Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
I am merely curious - I'm getting on fine with the OM-D and shan't be changing it. If I wanted a new camera I'd pick up and E-PM2.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
So which is better? "GH3" or OM-D?
- Thread starter Louis_Dobson
- Start date
-
- Tags
- olympus pen e-pm2
jarnicek
Member
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 4
sgoldswo
Veteran Member
No doubt the GH3 is bigger, but for me there is little practical difference -- except the GH3 has more external controls and is less cramped. As far as weight goes, the difference (<5oz.) is negligible. I can use the same small bag for either one, and neither one will fit in a pocket. So....
MFT still has a major size advantage due to smaller lenses.
I've never used a GH3, so it's difficult to say. I have an OMD EM-5, so I can only go on the obvious differences.
The biggest difference for me is just that: size. My foray into micro 4/3 from not having owned a camera at all was governed by my preference for a camera small enough to fit into my (admittedly large) coat pocket while not sacrificing image quality. My first micro 4/3 was an EP-2 for this very reason.
I got very used to manual control quickly with the EP-2, and though I have a long way to go in shot selection and in actually using that manual control to create nice cameras (I have a long way to go in creative direction as well), I've found that the manual control on the OMD EM-5 is quick and easy to reach and use. The image quality vs. the EP-2 was shocking -- at not a big difference in size, the EM-5 is starkly better at taking good photos. It's a tool that instantly made it easier to get the photos I wanted, especially indoors.
If I had any interest in video, I might look at the GH3. But realistically I would probably go with the GH2, as I would be using it almost entirely for video and wouldn't be able to justify the cost of the GH3. That's entirely down to personal preference based on how I use my camera, though. For a lot of people on here, the GH3 will be an excellent choice.
For several months the EM-5 has been unopposed as the top performer in micro 4/3, but with the GH3 there is a legitimate choice for the micro 4/3 user that isn't based entirely in image quality or even general camera quality. It'll take a while to get used to the change and there's probably going to be some fanboy vitriol for a while, but it can only be a good thing for the system to get the luxury of choice.
The biggest difference for me is just that: size. My foray into micro 4/3 from not having owned a camera at all was governed by my preference for a camera small enough to fit into my (admittedly large) coat pocket while not sacrificing image quality. My first micro 4/3 was an EP-2 for this very reason.
I got very used to manual control quickly with the EP-2, and though I have a long way to go in shot selection and in actually using that manual control to create nice cameras (I have a long way to go in creative direction as well), I've found that the manual control on the OMD EM-5 is quick and easy to reach and use. The image quality vs. the EP-2 was shocking -- at not a big difference in size, the EM-5 is starkly better at taking good photos. It's a tool that instantly made it easier to get the photos I wanted, especially indoors.
If I had any interest in video, I might look at the GH3. But realistically I would probably go with the GH2, as I would be using it almost entirely for video and wouldn't be able to justify the cost of the GH3. That's entirely down to personal preference based on how I use my camera, though. For a lot of people on here, the GH3 will be an excellent choice.
For several months the EM-5 has been unopposed as the top performer in micro 4/3, but with the GH3 there is a legitimate choice for the micro 4/3 user that isn't based entirely in image quality or even general camera quality. It'll take a while to get used to the change and there's probably going to be some fanboy vitriol for a while, but it can only be a good thing for the system to get the luxury of choice.
SHood
Veteran Member
The GH3 is only 4mm taller due to the hump on the E-M5 and the GH3 has the larger grip built in. The lenses take up the same amount of space regardless of body type.
Last edited:
Edward Rauschkolb
Senior Member
Hi Louis,
I have been a long time user of both the Oly E 4/3 series and the Leica M series (using these as my main cameras for the last several years). I try to travel as much as possible, sometimes with groups and sometimes by ourselves but usually to places with extremes of weather. AFAIC some degree of weather sealing is mandatory, as I have lost several digital cameras to weather (and even just high humidity) I have been very happy with the E1/3/5 bodies with both the HG & SHG lenses, but the weight has been an increasing issue. Although I love the size/weight of the M, no weather sealing makes it impractical. I really love the output/size of the XE/P-1 and ironically this has largely replaced my use of the M9. . . but again no weather sealing.
I bought the OM--D and there are now 4 lenses that are weather sealed. . . O 12-50, 60, P 12-35, 35-100. I do not own the 35-100 and do not use the 12-50. I largely use the P12-35 & O 60 and other P zooms in fair weather. I own several (unsealed) primes. I have recently been to Iceland with the EM-5 and 12-35 and found the images superb BUT the camera virtually impossible to control with gloves in the horizontal rain/sleet. Even in good weather many of the controls are just fiddly. . . and move too easily on their own I use the horizontal portion of the grip routinely with the 12-35 which helps with the overall handling (but raises other issues) and frequently use the small flash for flash fill.
That said using just the grip alone, (not the vertical) makes the EM-5 and GH3 virtually identical in size and weight (w/i 25 grams). I just recently got a GH3 for evaluation and have been struggling to learn it with the huge manual and rather involved menu system.
In bright light (Florida sun), the touchscreen on either camera is essentially useless and controls must be set via the EVF.
The GH3 in feel (and looks as well) reminds a bit of a half-size E5. Compared to the EM-5, the controls are larger and once understood (I disagree that there is any difference in difficulty between the Menu systems of either camera) work similarly to my set-up on the E5. Operational speed is about the same as the EM-5. EVF is similar in quality but a bit different in view. and I think I prefer the EM-5. Eye position seems more critical on the GH3, but I am still learning to use it. I do use the large eyecup on the EM-5 but as yet have not needed one for the GH3
The controls appear more rugged and larger on the GH3 and they do not appear to be as prone to moving oin their own so I do not have to shut the camera off when I place it in my case. . . something I had to do in Iceland with the EM-5 as the control wheels moved pretty much if you breathed on them.
I also prefer the ability to protect the LCD by turning it into the camera body as I rarely use it. I do find the flip out/up screen of the EM5 preferable in street shooting however and my silver EM-5 does seem to draw lesss attention. The reality is I now use the Fuji for that kind of shooting anyway. Likewise the GH3's built in flash is quite convenient . fill flash but it does not appear sealed and Panasonic advises against using it in inclement weather.
I am only a casual video shooter so I am trying the GH3 as largely a still camera. I am not yet sure of the image quality from the GH3 compared to the EM-5. Still quality is close if not identical in my early use but frankly, I am still trying to optimize settings on the GH3. Isuspect either4 willo be acceptable, but n either better than the Fuji in its comfort zone
In short, it depends on what you are doing, even as a stills only shooter. If you are using the larger or weather sealed lenses with the EM-5+grip, there is no weight or size penalty. Even the cost of EM-5+grip is approximately equal to the GH3 w/o add-on vertical. Controls on the GH3 are clearly designed to be larger and more solid in feel, but the absence of IBIS is significant. . . if you want a smaller camera you CANNOT take off the grip. For MY use, the GH3 may be a better choice but both cameras suffer from the inability to effectively use the superb existing 4/3 lenses (but frankly how well could I use the 50-200 or even the 150 w/o IBIS). The lack of add'l weather sealed lenses still orevents either camera from replacing my existing dSLR systems.
As I usually travel with at least 2 bodies when traveling to exotic locations, I had hoped that an OMD or GH3 could both partially replace an E5 or serve as a back-up. Neither the EM-5 or GH3 can IMHO do that yet, so for wildlife in bad weather it still will be the E5. Hopefully the upscale OMD rmodel will do this. For now I will sell either the GH3 or EM5, but I do not know which yet.
Ed Rauschkolb
I have been a long time user of both the Oly E 4/3 series and the Leica M series (using these as my main cameras for the last several years). I try to travel as much as possible, sometimes with groups and sometimes by ourselves but usually to places with extremes of weather. AFAIC some degree of weather sealing is mandatory, as I have lost several digital cameras to weather (and even just high humidity) I have been very happy with the E1/3/5 bodies with both the HG & SHG lenses, but the weight has been an increasing issue. Although I love the size/weight of the M, no weather sealing makes it impractical. I really love the output/size of the XE/P-1 and ironically this has largely replaced my use of the M9. . . but again no weather sealing.
I bought the OM--D and there are now 4 lenses that are weather sealed. . . O 12-50, 60, P 12-35, 35-100. I do not own the 35-100 and do not use the 12-50. I largely use the P12-35 & O 60 and other P zooms in fair weather. I own several (unsealed) primes. I have recently been to Iceland with the EM-5 and 12-35 and found the images superb BUT the camera virtually impossible to control with gloves in the horizontal rain/sleet. Even in good weather many of the controls are just fiddly. . . and move too easily on their own I use the horizontal portion of the grip routinely with the 12-35 which helps with the overall handling (but raises other issues) and frequently use the small flash for flash fill.
That said using just the grip alone, (not the vertical) makes the EM-5 and GH3 virtually identical in size and weight (w/i 25 grams). I just recently got a GH3 for evaluation and have been struggling to learn it with the huge manual and rather involved menu system.
In bright light (Florida sun), the touchscreen on either camera is essentially useless and controls must be set via the EVF.
The GH3 in feel (and looks as well) reminds a bit of a half-size E5. Compared to the EM-5, the controls are larger and once understood (I disagree that there is any difference in difficulty between the Menu systems of either camera) work similarly to my set-up on the E5. Operational speed is about the same as the EM-5. EVF is similar in quality but a bit different in view. and I think I prefer the EM-5. Eye position seems more critical on the GH3, but I am still learning to use it. I do use the large eyecup on the EM-5 but as yet have not needed one for the GH3
The controls appear more rugged and larger on the GH3 and they do not appear to be as prone to moving oin their own so I do not have to shut the camera off when I place it in my case. . . something I had to do in Iceland with the EM-5 as the control wheels moved pretty much if you breathed on them.
I also prefer the ability to protect the LCD by turning it into the camera body as I rarely use it. I do find the flip out/up screen of the EM5 preferable in street shooting however and my silver EM-5 does seem to draw lesss attention. The reality is I now use the Fuji for that kind of shooting anyway. Likewise the GH3's built in flash is quite convenient . fill flash but it does not appear sealed and Panasonic advises against using it in inclement weather.
I am only a casual video shooter so I am trying the GH3 as largely a still camera. I am not yet sure of the image quality from the GH3 compared to the EM-5. Still quality is close if not identical in my early use but frankly, I am still trying to optimize settings on the GH3. Isuspect either4 willo be acceptable, but n either better than the Fuji in its comfort zone
In short, it depends on what you are doing, even as a stills only shooter. If you are using the larger or weather sealed lenses with the EM-5+grip, there is no weight or size penalty. Even the cost of EM-5+grip is approximately equal to the GH3 w/o add-on vertical. Controls on the GH3 are clearly designed to be larger and more solid in feel, but the absence of IBIS is significant. . . if you want a smaller camera you CANNOT take off the grip. For MY use, the GH3 may be a better choice but both cameras suffer from the inability to effectively use the superb existing 4/3 lenses (but frankly how well could I use the 50-200 or even the 150 w/o IBIS). The lack of add'l weather sealed lenses still orevents either camera from replacing my existing dSLR systems.
As I usually travel with at least 2 bodies when traveling to exotic locations, I had hoped that an OMD or GH3 could both partially replace an E5 or serve as a back-up. Neither the EM-5 or GH3 can IMHO do that yet, so for wildlife in bad weather it still will be the E5. Hopefully the upscale OMD rmodel will do this. For now I will sell either the GH3 or EM5, but I do not know which yet.
Ed Rauschkolb
Significantly better image quality is a "gimmicky" feature? :-D
Tim F 101
Senior Member
Everyone agrees that the Nikon D4 is ideal for holding doors open whereas an old CD-format camera is best for throwing like a frisbee. For affordability you cannot do better than a 2006 Kodak Easyshare. Maybe specify your needs, Louis?
I will go out on a limb and suggest that the GH3 has better video features and a more useful control layout (e.g., bracketing) whereas the OM-D has an IBIS advantage. The sensors are both quite excellent and seem to satisfy pixel peepers. Panasonic now has a wireless flash protocol, negating a pretty major negative as far as I am concerned, so it really is down to IBIS-and-size versus video-and-control-layout, plus other things that are minor for me (but maybe not for other people!).
I will go out on a limb and suggest that the GH3 has better video features and a more useful control layout (e.g., bracketing) whereas the OM-D has an IBIS advantage. The sensors are both quite excellent and seem to satisfy pixel peepers. Panasonic now has a wireless flash protocol, negating a pretty major negative as far as I am concerned, so it really is down to IBIS-and-size versus video-and-control-layout, plus other things that are minor for me (but maybe not for other people!).
SHood
Veteran Member
I would add the electronic shutter to the list for the GH3. It is changing how I shoot.
Pete Berry
Veteran Member
GH3 ticks almost all the boxes:
Pete
- True pinpoint focus spot capable of cutting through overlying branches, as was recently shown on this forum.
- Or very small focus box as in GH2 with PIP 4X central enlargement on un-enlarged background in MF assist. mode, and should be hand/monopod holdable with 300mm.
