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
If you don't want any stabilization, then it can be disabled on both bodies ! I don't see why that would be an advantage for the GH3 !
No one has mentioned price.
OM-D E-M5 is now $949 body only and $1199 with 12-50mm lens.
GH3 is $1299 body only and another $1200 for the G X Vario 12-35mm
Yes you can get different lenses, just thought it might be worth mentioning price for some individuals.
OM-D E-M5 is now $949 body only and $1199 with 12-50mm lens.
GH3 is $1299 body only and another $1200 for the G X Vario 12-35mm
Yes you can get different lenses, just thought it might be worth mentioning price for some individuals.
the G3 already had it two, but I don't feel it is very different from the E-P3/E-M5 touch focus (With the LCD).
Pete Berry
Senior Member
Not sure that the next Olympus camera will be an OMD : it could also be an E-P5 !
I don't know how they compute the equivalent VF magnification, but I can tell you that the 5D's VF is clearly bigger than the G3's VF ! The 5D VF is beautiful, way better than the G3's VF and the G3's VF is only a little bigger than that of the E-M5 it is also dimmer and not as well defined as that of the E-M5.
My preference is 5D by a big margin, the E-M5 or VF-2, then quite a lot behind G3. I think the GH3's VF is now better defined, but if it is not bigger than that of the Gs, then it will not be as big as that of the 5D. Plus it is a 16:9 VF, from what I understand athe when in 4:3 format you may not get the whole size.
Show us.
exdeejjjaaaa
Veteran Member
just go to specialized video forums and check there...
As I suspected. No link to a comparison clearly showing that "the GH3, and GH2 for that matter, have better video IQ", just a vague "go to specialized video forums and check there".
[edit] Here, I found this. There's a link to download the original video.
http://vimeo.com/41218275
Hopefully, someday, someone will have something similar but with a GH3.
Last edited:
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
Interesting point about the 12-35 Ed! I almost always use the 7-14 on a tripod, so I don't notice, but yes the 12-35 (which I don't have) might be best with a grip...
The OM-D has changed my view on IS in general and IBIS in particular. Before I regard IS as only useful with long lenses and IBIS useless, full stop. The Oly IBIS is so good though that it means I can stand in the sea and take slow shots without wrecking my tripod! Delighted with it!
The OM-D has changed my view on IS in general and IBIS in particular. Before I regard IS as only useful with long lenses and IBIS useless, full stop. The Oly IBIS is so good though that it means I can stand in the sea and take slow shots without wrecking my tripod! Delighted with it!
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
Which equipment should I love? I have a G1, and E-PM1, a GH2 and an E-M5. I loved the G1 in its day. The tech did not make a dSLR replacement possible, but it was a great travel cam, and beyond the unfortunate looks (unlike the GF1) was flawless. The E-PM1 is a wonderful pocket cam, and actually shoots, with snap on VF, like a dSLR, but the sensor was senile by the time the camera was launched. The GH2 should have been able to stand against a dSLR, but had too many shooting flaws. The E-M5 is a tiny dSLR and what I wanted. I statrted the tread to see if the GH3 was flawed too. Apparently not. Good. I prefer the Oly form factor and won't be switching, but it is nice to see Panny making a workable alternative.
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
Yeah, i got caught out shooting an OM-D and a GH2 side by side the other month. I prefer two similar bodies.
MatsP
Senior Member
It does work. I use it with my two legacy lenses now and then. Sometimes this "fake" focus peaking works best, sometimes the magnification. Good to have the choice between two methods. I wouldn't dare to use either of them on birds in flight though. Prefocusing is the only way here if you have a manual lens. Like if shooting sports. In these situations you'll have to do what all photographers did not too long ago.
Oh dear oh me. So what control do you have for these sort of focus peaking settings. Which setting allows for more DOF with the peaking view and which setting do you use for slim DOF ??. NEX has 3 settings. I use the low settings which shows very little DOF. What would you set on the OMD ??
"In these situations you'll have to do what all photographers did not too long ago."
