Lumix GH3 Review Part 3, Size

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 ? 

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.

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.

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.

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. 

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.