- Electronic shutter.
- Superb video for those who use this also in nature work as I do.
- Your birding/nature stills settings of choice can be set up in one of the three Custom modes on main dial, and video on another for rapid transfer.
Pete
Well, it's a bold claim that GH3 has a better image quality than E-M5 -- I strongly disagree. If you mean less compression in video, then I am not a pro videographer and will not clog up my hard drives with very high bit rate videos. 99.9% of my videos are handheld, so I value IBIS much more. Besides, E-M5 has a fantastic Auto Gradation mode (and a great Highlight-Shadow tool) to increasy the dynamic range, yes, in video. So the video quality is not only the birate.
exdeejjjaaaa
Veteran Member
GH3 and EM5 are old news... let us better talk about the next OMD camera from Olympus, which is hopefully get rid of stupid EM5 design and be more like GH3 ergonomics wise
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
Well, each to their own. I never liked the E1, loved the E3, replaced it with a D3 which produced nice results but was a pig to use, got a G1 as a travel camera, got a GH2 to replace the D3 (the weight was getting on my nerves), didn't think the GH2 worked terribly well but the IQ was good enough, now have the OM-D which I love. I found it fiddly at first, but it is fine now I'm used to it.
I'd suggest binning the grip for a bit and see if your hands adjust. Mine have, and I'm a big sort of chap.
All I need now is decent C-AF.. On the weather proofing I have used my four main lens, 7-14, 12mm, 25mm and 45mm, in heavy rain without issues. Frankly these things are so cheap compared to pro cameras that if I drown something I'll just have to shrug. My exotic locations are pretty close to home, fortunately!
Yes, touchscreens are a waste of space for us. I'd actually forgotten the cameras had one, always disabled around here.
Video is an irrelevance to me.
I'd suggest binning the grip for a bit and see if your hands adjust. Mine have, and I'm a big sort of chap.
All I need now is decent C-AF.. On the weather proofing I have used my four main lens, 7-14, 12mm, 25mm and 45mm, in heavy rain without issues. Frankly these things are so cheap compared to pro cameras that if I drown something I'll just have to shrug. My exotic locations are pretty close to home, fortunately!
Yes, touchscreens are a waste of space for us. I'd actually forgotten the cameras had one, always disabled around here.
Video is an irrelevance to me.
On image size alone, ignoring other aspects of the EVF, the GH3 image is slightly smaller at 1.34x magnification compared to 1.42x on the GH2, but larger than the EM5 at 1.15x.
The EM5 size is comparable to APS-C pentaprism cameras like the Nikon D7000 and the Canon 60D, while the GH2 is comparable to the size of full frame viewfinders on the Nikon D600 and D800 or the Canon 5D and 6D.
SHood
Veteran Member
I agree that for wildlife the GH3 is the better solution right now. I am also using one of the custom modes on my GH3 for wildlife.
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
I accidentally put apostrophes round "GH3" but they were supposed to be around "better". I completely agree, they do different things, which is "better" depends on the user. I'm never going to get on with a Panny, I owned two and found the way of working plain annoying. Also the video bias grates. I actively resent video 
Oh, and looks shouldn't matter, but I could never get round the faint embarrassment of carrying around what looked like a cheap dSLR - I felt like a tourist! The Oly is so small nobody notices it, and if they do, it is a little jewel.
But I was interested to see what the general perception of the GH3 was around here. Normally, in my experience, Panny always do something daft that renders an otherwise excellent camera second rate (see L1, L10, and in my opinion GH2), but in this case clearly not. Very positive reception - good. The more top notch M43 cameras the better. I was worried Oly would push Panny out of the game, and I think we need both companies.
Oh, and looks shouldn't matter, but I could never get round the faint embarrassment of carrying around what looked like a cheap dSLR - I felt like a tourist! The Oly is so small nobody notices it, and if they do, it is a little jewel.But I was interested to see what the general perception of the GH3 was around here. Normally, in my experience, Panny always do something daft that renders an otherwise excellent camera second rate (see L1, L10, and in my opinion GH2), but in this case clearly not. Very positive reception - good. The more top notch M43 cameras the better. I was worried Oly would push Panny out of the game, and I think we need both companies.
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
zxaar
Veteran Member
For a moment I thought you are talking about OMD. 'Cheap' 'dSLR' etc reminds me of SLRs of 1880s, typical of OMD looks.
Anyway, carry on with your 'my equipment' love.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum