Yet another OM-D vs. GH3 thread

Started Jan 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
gtravis
Regular MemberPosts: 257
Like?
Re: Yet another OM-D vs. GH3 thread
In reply to Mike Ronesia, Jan 27, 2013

No, it has to do with the GH3's overall performance.  It's just so much FASTER than the OM-D.  Both to change some of the camera's configuration (for example, focus type) as well as the overall responsiveness of the camera itself.

With my G1 and GH2, I developed what I called "race car driver" habits -- I didn't wait until I saw what I wanted to shoot in the EVF before shooting.  I had to anticipate what was likely to come up and hit the shutter before I thought it would happen -- i.e. I was aiming for where I thought the subject would be once the shutter fired, not where they were when I looked through the EVF.

Frankly, I thought the OM-D would be better in this regard, particularly since Olympus lauds it as having the fastest CD focus in the universe.  But I found my OM-D was no faster than the GH2 and seemed to require even more anticipation.

I just came back from shooting a kid's birthday party at a bowling alley with the GH3.  I was amazed at how fast the EVF was updating and, most importantly, that I appeared to get a shot the instant I pushed the shutter -- i.e. I waited until the action in the EVF was what I wanted and then hit the shutter.  And it captured it, every time.  Never had that happen with an EVIL camera before.

The GH3 just simply has better software under the hood and (perhaps) better (faster) computational bits.  The rest of the hardware between the two is a wash -- they're both built very well, the buttons have extremely solid feels to them, nothing feels "plastic-y" on either one.  But given my experience with the OM-D over the past two months and Panasonic's G-line over the past four years, culminating in the GH3 here, when I need the shot, the GH3 is delivering.

Obviously, the above has almost everything to do with action shots -- sports, capturing the bouquet toss at a wedding, etc.  It was so bad on the GH2 that I would just set up the camera to do a high speed burst with every picture taken and then pick the one that was best in post.  So far, that doesn't seem to be necessary with the GH3.

Again, the GH3 is a piece of equipment that is saying "I'm there for you when you need to get a job done."  It says that in its performance, it says that in the number and manner of interfaces (i.e. flash syncro, microphone input (I have the mic input for the OM-D, it's not the availability but rather the planning)).  It says that in battery capacity.

The OM-D is much more of a camera.  One, if not the, most capable I have used for that purpose and it takes just stunning photos.  But operating it is a bit of an artform.  The GH3 is much more "plug and play" in a professional setting.

Finally, and I suspected this would be the case even before I owned the OM-D, but nothing can make up for a fully articulating LVF.  I fell in love with it on the G1 and consider the lack of one a serious drawback.  It's probably the biggest, by far, mark against the OM-D.  It's just brilliant.

Back to the OM-D.  When I have it out, people are drawn to it.  They come up and ask me about it.  They want to see it.  They love it.  That was never the case with any of the G1, GH2 and it hasn't and won't be the case with the GH3.  They're utilitarian.  The OM-D is a piece of art.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow