Why is the EM5 so much more popular than the GH3?

The GH3 is a little more expensive, and that matters. The lack of ibis matters. The spotty availability also matters. The viewfinder reports are disappointing.  These things add up. But if it had good ibis I might prefer it to my em5. The form factor is more to my liking.

--
John Krumm
Juneau, AK

I came from a GF1 (20 mm + 7-14 mm) and I wanted to maintain coat-pocketability. I've since added a 14 mm & 45 mm, thus stabilisation is a big bonus as well.

In general, the OM-D E-M5 simply came first, was a big step-up in image quality (not as much compared to G3, GH-2 but compared to the original 12 MP sensor), had a more effective IBIS, and last but not least looked incredibly cute.

Now, this is a bit academical for me, since there was no GH3 when I decided to go for the E-M5, but the reason I went for the 'M5 over a GH2 was because I was tired of the form factor of my dslr. I wanted a interchangeable system camera, that was smaller, didn't look like a melted bar of coal tar soap, but had a sufficiently good viewfinder. Initially I looked at one of the smaller cameras but with an added view-finder, but when the 'M5 was announced it seemed to be the perfect fit for what I wanted.

Features and IQ is important, but size, bulk and joy of use is what makes me take the camera and lenses with me or not when I go out the door.

Mostly the fantastic IBIS, and the form factor, the OMD with the grip is exactly what I wanted in terms of size and ergonomics.

That and the fact that the lenses I wanted most don't have IS in them, so I had to have a camera with IBIS.

This being said, the GH3 looks like a very impressive camera too.

All boils down to personnal preferences I guess...

--
A mind is like a parachute, it works better when open.

The OM-D has been out for almost a year. The GH3 is just coming out, with spotty availability.

I have the OM-D, and keeping it, and plan to get the GH3. The OM-D has great jpegs, IBIS. I like to look of it, but a grip all the time. Otherwise, it's not comfortable to hold. I'm interested in the GH3 for video and the size. The shape looks like an improvement for my hands. Much more is going to be said about the GH3 as more people get them.

--
www.ronhartman.net

A few things.

First the silly poll about the OMD winning a popularity contest over a DSLR which to me says DSLR owners don't really care about polls or one is so convinced like a kid watching a new cereal commercial they have to have it.

It also says that 98% here are Olympus users. Once you pick a camera body manufacture their really has to be a good reason to switch.

I also think the GH-3 is difficult to get and it may not be a thought or its a passing consideration due to availability issues. I have the GH-3 and my main reason was to eliminate the separate video camera I have, but their are lots more to consider to mimic that dedicated video camera configuration IMO. I have the GX-1 too and have no issues. The GH-3 offered something I needed.

I have read the OMD is a great camera WITH the grip. Well the GH-3 is a great camera to hold with out the grip.

For sake of lenses Olympus does not include lens hoods and Panasonic does for the same price. Their is really nothing Panasonic makes you buy to make your camera whole. Take the OLED GH-3vs OMD the GH-3 has a full articulating OLED very important especially to do a continuous move when shooting video needing to see the frame all the time. Olympus does many opposite things that are deal breakers for me.

I switched from a Nikon DSLR and given both Olympus & Panasonic as an option though lots of reading and all the stuff you do I decided Panasonic is the better system as a whole a few years ago.

Their is nothing so compelling to get an OMD when I like the Panasonic camera offerings with just how they function like menu system set up and native lens selection to date. I think the few new lenses the 150 2.8 and 42.5 mm 2.8 will be great and if and when they are available.

Well, at the time I bought my E-M5, the GH3 had not yet been released, but I would make the same decision today.

The entire reason I switched to m4/3 from Canon APS-C was to drastically reduce the size, weight and complexity of my kit.

For me, the G(H[N]) series does not possess the one quality that drew me to m4/3 in the first place, small size.

If I were a videographer, I might feel differently.

The OMD is much smaller and more of the size that most M43 users would want. As is the G5 Panasonic.

The GH3 is a much less compromising camera aiming, with its 2 fast zoom lenses, at a the professional end of the market. That's a good or bad thing depending on your point of view but whereas for me the size is a selling point, for most it will be a minus.

Personally I prefer in body image stabilisation (not for performance reasons, but because it operates on all lenses). On the other hand, I'd be unhappy to work without the electronic shutter and full iPad control that the GH3 offers.

I can see the OMD with its retro style appealing even to inexperienced photographers looking for a great camera. The GH3 has less appeal in that direction. That's the main reason why the Olympus sells more, in my opinion.

It might change (though I doubt it) when the camera is more widely available in the USA but obviously GH3 sales will increase then.

Both, by any standards are very, very good cameras really requiring a jump to FF sensor cameras to make a meaningful jump in quality.

--
David
www.dthorpe.net

I was familiar w the Oly menu structure and controls, so less of a learning curve for me

Smaller size was a big plus- if I wanted larger I would have just replaced my E-520, or even gone to an E-30

I like the two part removable grip (I use it both ways or take it off as needed) ... You can't take the grip off the GH when you want to travel light. And now there is a choice between the $300 two part battery grip, or a nice aftermarket landscape grip.

I liked the styling... reminds me of my OM-4 (stolen along w the E-520)

OIS is fine if you have the lens... doesn't do much good if you want to use a legacy lens, or an Olympus lens for that matter.  IBIS works great w any lens.

Oh, and of course there is the hype, which tends to be self perpetuating.  Got mine before the hype tho.

--
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

I own both and like both. So far I would say their image quality is equal. And they each have their strengths and relative weaknesses. The EM5 has been available for a while and the GH3 has been very hard to get, although even if the GH3 had been first the EM5 might have been more popular.

For me there are only two major differences between the cameras: 1) IBIS 2) Size

I actually like the larger body of the GH3 and always keep the RRS base and grip on the EM5 to make it bigger. For me it is the lenses that make m43 smaller and lighter.

I don't how many are influenced by the look of the EM5. But it reminds me of my film Olys. I don't know how many others feel the same(or are even old enough to feel the same), but I am amazed to discover that people of all ages often comment positively on its' looks.

I couldn't believe my eyes when I read that GH3 is bigger than GH2.  Why make it bigger?  If user needs bigger bodies, they have ample dslr choices.  Or get a vertical grip.  I will never even consider GH3 as an option for me.

--
^__^
Just Shoot !

1. I've always had an easier time with WB and colors out of Oly vs Pany m43 bodies, even shooting raw, so I trust them more in that respect.

2.  I HUGELY prefer the flip screen to fully articulated screens.

3. Size. The OMD is already at the outside of my size thresholds. The GH2 I had was too big moor my taste and the GH3 is notably larger than that.

4. Interface - I know the Oly UI is more complex and confusing, but I already know it very well and I love it's customizability.

5.  IBIS - having never used the OMD IBIS, I wouldn't have known how good it was and wouldn't really have factored it in much. But now that I've used it for awhile, I'll always want at least one body with this ibis system. Mind blowingly more effective than anything else I've used.

Pretty compelling case to me. Mostly personal preferences, but pretty strong ones.

-Ray
-------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/collections/72157626204295198/

For me been an Olympus digital cameras user since the E-20, the jump from the EpL-1 to the E-M5 was a natural thing, so I pre-order right after the anouncement. If money was not an issue I will like to have a GH3 in my bag just for video, but now that a fully compatible with 4/3 lenses Olympus camera is expected next year the chances of me buying a GH3 are remote.

--
Bluephotons
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now. Bob Dylan

Didn't the GH3 just hit certain markets a few weeks ago, and some not at all? Jees, give the thing a chance!

When the EM5 came out, I sold my GH2 in preparation for getting one.  After looking at the images from it and considering the UI differences between it and the GH2, I realized that I would be much happier if I stayed with the GH2, so I re-bought one, and did not get the EM5.  I have been very happy with that second GH2, but I really wanted just a little bit better IQ in terms of color rendition and DR, so I was waiting to see what the GH3 would have to offer.

When they announced the GH3, I was very disappointed in the size, so I figured I would just stay with the GH2, and maybe pick up whatever smaller M43 they developed down the road with the GH3 sensor in it as my second body.  I even thought again about getting an EM5....but my original objections to it still had not changed, so I knew I would not be happy with it, and decided against it.

However, after I started seeing some images that people were posting from their GH3s and read some user reviews from people on this forum who have both cameras, I decided I should probably give one a try.

Sizewise...yes it is bigger, but it is also much better balanced in use than the GH2,  The grip seems very large to me (I have tiny hands, though), but funny thing; after using it for a few days, it all of a sudden feels very solid and comfortable to hold.  The rear LCD is a HUGE step up from the GH2's...most of the time I just had the GH2's LCD flipped closed against the body, but the GH3's is very sharp, very clear, and actually useable outside in daylight.  The EVF, well, it's brighter and clearer for sure, but due to the aspect change, is a little smaller.  I have no problem with EVF smearing, but the color rendition on the GH2 EVF (but not the LCD) is superior to that on the GH3.  Overall, the GH2-GH3 EVF differences are equivocal for me.

In general, my conclusions are that this is a winner of a camera in terms of IQ and useability, even in spite of the larger size.  It has all of the things I like about Panasonic cameras (UI, wonderful tonal gradation in images as well as terrific detail retention), and just a real step up in sensor technology to go along with them.

Interestingly enough, I decided to try the EPL5 in consideration for making that my second body.  It's a lovely little camera, but the small rear LCD made it difficult to use, and the Oly EVF's somehow always give me a raging headache (none of the Panasonics do, no idea why there is such a difference).  I found the UI better than the one on my old EPL1, but still not nearly as intuitive for me as the Panasonic.  In the end, I was not comfortable with it (for many of the same reasons that I had eliminated the EM5 from my consideration, earlier).  I will wait and see what Panasonic has down the road for their smaller bodies for my second body.

So....In answer to your question....I think the size of the GH3 puts people off, and the price, but mostly it does not have the whiz bang technology of the OMD IBIS, nor does it have the OMD cuteness factor going for it.   It sort of says "I AM A SERIOUS CAMERA", where the EM5 appeals on a visceral level; the EM5 makes you want to pick it up and hold it, where the GH3 is all business.  Both cameras have great IQ, but that intangeable visceral appeal that the EM5 has is what gets people interested and keeps them intrigued.  (I think the last camera Panasonic made with that sort of appeal was the GF1).

The GH3 will start developing its following as the reviews start coming in and more cameras are available.  It's a pretty amazing device....but it's not cute   .  That makes a difference in who buys it, and how many get sold.....

-J

I know you are joking but an awful lot of people find cuteness important. Hence the retro fashion now.

If you are serious about photography, you buy the best tool for making pictures the way you want to.

But nobody ever lost money dumbing down and I'm sure the GH3 would sell more if it were styled as a copy of the original Nikon F. Fuji does well out of aping the Leica, after all.

There are plenty of photographers who are more concerned to look cool than anything else - luckily for serious people because their jewellery is what keeps the prices of our tools down.

--
David
www.dthorpe.net

a bloated monstrosity.

Have you compared these two cameras side by side?

tEdolph

The OM-D has been available since May. It was very hyped up because it was the first MFT camera that serious hobbyists, and some pros, said was good enough to wrest their DSLR's from them for a lot of shooting situations. which did, and does, make it a special camera no matter what side of the format fence you are on.

The GH-3 was released 8 months later but is barely available. It's also noticeably bigger and you know how we are as a marketing driven society.

As others have mentioned, besides the size difference the IBIS is a serious advantage of the OM-D unless you are already invested in numerous panny OIS lenses. Otherwise it's really a toss-up between the two. If you want to shoot more video, GH3 hands down. IBIS you get an Oly. Perhaps better ergonomics at the expense of size, probably GH3. Etc. Etc...

--
-------------------------------
www.pixelsquish.com

I was surprised to see the GH3 is about the same size as my Pentax K-5. It kind of defeats one of the main purposes of mirror-less MFT IMO.

--
Before you can start taking good photographs, you must first learn how to recognize bad photographs.