera at the top of the M43 tree. You see the shift in emphasis here. The cameras have moved on from trying to be the smallest.  Now they aim to be the best.

Doing everything well includes image quality, performance and ergonomics. The elements of ergonomics are holding, viewing and operating in each of the four phases of camera use. These are Setup, Prepare, Capture and Review. In order to achieve excellence in each of these phases and retain the faux DSLR  shape, the GH3 has to be larger than previous M43 cams.

Photo Courtesy of camerasize.com
Here are two body/lens combinations which appear unbalanced to me. On the left is the Canon EOS M with its standard 18-55mm kit lens. Already this combination looks a bit lens heavy. Now add a popular consumer travel zoom such as the 18-200mm shown here mounted via an adapter (as Canon's promotional material invites you to do) and you can see the result.

Box Volume  The box volume of a camera or lens or camera with lens attached is the volume of the notional box which would be required to contain the piece of equipment. This has obvious relevance to the selection of camera bags which might be required to carry it.

Photo Courtesy of camerasize.com
These two camera/lens combinations are well matched for image quality and performance. On the left is the Canon EOS 100D [Rebel SL1] the world's smallest APS-C DSLR with standard  18-55 mm STM zoom. On the right is a Lumix G5 with Lumix 14-42mm standard zoom.

Box Volume, Camera Bodies  Below is a table of cameras which might be of interest to the reader considering a camera purchase in this size range. Dimensions are as measured by me where possible. Otherwise I have used the maker's stated dimensions. Note that some makers fudge their quoted dimensions, I know not why. For instance Canon USA gives the depth of the Rebel SL1 (EOS100D) as 69.4mm, but if the flash housing is included, the depth is 83mm. Likewise the Rebel T4i depth is given as 79mm but including the flash housing brings it up to 84mm. All the cameras below have a built in eye level viewfinder. 

Make/Model	Width cm	Height cm	Depth cm	Box Volume WxHxD  cc	Comment
Lumix G5	11.9	8.3	7.1	701	Built in handle, flash
Lumix GH2	12.3	9.0	7.5	830	Built in handle, flash
Lumix GH3	13.3	9.35	8.0	995	Built in handle, flash, large battery
Oly EM5 without HLD6  grip	12.2	8.9	4.3	467	Minimal handle, no built in flash
Oly EM5 with part 1 of HLD6 grip	12.2	10.0	7.3	890	No built in flash. Has unique 5 axis IBIS
EOS 100D	11.7	9.1	8.3	884	Smallest ever APS-C DSLR
EOS 650D	13.3	10.0	8.4	1117
EOS 60D	14.5	10.6	9.0	1383
Nik D7100	13.6	10.7	7.6	1106	Compact mid range DSLR
Sony NEX6	12.0	6.7	4.3	370	Eye cup and Mode Dial protrude

 As you can see, the Sony NEX6  body is easily the smallest of  this group (excluding the eyecup and Mode Dial both of which protrude a bit), which may or may not be desirable depending on your user interface priorities. As with other NEX cameras the NEX6 has both the problems which I identified earlier as arising from the cult of smallness. Regarding the ergonomics, Jeff Keller and Amadou Diallo, in the dpr.com review of the NEX6,  wrote "Despite the new mode dial, the NEX6 remains largely menu driven, and said menus can be very frustrating to navigate". The other problem is that of lenses. While the NEX bodies are remarkably small most of their E Mount lenses are about the same size as any other lenses for APS-C cameras.

Photo Courtesy of camerasize.com
These two camera/lens combinations are a reasonable match for image quality,  performance, angle of view and aperture. The Canon lens has a slightly narrower angle of view throughout its focal length range.  On the left is a Canon EOS 60D with EFS 17-55mm f2.8 lens attached. On the right is a Lumix GH3 with Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 lens attached.

Box Volume, Camera with Lens   None of these cameras performs any useful function until a lens is mounted. The total space required for a kit with one body and 2-4 lenses will depend much more on the lenses than the body. Let us review box volumes of some body-with-lens-attached combinations. This table is not intended to be comprehensive but does put numbers to some of the size comparison photos in this article.

Model+lens	Width cm	Height cm	Depth cm	Box Volume WxHxD  cc	Comments
Lumix G5 + 14-42 mk2 standard	11.9	8.3	10.4	1027	Mid range compact kit
Lumix GH3 + 12-35 f2.8	13.3	9.4	13.4	1657	Pro style kit
EOS 100D + 18-55 STM standard	11.7	9.1	14.6	1554	Smallest Canon DSLR
EOS 60D +17-55 f2.8	14.5	10.6	18.6	2859	Approximate Canon equivalent to GH3 + 12-35

 You can see that even the largest M43 camera fitted with a high grade f2.8 zoom lens has only slightly more box volume than the very smallest APS-C DSLR fitted with just the basic kit f3.5-5.6 lens.  Probably a better M43 comparison with the EOS 100D would be the G5 with it's kit lens. As you can see the G5 with lens has only 66% the volume of the 100D with lens.  A realistic comparison with the GH3 would be the EOS 60D with EFS 17-55mm f2.8 lens which has 1.72 times the volume of the GH3 with 12-35mm f2.8 lens combination.

One could go on with comparisons like this but my point is there is no free lunch in the world of camera and lens design.  For the expert/enthusiast photographer the camera body needs enough size to get ahold of and there needs to be enough real estate for control modules. Lens sizes are driven by sensor size. The more lenses in one's kit the more total kit size is determined by sensor size.

