Yet another OM-D vs. GH3 thread

Started Jan 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
plevyadophy
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,250Gear list
Like?
Re: Just extract the OM-D info Re: OM-D performs well as a sports + action camera, maybe
In reply to gtravis, Jan 29, 2013

gtravis wrote:

plevyadophy wrote:

if my memory serves me correctly, suggested that the OM-D would suit parties and such like, whilst the GH3 would be the one for demanding subject matter.

I'm not comfortable with the adjective "demanding" because it implies that shooting parties is somehow easier than, say, shooting weddings (my other comparison item).

I did not mean to infer a hierarchy of capabilities. The cameras are horizontal competitors, not vertical.

For example, when you are taking shots at a party, the last thing you need is a big obtrusive camera that says "HEY!" and puts all the subjects off, making candid photography nearly impossible. The same is true of street photography, where you don't want your subjects to be aware of the camera lest they either pose or shrink.

That's how parties/street photography are demanding in a different ´╗┐way than a wedding, or sports shoot, is demanding. And each of the cameras has its strengths and weaknesses in those areas and they are very complimentary with little capability overlap save for the fact that both can produce some absolutely stellar photos.

I just won a 35mm Summaron that I bid on. I have a real weakness for Leica lenses and the "Leica look" (both how the lenses themselves look and how the pictures they take look) and can't wait to see how that lens looks and performs on the OM-D. It would look a little silly on the GH3.

N.B. I am still trying to figure out if I think the in-camera HDR on the GH3 is a gimmick, or has real value.

N.B.2 The WiFi interface on the GH3 has promise, but it's not quite to actually useful, yet. I am hoping that a couple of firmware upgrades down the road and it will be. Like in-camera HDR, I am not convinced that remote control of the camera via a smartphone, while I've confirmed it actually works, is actually useful (i.e. not a gimmick). I have a hard time seeing how it's that much more value than just an RF remote shutter to justify the significant complexity and un-reliability.

Hi,

Thanks for the clarification and further comments.

By the way, with regard to the WiFi, I too am wondering as to its usefulness. My reason being, that it appears that you can't transfer raw files using the GH3 WiFi feature. That seems daft; it shouldn't need a firmware update to remedy the situation as the capability should have been there from the get-go. The OM-D, on the other hand, by way of it's Eye-Fi compatibility and Eye-Fi menu allows for the transfer of raw files via WiFi.

I guess the abiity to control the camera remotely is so as to place the camera in dificult to access areas, e.g. up at the ceiling, and still get your shots. Plus I hazard a guess that Panny see the GH3 as the mFT equivalent of a Canon 1D or Nikon D4, and the CaNikon cams have this remote control capability; I guess it's Panny's way of reducing to an absolute minimum the need to use a traditional DSLR.

Regards,

plevyadophy

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