Sending a lens off to be repaired--a first for me

Today, I'm sending my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens to be repaired.  It has an ugly lens flare, even with the lens hood in place and the sun out of the frame as you can see.

It seems odd for the most (at the time, before the Panasonic/Leica 42.5mm f/1.2) expensive (US$1499.99) micro Four-Thirds lens to have such a flaw--or to be "Made in China".  In fact, this is my first lens repair ever, which goes all the way back to the late 1970s.  Truth be told, my Olympus SHG ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 was a refurbished lens, which means that there was some problem that was repaired but it is practically flawless since the refurbishment, even after my E-5, the 35-100mm f/2.0 lens, and flash fell from a seat to the pool deck during a swim meet I was photographing.

Even before I bought the GH3 and 35-100mm f/2.8 lens, I saw the review on LensTip, citing the flare problem.  I hoped that it was an anomaly, and I bought anyway.  Later, I got the feeling that other reviewers held back.

I already have a love-hate relationship with it.  Perhaps, the repair will change all that.  Plenty of people rave about the lens, so I hope that I've been missing something with this certain unit.  After I got the lens, I wasn't so eager to buy the 12-35mm f/2.8 lens, even though it would have filled a need since I have nothing so wide as 12mm.

This leaves me with the rather slow Panasonic 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6.  It won't even be pushed to be automatically focused in low light, so I suspect the Olympus MMF-3 adapter and my various Four-Thirds lenses will have to do or I'll just pull out the E-5 or E-1.  The E-1 and the ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 are such a good combination, even without IS of any kind.

GH3, MMF-3, and Leica 25mm f/1.4

Update 2014.02.13: I thought several times that I might go buy a micro Four-Thirds lens to fill the gap, but in the end, I just concentrated on getting regular shopping done before the roads froze again.  I didn't want to fall on my ice.  That Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 has been pulling at my wallet ever since I tried pre-production samples, along with the 12mm f/2.0.  I even thought about the Olympus 60mm macro while it was on sale, but the current Four-Thirds 50mm f/2.0 macro is plenty for me since I really haven't done any macro photography.

Update 2014.02.16: It arrived on the 14th, before 10:30 a.m.  I'm wondering how long it will take for them to handle it.  I'm hopeful that it will come back a much better lens than it was.  It really wasn't worth the money I paid for it.  It seemed worth about half of the price for the optical quality I got.

Update 2014.02.22: Panasonic still hasn't acknowledged it, even though UPS said that it was delivered over a week ago.  I'm wondering if this is some sort of game they play to extract a payment, rather than provide warranty service, since it's close to the edge.

Update 2014.02.24: I'm on my fifth call this hour to the service center to understand what's happening.  They do not answer and the automated system seems to become more frail each time, giving me dead air instead of automated rubbish.  As these toll-free numbers cost them more than a regular call and don't cost me anything, I will remain on the line until ejected from their system.  I finally left a message, after they closed.  I guess once the machine isn't fighting for its life, it can do adequate work as a phone system.  Not only did I leave a voice message, but I sent an e-mail to the repair e-mail address: panacare@us.panasonic.com plus I sent a Tweet to the LumixPro people, and put the photo with the lens flare on Instagram while tagging Panasonic.  It's probably not enough.

I suspect I'll have to engage the camera store where I bought the lens in order to get anything done.   There are three other one star reviews on Yelp for the place.  It's incredible that this is Panasonic's level of service in the U.S.A.

Update 2014.02.25: Supposedly, everything is finished.  They were apparently readying it for shipment about the time I was calling.  I wonder if they saw my phone number, matched it to the lens, and took care of it by replacing it with an already refurbished lens.

We show your item arrived, but its been resolved. The item has shipped back to you

I don't know if that is a repair or replacement but either way, if it's working as well as the designers expected, I'll be happy that I didn't waste my money.

Update 2014.02.27: I have received my lens, not a replacement, just two weeks after I sent it to them.

According to Ruben Silva, there is no problem whatsoever.  He said that there were "finger prints and grease/dirt on lens front and rear glasses", even though I cleaned the lens before I sent it to them.  They think I treat a $1500 lens as though it was $15?  Incredible.  I'm guessing that if I sent it again, out of warranty, they'd find an expensive problem.

Panasonic GH3 + Olympus MMF-3 + Olympus SHG = greatness

I suppose I couldn't be more wrong about those micro Four-Thirds lenses, could I?  The fanatics seem to think that there are no better lenses.

Since I got the Olympus MMF-3 adapter, I'm pleased to say that the Olympus SHG ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 works very well with the GH3.  The lens is very heavy for a bit more than a 2x zoom but at the wider angles, you need more work to get a great lens.  That's why you see so few of them.  I'm leaving the adapter attached to the 14-35mm, while I can use the ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 with the Olympus E-5 and it's better balanced as a combination.

Notably, there is a problem if you insist on auto focus but it's similar to the problem on Four-Thirds bodies.  The 14-35mm lens will hunt far too much, similar to the 50mm macro.  Sadly, this is the revised lens that arrived in 2007 with the Olympus E-3 body and not the original lens that was supposed to be available in 2005.  That was apparently an optical masterpiece but somehow flawed in that it had to be redesigned.  The current, available 14-35mm lens is still an optical masterpiece but extends on both ends of the zoom range.

In any case, the 14-35mm can auto focus with the GH3 through the adapter, and it's faster than the experience with the Olympus E-1.  I often use manual focus so I'm sure about the details.  Focus assist/pinpoint focus is useful but as I'm turning the ring, it can be a bit bouncy.  Carry Dramamine, if necessary.  Since manual focus eliminates the automated hunting, I can get precise focus more quickly.

The 35-100mm f/2.0 is nearly perfect and the combination is a bit unbalanced, a bit more than it was with the E-1 but it works quite well, once again, it can be auto focused by the GH3 more quickly than with my E-1, but it's much faster with my E-5.

The optical quality of the two lenses is extremely high and I'm quite pleased with the results with the GH3.  Even in dim light, the combinations work much better than with the E-5.  I'm looking forward to buying and using the 7-14mm f/4.0 SHG lens.  If you're wondering why I wouldn't buy the much less expensive, much smaller Panasonic version, it's very simple: weather-resistance.

Why, oh, why would you spend nearly US$1000 for a lens if some driving rain or dust storm could affect the insides?  That said, I have the excellent Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 for Four-Thirds.  I'm concerned about taking it outside and really using it, unless it's a perfectly clear day or night.  It focuses quite quickly with the GH3, as well as the E-5.

I'm surprised to have made the (half a) leap to micro Four-Thirds, although the MMF-3 adapter is my very good friend.  For now, the Olympus SHG zooms continue to rule my world, with the HG zooms a close second and I've had the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 since 2004.  Further behind would be the premium Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 (which I don't have) and 35-100mm f/2.8 lenses.

Update 2013.09.16: Obviously, the same lenses will work wonders with the newly announced E-M1.  Of course, with the somewhat useful Phase Detection Auto Focus, they'll even work similarly to the E-5 but at a slower pace, and I suspect will work poorly in lower light, but that's not been shown that I can see.  The GH3 can auto focus to -4 EV, which is like starlight--something the opposite of intense.  There is no such specification that I can find for the E-M1, so maybe Olympus are re-working the firmware already to improve the performance of the auto focus.

Update 2014.02.11: The other day I had to laugh.  Someone had posted a comment on an article about the soon to be released Panasonic GH4, calling it an utter failure because with Nikon, Canon, and Sony mirror-less system cameras you could mount dSLR lenses, and you couldn't do that with FujiFilm (you can't but the official adapter supports Leica M-mount) or micro Four-Thirds.

Given that Olympus produces some of the finest dSLR lenses in their High Grade and Super High Grade lines, I can't imagine how deep ignorance goes.  I'm still not happy with micro Four-Thirds lens selections although Olympus has upped the game with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens and their intended 40-150mm f/2.8 lens that has not arrived yet.  I'm getting ready to send off my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens because of huge lens flare but it hasn't been totally bad or good.  It's just not very good for the price--Olympus HG line was a steal in comparison.

Update 2014.02.25: The other day, I bought the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 micro Four-Thirds lens for my Panasonic GH3.  I am surprised at how much better it makes the GH3 photos look, as compared to the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens, even though it was less expensive.  You'd think Panasonic would work incredibly well with Panasonic.  I sent that lens off to be repaired, due to a rather huge problem with lens flare, something I saw documented about the time I bought mine, but didn't expect that there would be a problem.  Getting a repair seems to be a problem in the U.S.A.

In any case, by the end of 2014, Olympus will have the 12-40mm f/2.8 and 40-150mm f/2.8 lenses available.  Some time in 2015, they'll also have 7-14mm f/2.8 and a 300mm f/4.0 lenses.  I haven't seen anything about a 150-300mm f/2.8 lens but it needs to be part of the plan.

While the 12-40mm f/2.8 isn't as great as the 14-35mm f/2.0, it is great for the price, and appropriately positioned between the SHG 14-35mm on the high end and the HG 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 at the middle position, above the standard kit lens.  I'm also pleased that they've finally addressed the 12mm focal length.  I know it's more difficult to control the distortion, but it's worth having.  The new for 2015 7-14mm f/2.8 will be great for landscapes and also for indoor real estate, which too often is left to a point-and-shoot camera.

Update 2014.03.25: I'd like to add that all of my Four-Thirds lenses work well on the GH3, especially the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 that was meant for the Digilux 3.  It seems to be meant for Contrast Detect Auto Focus, so it moves quickly.  Since the GH3 has a top shutter speed of 1/4000th of a second, the f/1.4 in full sun is close to being overwhelmed, so a Neutral Density filter could be a good idea.  The GH4 will fix this problem as it has the 1/8000th shutter speed.  How did we manage in the old days with f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses and 1/1000th of a second shutter speed?

I'm happy to say that my experience with the new Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens, I have found renewed respect for Olympus and I am certain to buy the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens, though I feel a bit ambivalent about micro Four-Thirds still, especially after my ordeal with the 35-100mm f/2.8 lens and finding that it supposedly didn't need repair.  If Olympus would produce a somewhat bigger body, like a downsized E-5, or the E-1 with modern innards, I'd be very happy.  I'm not yet a hybrid shooter, though I'm going there and the GH3 and GH4 are on the right path, but Olympus does so many things right with the E-M1 that I wish they'd finished it properly.

Update 2014.10.17: I've been shooting with the E-M1 for roughly 4 months, having traded the GH3 before the trade-in value dropped.  The 12-40mm has been working well, though I've found one instance where it produced nasty lens flare.  It's rare that I've used any of my Four-Thirds lenses on it, save the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 because of the E-M1's small size.  I'm looking at the 40-150mm f/2.8 very seriously, along with the matching 1.4x teleconverter.  The combination is still cheaper than my Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0 lens, and the effective f/4.0 maximum aperture is only a bit slower than my 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 on the long end where I use it most.

Update 2015.03.11: I've had the Panasonic GH4 since December and it reminded me how good the design of the GH3 was.  It's much easier to use my Four-Thirds lenses than it is with the Olympus E-M1.

While I love the 12-40mm f/2.8 as compact as it is, they should have made it a bit bigger and made it uncompromisingly wonderful.  The 14-35mm f/2.0 is amazing in ways that the 12-40mm f/2.8 can't be but the lack of those 2mm on the wide end does make it somewhat incapable when taking architectural photos.  Olympus had a remedy for this problem with the 7-14mm f/4.0 but using it without artificial light indoors was difficult.  Now, they're bringing a 7-14mm f/2.8 to market for micro Four-Thirds, which seems perfect for higher end real estate.  I'm planning to use it for skate park photos mainly, along with the 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lens.

micro Four-Thirds has come a long way, and there are a few good lenses now, but Olympus' Four-Thirds lenses are still much better and an easy way to get great image quality.

Update 2015.08.07: Since I have the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8, Panasonic/Leica 15mm f/1.7, Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8, and 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lenses, the adapter doesn't get as much use on either my Panasonic GH4 or Olympus E-M1.  Occasionally, I will mount the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 on it, as it can be difficult to get lower light photos, but then, I'm finding the new Nikon D7200 and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens more difficult in such conditions, despite their supposed technical superiority.  Firmware updates will likely help.

Except for the 35-100mm f/2.8, the micro Four-Thirds lenses are very, very good.  They're not as good as my Olympus SHG lenses and on occasion, my HG lenses are more useful, but it's rare for me to use the adapter.  The best reason I can see to use it is to mount the Panasonic GM5 to my ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 and watch people be shocked at the appearance.

Update 2016.01.19: With the Olympus 300mm f/4.0 lens, supposedly there is a micro Four-Thirds lens that has exceeded the possible image quality of its Four-Thirds equivalent.  I'm not in a position to judge.  The micro Four-Thirds lens is about half the price of the Four-Thirds lens.  While the maximum aperture isn't as big, the sensors of the Four-Thirds' bodies aren't very good in lower light.  In the case of wildlife and bird photography, a thin depth of field is as difficult as it is helpful.

Second impressions on micro Four-Thirds, GH3

Now that I have my gear in some order and I'm not running around like a chicken with my head cut off, I have plenty of thoughts about micro Four-Thirds and specifically the Panasonic GH3, the 45-200mm, 35-100, and Olympus MMF-3 adapter.

I believe I have conquered my problem with the viewfinder freezing during shooting.  Panasonic ships the body with Auto Review enabled, as if it was a consumer-oriented camera.  Since the viewfinder is just another electronic monitor, it does exactly the same thing as the larger, rear display.  Burst mode shooting seems to be affected very little now that the function is disabled.  I also learnt that the noise reduction is high, as though the GH3 is a consumer camera.  I was advised to set it to -5, but without some help, I don't think I would have found the setting.  Why hide important settings?  I realise that I don't know Panasonic camera bodies, so it will take some time, but that's rather important.

I was a bit surprised about the inability to change the language to Japanese.  I immediately changed my E-1 and E-5 to Japanese but the GH3 only allows English or Spanish and the English takes some acclimation.  Something else surprised me: the GH3 (and the 35-100mm premium lens) has "Made in China" on it.  I can understand that they need to save some money, but it's a shock, given that my Olympus bodies were made in Japan (as I was).  The US$400 difference between the E-5 and GH3 seems apparent in the two but I thought that the E-5 was overpriced when I bought it, and thankfully, I got it at a good discount.  The E-5 lacks dials and the GH3 lacks a top-mounted display.  I can hear someone telling me that there isn't room but I would tell them to look at the E-1, which was a marvel of ergonomics.  I'm still learning the GH3 but it seems efficient.

I was reading about a GH3 firmware update due later this month and I decided to find out how to update firmware.  Given my success with the E-1 and lack of success with the E-5, I hoped for a good experience.  The web page was a bit of a disaster but I found that the 45-200mm lens I bought had an update that had not been applied yet.  I worked through the instructions:

1. Download update
2. Extract update
3. Place the update on  an SD card
4. Insert SD card into camera body
5. Attach the lens to be updated
6. Power the camera body
7. Press play and wait

It's that simple for lens updates.  Of course, it's probably more interesting for body updates.  Standing on the left foot, singing the national anthem, etc.

The 35-100mm lens is very expensive given the plastic.  Sure, it's sealed for weather and dust but it's all plastic and some is shiny, tacky-looking plastic.  In reading about the lens, it has a few optical problems but then, so do the Nikon and Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses.  I wasn't expecting a miracle.  One thing that concerns me is that the range of the lens may not be 35-100mm.  I was looking at a previous photo of the group of wrestlers I went to photograph last week.  I took one with the E-5 and ZD 35-100mm and another from the same position with the GH3 and Panasonic 35-100mm.  Assuming that I was paying attention to use the 100mm setting (opposite rotation), there is a slight different in the view in the images.  It's not a bad lens, but if you pay for a certain focal length range, you should get that.  I tried the lens hood today and noticed that there are gaps where it meets the lens where light could be an issue.

The lenses are damned expensive for what they are.  I guess I'm just (too) accustomed to Olympus' ZD HG and SHG lines, but paying US$800 for a lens that isn't weatherproofed and doesn't include a lens hood is nuts.  I don't mind that there are so many fixed focal length lenses (although I want fast zooms) but seal the lenses for weather and dust.  That's my major concern for my Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 on Four-Thirds.  It's a magnificent lens but I must shelter it from environmental issues, when I'm accustomed to being able to shoot in hurricanes.  Most of the micro Four-Thirds lenses are like this and I must pay more attention to what I'm buying since there are so few weatherproofed lenses.

Olympus has shown that they want to keep things small.  They just re-introduced their 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7.  Yes, that really is the maximum aperture.  It's that slow.  Of course, you're probably not worried about subject isolation from a distance or you'd be working with something else, such as the ZD 90-250 f/2.8.  I'm expecting too much, I'm sure.

I got the Olympus MMF-3 adapter so I can use my Four-Thirds lenses on the GH3 or any other micro Four-Thirds body.  What's interesting is that the GH3 focuses the lenses more quickly than the E-1 for which they were designed.  Of course, the 14-35mm f/2.0 and the 50mm macro f/2.0 hunted but that's their typical behaviour.  If the GH3 wasn't as big as it is, it wouldn't be able to handle the lenses well.  The 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 feels right at home, as does the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5, since the GH3 isn't much different in size from the E-1.

I'm pleased, and learning, and getting work done with the new equipment, and that's a good feeling.  I've yet to just walk with it but it's not all that warm outside.

Update: I've paid attention to testing both 35-100mm lenses on the GH3 (using the MMF-3 adapter for the ZD 35-100mm) and if there is any difference in the long end (the 100mm), it must be minimal.

Panasonic DMC-GH3 vs Olympus E-5

While I'm waiting for the next Olympus dSLR, I've punted and got the Panasonic GH3.

It's strangely similar to the E-5 but of course, totally different in use.  I've had it since Thursday and I'm facing an uphill battle to learn how to use it best.

One of the pet peeves of most Olympus E-1 users is that the E-3 and E-5 are so uncomfortable in so many ways.  Rather than the mode (PASM) dial, you hold the Mode button and use a generic dial.  The same happens with auto focus.  In fact, much of what Olympus learned and re-started themselves in the E-10, they dismissed for the E-3 and E-5.  Supposedly, they were going after Nikon and Canon, but it just proved odd.  The GH3 also has a load of buttons and a mode dial, etc.  They use another button for Drive (single, burst, self-timer) mode, and that doesn't seem nearly as logical.  Why not have a switch away from your nose on the back--for the (auto) focus?

In any case, it's nice to have a smaller body.  It's not really much different in size when you compare it to the E-1.  However, the 35-100mm I got with it is extra tiny, almost too small for my hand.  I've almost put a finger on the front element, while looking for the focus ring.  We all have to adjust when using new equipment.  When I first opened the packages, I was pretty close to sending it back before I tried it.  The 45-200mm isn't big either, but then, it has a f/4.0-5.6 maximum aperture range. The ZD 50-200mm is quite a bit smaller than the ZD 35-100mm, though.

GH3 with 12-40mm f/2.8 and E-5 with 14-35mm f/2.0

GH3 and 35-100mm f/2.8 vs. E-5 and 35-100 f/2.0

The good thing is that it delivers great image quality.  What does that mean?  I was printing on Super A3/A3+/13x19 inch paper way back with the E-1 and I had no fear in displaying my work.  I got no comments about fuzzy photos.  However, 9 years after my E-1 purchase, we've gone from 5.1 effective Megapixels to 16.05. In 2004, I had no problem putting my photos up against the 6.3MP APS-C sensors of the other brands.  At 16MP, the equivalent density yields 24MP for APS-C, I believe, and at the 12MP of the E-5, we were equivalent to the 18MP on APS-C sized sensors.

I wasn't happy with the moderate light image quality from the E-5.  Studio lighting made the E-5 look impressive, moreso than most other bodies but for daily use, a day without sunshine was a day with so-so image quality, and my E-1 still looked good.

The GH3 erases all that.  I've shot around 1000 photos with it so far, some of them while also using the E-5.  The difference is amazing.  The E-5 tops out its automatic range at ISO 1600.  I had over 900 basketball photos today and several wrestling photos Saturday where the GH3 picked ISO 3200 vs. the E-5's ISO 1600.  The difference was amazing.  The E-5 photos were yellow-ish and warm-ish with moderate to a lot of noise, while the GH3 generated very clean photos with some noise in the shadow detail, which is not surprising but the seats are too blue (they're dark green), making the gym look like it's newer than it is.

GH3 at ISO 3200

E-5 at ISO 1600

Everything I've read about this newer sensor says that it's very much equivalent to what's going into the latest APS-C bodies, and that you'd have to go to 135 format-sized sensors to get easily distinguishable differences in image quality.  I believe that.  Now, I'm not exactly sure about how the GH3 assigns ISO sensitivity values.  I've seen a few photos where it's stepped down to ISO 2000 or 2500 and the photos look a bit yellow.  In fact, I'm not completely sure about the colour and that's something that Panasonic has been adjusting since their first jump into serious photography with the DMC-L1.  Skin tones, however, are good.  It's just that sometimes, the photos seem a bit surreal because of the colour.  I've found the same thing with Nikon and Canon at ISO sensitivity values over 1600.  Can a photo look better than real life?  Perhaps, but that shouldn't be the product.  My money says that the photo should look exactly like real life.

I'm adjusting to the electronic viewfinder and it's freezing while the body is writing files.  (It comes with Auto Review set to ON, which mostly causes the problem. I also have faster, more capacious cards on order.)  I still seem to be able to shoot, so I can take a hybrid approach and watch the game with the other eye while I'm photographing it.  It worked well today.  However, electronic viewfinders will have to improve a lot before they're mainstream devices.  I can put up with it now because it's fairly new and mirror-less bodies are fairly new but in 3 or 4 years, new mirror-less bodies with an EVF better be good.  Of course, the freezing may be minimized by a faster SD card.  What I read in reviews was that a faster card didn't help the GH2, but I'm not sure it supported UHS-I cards fully anyway.  Buying a class 10 SD card is so painful.  A wide variety of performance fits into the category.  I'm using a couple of Sony cards with read speeds of 94 MB/second but the write speeds don't seem to be important enough to be listed.  I suspect they are 45 MB/second, while there are cards with 94 MB/sec on both.  Getting them into the computer quickly isn't really important if I couldn't take them in the first place.  (Faster SanDisk Extreme Pro cards should arrive Thursday with the Four-Thirds lens adapter.)

In any case, camera handling is mostly good, given the size.  I'm not sure why there was such a backlash about the GH3 being larger than the GH1/GH2.  I don't have huge hands but I find the GH3 a good size that could have been too small.  I really want my Olympus ZD SHG (Super High Grade) lenses to have an equivalent on micro Four-Thirds.  The GH3 would be almost perfect with such glass.

I still need to try some movie-making.

Update 2013.04.05: I used both today for a baseball game.  The Panasonic 35-100mm was attached to the GH3 and the 50-200mm was attached to the E-5.  Since I was using both, auto focus was enabled on both.  Auto focus on the GH3 was better than on the E-5 but not necessarily faster.  The E-5 had a problem where it would go out of focus after auto focus locked.  Out of 1081 photos, it happened on, maybe, 12 photos.  The GH3 showed its very electronic side by having a bigger delay from power saving mode, and the display seemed to be blacked out a few times, causing me just to point at where I thought the action was happening.  Could it have been my sunglasses at an angle?  I'm not sure.  I have not worked with enough LED/LCD displays to know.  The great thing is that they both worked and for my first baseball game shoot, I might have got some good photos.

Update 2013.10.15: I've used the GH3 for track and cross country and it's absolutely horrible for photographing runners.  It's not completely surprising, but it's very annoying.

Part of the problem is that a runner will come almost straight at me and the auto focus can't handle that because Contrast Detection Auto Focus is almost worthless for quickly moving subjects.  To compound the problem, manual focusing does not work very well with either the magnified view getting in the way of seeing everyone or the normal view not having enough pixels to focus accurately. 

Update 2013.12.09: I'm looking back at this and at a later date, I managed to use the GH3 for cross country at a specific location where I was having trouble with the E-1 and E-5 because of the dark area where runners emerge from the woods.  The GH3 was better here, but I really had to modify my technique for focus.  Manual focus wasn't really an option, but continuous auto focus doesn't really work.  Similar to getting racing cars in focus, I settled on a fixed point, and used burst mode to shoot a few extra shots at the location next to the woods.  At the finish line, it wasn't too much of a problem to get a quick half-press on the shutter release and with the bright light, focus was instantaneous.

The GH3 and I have come a long way together.  I still don't like the menus and the Quick Menu isn't as helpful to me as the Olympus Super Control Panel, but the Custom settings are--turn the dial and you have a different setup.  The Panasonic 35-100mm has been okay mostly, but has a terrible problem with lens flare and since I use the lens hood every time I use the lens, it could be even worse.  I need to send the lens to Panasonic for repair.  (They weren't any help.  They said that the lens flare was normal.)  The GH3 has been a trustworthy tool, though.  If the image quality was better and the EVF as good as the Olympus E-M1 or an optical viewfinder, I'd be really pleased.  Messing with video has been interesting. 

Update 2014.03.12:  The Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 has changed my thoughts about the GH3 image quality with native lenses.  It is quite good, something I never really saw with the 35-100mm f/2.8 and never with the 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6.  Up until this point, most of my casual GH3 shots were taken with the MMF-3 adapter and Olympus lenses or the Four-Thirds Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 lens.

Having shot three basketball games on January 31st and February 1st, I was really disappointed with the GH3 and the 35-100mm f/2.8 lens.  None of the photos from Friday's game looked quite right.  The next evening, I switched to the E-5 and 35-100mm f/2.0 and they looked much better.  It's likely I lost more of the E-5 photos due to lighting, but those that remained had good color.  The 35-100mm f/2.8 from Panasonic just isn't very good and I sent it for repair because of the lens flare and they returned it to me, telling me that it was typical.  The GH3 is a remarkable camera body.  It's just too bad that Panasonic doesn't do as well with lenses.

Prior to the basketball game, I took some photos with the E-5 and 14-35mm f/2.0 and they were stunning.  That's not bad for a camera body that had specifications that would have been great in 2007.