Photo Courtesy of camerasize.com
The Sony NEX  Way vs the M43 Way.
These two camera/lens combinations are a reasonable match for image quality and performance. On the left is a Sony NEX 6 with 16-50mm collapsing power zoom. On the right is a Lumix GH3 with 14-42mm collapsing power zoom. You can see that with these power zooms attached the NEX makes the more compact package.
 

The Sony NEX solution  As a student of ergonomics, I find much of interest in the Sony NEX  approach to the Mirrorless ILC.  From the ergonomic perspective I think the Sony designers got the basic camera shape and layout right. The elements of this are:

* Faux rangefinder  style with the viewfinder top left, and flat top. This allows the handle to be almost the full height of the body. This is the most efficient way to package the functional elements of the camera in the smallest possible volume.  There is no hump protruding from the top.

* Lens mount as far to the left side [as viewed by the user] of the body as possible.

* Relatively wide compared to the height. Compare this with a standard DSLR wich is relatively high compared to the width.

* Both the above features make room for a decent handle on the right side.

However I believe some of Sony's implementation decisions are problematic. 

The first is their market positioning of the NEX cams and the user group Sony is targeting. There is an interesting video about this on the Sony Australia website at  sony.com.au   Pro photographer Gary Heery presents Sony's view that the NEX series is for amateurs and snapshooters, users who prefer to set a camera to fully auto mode and leave it there. Pro's and serious photographers can step up to a DSLR.  I can see that from the maker's point of view all this appears perfectly logical. But from what I read on user forums, there appear to be plenty of photographers who want both. They want the small size of the NEX and the controllability of the DSLR and they want it all in the same product line, using the same lens mount.

The second, which follows somewhat logically from the first is that they made the NEX bodies very small. So small in fact  that there is limited space there for direct control modules. Sony's answer to this was, and mostly still is, to use menus and soft control modules. For the user who prefer direct control of camera operation this style of user interface can be frustrating.

Photo Courtesy of camerasize.com
Now let's attach some longer zoom lenses.
On the left is a NEX6 with E55-210mm zoom. In the center is a GH3 with Lumix 45-150mm zoom , providing slightly less zoom range than  the NEX lens. On the right is another GH3, this time with a Lumix 45-175mm zoom providing a smaller angle of view at the long end than either of the other lenses. You can see here the interaction between body size, sensor size and therefore lens size, with lens size becoming more important as the focal length increases. 

The third problematic decision was to use the APS-C/DX size sensor. This ensures the lenses will always be larger than those for M43 and much larger than those for the Nikon CX size sensor. I can't help thinking that for snapshooter/amateur photographers who want a camera with interchangeable lenses but are happy to leave their camera on the fully auto setting, the Nikon 1 Series with CX size sensor seems to make more sense. It certainly provides a more compact kit package and the image quality is more than enough for most family/holiday/kid's birthdays style of photos.

Photo Courtesy of camerasize.com
I included this to illustrate some design issues not often discussed. On the left is a Nikon D7100. On the right  Lumix GH3. Notice how the Lumix viewfinder eyepiece protrudes 15mm from the rear of the camera body while that of the D7100 does not protrude significantly. When using the GH3 with right eye view,  I can look almost directly straight ahead and view the world through the viewfinder or see with my left eye  past the left side of the camera.  Left eye view is not as ergonomic but even so the user's head does not have to turn as much as with the DSLR to see in the viewfinder.With DSLR's like the Nikon with non protruding eyepiece, the user has to turn the head left [for right eye use] or right[for left eye use] to get the nose out of the way, a less comfortable viewing posture with either eye.
The other design point to note is that although the GH3 is the smaller camera it provides more horizontal space for the handle which means more space for the fingers of the right hand.  It can do this because the lens mount is smaller and offset further to the left.

The M43 solution  Within one system, using one lens mount,  you can have camera/lens combinations which are very compact and might appeal to beginners, or you can move up to a slightly larger body and lens with greater image quality, features and performance, or you can step up further to high end equipment suitable for expert and professional use.

There is however one design decision made by both the Lumix and Olympus OMD teams which continues to puzzle me. They chose to use the faux DSLR shape for their cameras with built in EVF. The Lumix team did this from the very first G1 in 2008. Why ? I have no idea. Why go to all the considerable trouble and expense to develop an entirely new photographic system then make the cameras look like shrunken versions of existing DSLR's ?  To a camera buying public trained over many years by  CaNikon marketing to believe that bigger is better, then smaller must be worser, right ?? ...No ?

I live in hope that the Lumix/OMD teams will see the light and develop  M43 models based on the faux rangefinder shape but with GH3 style user interface.

Back to the GH3  And so we return by a somewhat circuitous ramble though the camera forest to my original proposition about the GH3.  Is it really huge ? Is it really enormous ?  Having used mine a great deal over the last month I have to say that of all the cameras I have used over a 60 year period the GH3  is the most comfortable to hold and the most enjoyable to operate.  For a camera using the DSLR shape, it is just about the ideal size and configuration for a user who wants to take direct control of camera operation. The GH3 is an excellent match for the 12-35mm f2.8 and 35-100mm f2.8 constant aperture, pro style zooms. Those who want a smaller package from the M43 stable have plenty of choice with many options for bodies with and without EVF  to the largest collection of lenses of any mirrorless ILC  system.