So which is better? "GH3" or OM-D?

Louis_Dobson said:

Louis_Dobson wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Louis_Dobson said:

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.

Click to expand...

Louis_Dobson said:

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.

Click to expand...

Dheorl said:

Dheorl wrote:

Dheorl said:

Louis_Dobson wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

AFAIK the EVF wasn't a compulsory purchase, or did panny come hold a gun to your family until you went and bought one? If the cameras only let down was something you didn't have to buy I'd say that was pretty good going. You don't seem to like the added grip on the OMD, does that mean the OMD is a flawed camera because of it?

Click to expand...

Dheorl said:

Dheorl said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hmm, one extra button and a menu which is seperated off from the photography menus and you never have to look at, in return for an accelerated advanced in the processing speed of cameras... I would have said video has caused more good than bad.

Click to expand...

Dheorl said:

Dheorl said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that's as much attitude as it is the camera your holding. Look like you should be doing something and peope will let you do it. Look like you don't want to be distured and all but the mentally inept will leave you peacefully to your task. I see so many DSLRs of all shapes and sizes around these days anyways that it no longer seems to have any preconceptions.

If you really don't feel comfortable carrying a GH2 or similar then I guess that's down to you. I feel sorry for you though... maybe you should get a black X100.

Click to expand...

Louis_Dobson said:

Louis_Dobson wrote:

Hmm. You're starting to come over as some sort of fanboy here

Louis_Dobson said:

Dheorl wrote:

Louis_Dobson said:

Louis_Dobson wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

AFAIK the EVF wasn't a compulsory purchase, or did panny come hold a gun to your family until you went and bought one? If the cameras only let down was something you didn't have to buy I'd say that was pretty good going. You don't seem to like the added grip on the OMD, does that mean the OMD is a flawed camera because of it?

Click to expand...

To my way of thinking a camera that has no VF is a waste of time. The GF1 had an add on VF, but it is terrible. So that makes the camera useless for serious photography (as was the E-P1 of course, but Panny so nearly cracked it, and then fell at the last hurdle with a needless gotcha).

Click to expand...

Louis_Dobson said:

Louis_Dobson said:

Louis_Dobson said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hmm, one extra button and a menu which is seperated off from the photography menus and you never have to look at, in return for an accelerated advanced in the processing speed of cameras... I would have said video has caused more good than bad.

Click to expand...

It isn't the video per se that speeds up processing! Sure, I want a faster processor, but I'd rather they put it in to improve the still stuff than added video. The extra button can be recycled (it is ISO on my OM-D), but the clump of menu options marginally slows things down. As I said, it isn't a big issue for me, but I don't want it or need it and would rather not have it.

Click to expand...

Louis_Dobson said:

Louis_Dobson said:

Louis_Dobson said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that's as much attitude as it is the camera your holding. Look like you should be doing something and peope will let you do it. Look like you don't want to be distured and all but the mentally inept will leave you peacefully to your task. I see so many DSLRs of all shapes and sizes around these days anyways that it no longer seems to have any preconceptions.

If you really don't feel comfortable carrying a GH2 or similar then I guess that's down to you. I feel sorry for you though... maybe you should get a black X100.

Click to expand...

No need to feel sorry sorry me, I don't have to carry a GH2 any more (I find one body quite sufficient for my purposes). I stand by the remark, the D3 opened a lot of doors, closed some others. The OM-D is discreet (although not as discreet as my E-PM1), and neither opens doors nor closes them. The GH2, and other things that are or look like a small dSLR, attracts attention that is rarely positive. Everyone hates a tourist.

Click to expand...

Dheorl said:

Dheorl wrote:
Meh, personal prefernce I guess. Many people seem to love the fact they have the choice to take the viewfinder off when they want. As soon any panny do a video orientated camera with removable EVF I'll be the first to order it.

Click to expand...

Dheorl said:

I still don't see how you can honestly think olympus cameras would be better if they never included video. Ok, look at it this way, if they didn't include video then they would sell less and have less money to put towards development of new products. Sorry, this complete aversion to video of any sort is just alien to me. Do you enjoy watching vidoes and just don't know how to/like creating them or do you have a photo in the corner of your room instead of a TV?

Click to expand...

Dheorl said:

I've never had any differences with regards to what camera I'm holding. I guess maybe how I hold myself/look counters it. Not everyone looks the same afterall.

Click to expand...

Louis_Dobson said:

Louis_Dobson wrote:

Click to expand...

Louis_Dobson said:

Standard examples, I went to a rock gig with the D3, hustled backstage with the rest of the press. Handy. Shot a wedding with a D3, everyone kept out of my way. Shot a wedding with a GH2 / OM-D, had to keep shooing idiots out of my way (I'm fairly large and scary). Shot a carnival with a D3, police cleared a space for me. Shot the same carnival the next year with a GH2, got snarled at by an irate mother because her brat could not see (chorus of agreement from assorted old bags). She was amazed when I responded in her own language (small dSLR, must be a tourist, see?). Went to do some station shots with a D3, got chucked out because I needed a permit (apparently). Been back with an OM-D, no issues. etc etc. D3, you look official (which is not always good). OM-D, you look inconspicuous. GH2, you look like a tourist.

Click to expand...

Louis_Dobson said:

Louis_Dobson wrote:

.. 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.

Click to expand...

Louis_Dobson said:

Louis_Dobson wrote:
We have a TV so we can watch the F1. Otherwise, I detest TV. I have no video or DVD paying device, can't imagine why I'd watch one, and I hate cinema. I used to have a girlfriend who liked cinema but hated going to the pub. So we reached a deal - we'd go and see a film, and I would try and stay awake, and then we could go to the pub, where she would try not to be snotty to people. As a result I can tell you the plot of every major film released in 1985/6. Never been to the cinema since, and can't follow films anyway because one American actor looks and sounds like another to me.
But despite the fact I have no interest in the moving image, yes, you are correct, my complaint is that video requires several cameras, a load of people, and a big budget. Which I don't have. I can produce professional standard still, a professional standard video I can't, and I have no interest in doing anything to a poor standard.

Click to expand...

Louis_Dobson said:

Louis_Dobson said:

I've never had any differences with regards to what camera I'm holding. I guess maybe how I hold myself/look counters it. Not everyone looks the same afterall.

Click to expand...

Standard examples, I went to a rock gig with the D3, hustled backstage with the rest of the press. Handy. Shot a wedding with a D3, everyone kept out of my way. Shot a wedding with a GH2 / OM-D, had to keep shooing idiots out of my way (I'm fairly large and scary). Shot a carnival with a D3, police cleared a space for me. Shot the same carnival the next year with a GH2, got snarled at by an irate mother because her brat could not see (chorus of agreement from assorted old bags). She was amazed when I responded in her own language (small dSLR, must be a tourist, see?). Went to do some station shots with a D3, got chucked out because I needed a permit (apparently). Been back with an OM-D, no issues. etc etc. D3, you look official (which is not always good). OM-D, you look inconspicuous. GH2, you look like a tourist.

Click to expand...

Louis_Dobson said:

Louis_Dobson wrote:

Louis_Dobson said:

Dheorl wrote:
Meh, personal prefernce I guess. Many people seem to love the fact they have the choice to take the viewfinder off when they want. As soon any panny do a video orientated camera with removable EVF I'll be the first to order it.

Click to expand...

I love removable viewfinders! Means I can work with the camera for serious shooting, and at the end of the take remove the VF and slip it in my pocket for snaps! And this is typical of Panasonic. First they started MFT with the G1. Brilliant camera! But they made it an "SLR only smalr". Turns out people didn't want to pay big money for a small camera that looked like a cheap dSLR, so Oly got all the attention for their E-P1, which focussed glacially slowly and had no EVF (I skipped that one, with the greatest pleasure). So Panny came up with another genius idea! How about an E-P1 shaped camera with a detachable EVF? Hence the GF1. But they screwed it up again, because the detachable EVF was pants. Again, Oly fixed it with the E-P2.
As I said before, the L1 was great, but they screwed it with a half silvered mirror. The L10 started this trend to thin AA filters, but they took off all the clever controls they had put on the L1. etc etc.

Louis_Dobson said:

I still don't see how you can honestly think olympus cameras would be better if they never included video. Ok, look at it this way, if they didn't include video then they would sell less and have less money to put towards development of new products. Sorry, this complete aversion to video of any sort is just alien to me. Do you enjoy watching vidoes and just don't know how to/like creating them or do you have a photo in the corner of your room instead of a TV?

Click to expand...

We have a TV so we can watch the F1. Otherwise, I detest TV. I have no video or DVD paying device, can't imagine why I'd watch one, and I hate cinema. I used to have a girlfriend who liked cinema but hated going to the pub. So we reached a deal - we'd go and see a film, and I would try and stay awake, and then we could go to the pub, where she would try not to be snotty to people. As a result I can tell you the plot of every major film released in 1985/6. Never been to the cinema since, and can't follow films anyway because one American actor looks and sounds like another to me.
But despite the fact I have no interest in the moving image, yes, you are correct, my complaint is that video requires several cameras, a load of people, and a big budget. Which I don't have. I can produce professional standard still, a professional standard video I can't, and I have no interest in doing anything to a poor standard.

Louis_Dobson said:

I've never had any differences with regards to what camera I'm holding. I guess maybe how I hold myself/look counters it. Not everyone looks the same afterall.

Click to expand...

Standard examples, I went to a rock gig with the D3, hustled backstage with the rest of the press. Handy. Shot a wedding with a D3, everyone kept out of my way. Shot a wedding with a GH2 / OM-D, had to keep shooing idiots out of my way (I'm fairly large and scary). Shot a carnival with a D3, police cleared a space for me. Shot the same carnival the next year with a GH2, got snarled at by an irate mother because her brat could not see (chorus of agreement from assorted old bags). She was amazed when I responded in her own language (small dSLR, must be a tourist, see?). Went to do some station shots with a D3, got chucked out because I needed a permit (apparently). Been back with an OM-D, no issues. etc etc. D3, you look official (which is not always good). OM-D, you look inconspicuous. GH2, you look like a tourist.

Click to expand...

Louis_Dobson said:

Louis_Dobson wrote:

I don't like the OM-D grip - when I first got the camera I found it uncomfortably fiddly and was glad a free grip was coming, but by the time it arrived I had adjusted and found no need for it.

Louis_Dobson said:

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

TrapperJohn said:

TrapperJohn wrote:

Click to expand...

Pete Berry said:

Pete Berry wrote:

Click to expand...

Pete Berry said:

Antonio, check out the link (correct link in 4th message) in this recent post that shows the pinpoint focus point in action with the 100-300 and, I think, the electronic silent shutter.

Click to expand...

Louis_Dobson said:

Louis_Dobson wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Pedagydusz said:

Pedagydusz wrote:

Pedagydusz said:

Pete Berry wrote:

Antonio, check out the link (correct link in 4th message) in this recent post that shows the pinpoint focus point in action with the 100-300 and, I think, the electronic silent shutter.

Click to expand...

Pete, I am sorry but I can't find this "4th message" that is supposed to have the link.

Could you please define it a bit more precisely?

Thank you!

Click to expand...

captura said:

captura wrote:

But to-day I'm carrying the NEX with me.

Click to expand...

Dheorl said:

Dheorl wrote:

Dheorl said:

dotborg wrote:

Dheorl said:

exdeejjjaaaa wrote:

Dheorl said:

dotborg wrote:

Dheorl said:

amtberg wrote:

Dheorl said:

hmzppz wrote:

Dheorl said:

amtberg wrote:

Dheorl said:

hmzppz wrote:

IBIS wins for me, by a huge margin. Especially in video. For me that's much more important than other "gimmicky" features that GH3 might have in video. Yes, and before anyone asks, I don't like carrying tripods.

Click to expand...

Significantly better image quality is a "gimmicky" feature? :-D

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

There is no question that the GH3, and GH2 for that matter, have better video IQ.

Click to expand...

Show us.

Click to expand...

just go to specialized video forums and check there...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Dheorl said:

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...

Click to expand...