That's exactly what I do but with the aid of focus peaking. In yellow on the low contrast setting. When the wings have a tinge of yellow (on the low setting) I fire a small burst of shots. On a black coloured bird, are you saying that a black line on the black wings works ??. I think I'll just carry on using what I am using.
As I said, add proper focus peaking and I'm interested and certainly in the GH3.
All the best.
Danny.
--
Birds and macro. NEX and m4/3
开云·官方wen站登录入口-开云online(中国)
欢迎您访问⩤开云网站官网在线登录入口⩥⩤开云官方在线官网登录入口⩥！我们提供简单的：开云官方官网线上平台入口、网页版、登录、入口、注册、app、下载、链接、网址、手机版网站、访问开云官方网站在线登录入口的全站服务，这里是您享受丰富在线服务的最佳平台。通过开云官方官网登录入口，用户可以快速注册并登录，浏览各类优质商品。我们的平台覆盖了时尚、健康、美妆等多个领域，确保为您提供多样化选择。我们始终关注用户体验，致力于让每一次购物都成为一次愉快的旅程。
www.birdsinaction.com
It's statements like this that make me question your intent with this thread. How do you know what panny will bring out in 3 years time? It seems like your just trying to start a brand war. Mind you, I can't seem to like any of the olympus current offerings... they're fiddly to control, the menus aren't as good, they seem obsessed with using 16:9 screens. My GH2 has all the controls I need right by my thumb, leaving my finger hovering over the shutter nice an comfortable where it should be IMO.
Why resent video? Is it because you hate what you don't understand? If nothing else high quality video needs faster cameras, which will in turn speed up the stills aspect.Also the video bias grates. I actively resent videoOh, 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.
As for the looks I think the OMD looks like a cheap knock off and an insult to what was a great camera. The panasonic cameras are much more function over form and I like them for that very reason.
In general I think the panny can easily match up to the OMD for still images from what I've seen, and comfortably races past it in the video department. If you need a small camera and IBIS then use an OMD, if you need good video and a arguably more ergonically friendly camera then get the GH3 (although I think even the GH2 is better than the OMD in both of those areas, hence why I'm still happily shooting with mine)
I've seen that video before and all it proves to me is that the GH2 is indeed better quality, and that's not even shooting hacked 24p.
Even if you ignore the image quality for a second and look at what other features the camera has, yes the OMD has IBIS, but what if you want good sound. The quality of a video hinges so much more on the sound than it does on a tiny bit of camera shake, hell, some people even add camera shake in post. If you want an external mike on the OMD you need something that takes up the hot shoe... the exact place where the mic would normally attach. The GH3 has a socket built in as well as a head phone socket and audio monitoring. If you're going to use any type of rig, or tripod, of even an image stabilized lens then the IBIS of the OMD is pretty moot, but the GH3 will still be much better in regards to audio.
...and that's without even looking at the image quality...
MatsP
Senior Member
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
Well obviously I don't "know" what they will bring out in a few years time, but what they have brought out in the past gives us a few clues. They have a tendency to come up with brilliant ideas (I'm pretty sure MFT was their idea...) and then screw them up with daft decisions. I have an L1 I got cheap in the car - wonderful controls, brilliant idea, screwed up by leaving the E330s half silvered mirror in. The L10 threw away the good and bad bits of the L1 and you got a totally bland camera. The G1, which I keep in London, was spot on, but looks horrid. The GF1 was a marvellous idea, with a useless add on VF that ruined it. The GH2, which I shall pass on to Eva, was the first MFT to be capable of matching a dSLR, but they crippled it with a tiny buffer. Etc etc. I've owned most of these, I'm not playing "My dog is bigger". And that's the intent of the thread - the GH3 looks good on paper, have Panny screwed up in practice? Apparently not. Good! Hopefully they are getting the knack of high end interchangeable cameras.
I resent video for the extra complexity. I'll never use it, so please clear the menus and buttons. It's not a big deal to me though, and I accept we are stuck with it.
On the looks front - this is not entirely academic. A big, heavy dSLR opens doors. My D3 would get me into places, and crowds would part. Here comes the pro! I'm not interested in looking like a pro (I've never understood this pro worship), but I am interested in access. But there is a downside - suddenly people want to know why you are taking photos and what you will do with them.
Also useful is the small, discreet camera. GF1, E-PM1 or even the EM-5, despite the hump. No one notices and no one cares. It won't help you get in, but it won't get you thrown out either.
The worst of all worlds is the big bridge camera or small dSLR. Not pro enough for people to think you must have some official purpose and / or get them on the front of a magazine, but noticeable enough to attract the attention of the paranoid, the jobsworth and the perennially indignant. Also the badge of office of the moneyed but ignorant tourist, the natural victim of everyone who wants to be difficult.
So a small, cheap looking dSLR is the last thing I want to be seen toting. Hence I'd much rather have a GX1 style body than a GH2 one. Unfortunately that's not the way Panasonic see it. They are (or have been in the past) targeting aspirational point and shooters, who see a small dSLR as an upgrade.
Anyway, I've found it a useful thread. Clearly the GH3 does not have any horrible gotchas, and pretty much the same as the OM-D for stills images. Which one anyone prefers will be a personal choice based on tastes and specialists needs. I like the small form factor of the Oly, and the other pluses and minuses seem fairly well balanced between the two.
I resent video for the extra complexity. I'll never use it, so please clear the menus and buttons. It's not a big deal to me though, and I accept we are stuck with it.
On the looks front - this is not entirely academic. A big, heavy dSLR opens doors. My D3 would get me into places, and crowds would part. Here comes the pro! I'm not interested in looking like a pro (I've never understood this pro worship), but I am interested in access. But there is a downside - suddenly people want to know why you are taking photos and what you will do with them.
Also useful is the small, discreet camera. GF1, E-PM1 or even the EM-5, despite the hump. No one notices and no one cares. It won't help you get in, but it won't get you thrown out either.
The worst of all worlds is the big bridge camera or small dSLR. Not pro enough for people to think you must have some official purpose and / or get them on the front of a magazine, but noticeable enough to attract the attention of the paranoid, the jobsworth and the perennially indignant. Also the badge of office of the moneyed but ignorant tourist, the natural victim of everyone who wants to be difficult.
So a small, cheap looking dSLR is the last thing I want to be seen toting. Hence I'd much rather have a GX1 style body than a GH2 one. Unfortunately that's not the way Panasonic see it. They are (or have been in the past) targeting aspirational point and shooters, who see a small dSLR as an upgrade.
Anyway, I've found it a useful thread. Clearly the GH3 does not have any horrible gotchas, and pretty much the same as the OM-D for stills images. Which one anyone prefers will be a personal choice based on tastes and specialists needs. I like the small form factor of the Oly, and the other pluses and minuses seem fairly well balanced between the two.
Dheorl wrote:
It's statements like this that make me question your intent with this thread. How do you know what panny will bring out in 3 years time? It seems like your just trying to start a brand war. Mind you, I can't seem to like any of the olympus current offerings... they're fiddly to control, the menus aren't as good, they seem obsessed with using 16:9 screens. My GH2 has all the controls I need right by my thumb, leaving my finger hovering over the shutter nice an comfortable where it should be IMO.
Why resent video? Is it because you hate what you don't understand? If nothing else high quality video needs faster cameras, which will in turn speed up the stills aspect.Also the video bias grates. I actively resent video
As for the looks I think the OMD looks like a cheap knock off and an insult to what was a great camera. The panasonic cameras are much more function over form and I like them for that very reason.
In general I think the panny can easily match up to the OMD for still images from what I've seen, and comfortably races past it in the video department. If you need a small camera and IBIS then use an OMD, if you need good video and a arguably more ergonically friendly camera then get the GH3 (although I think even the GH2 is better than the OMD in both of those areas, hence why I'm still happily shooting with mine)
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
If rumours of a new Oly are true, I suspect it will be more video focused (and hence of no interest to me).
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum