Yet another OM-D vs. GH3 thread

Started Jan 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
plevyadophy Veteran Member • Posts: 4,258
Wireless tethered triggering and upload

amtberg wrote:

plevyadophy wrote:

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.


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.



I see several applications where phone/tablet control of the camera will be useful:

1. It's better than the self timer for group shots where you wish to be included in the group photo. You can trigger the shutter when you think everyone's ready, instead of hoping everyone stays still at the right moment. You can also review the result without having to go back to the camera and then have to get everyone settled down again if the shot came out poorly. You can also shoot a burst instead of a single shot;

Yes indeed. I agree with you here.

It's just a pity with the G series cams that they have the Burst Mode and Timer Mode on the same dial; if they were separated then one could easily shoot a burst without the need for a wired remote etc.

2. I think it may be useful for macro shots where the looming presence of the photographer might prevent, e.g., a butterfly, from lighting on a flower. I haven't tried it yet, but I think you could set the camera on a tripod roughly focused on a flower and wait for a bug to land, then use the touch shutter to AF and capture the image. Not sure if latency might be a problem, though.

Yep that would be VERY interesting to test. It's certainly something a nerd like me would test if I had the camera (even though I don't do macro work)

I don't have a need for Facebook upload, but I know some people enjoy being able to upload to social media without having to go home and use the computer.

And that there is one of the big problems of the modern world. Because we can do things instantly we do, even if we shouldn't. Careful reflection after a moments pause has pretty much gone out of the window. There's a lot of junk on Facebook, and I think that's partly the reason i.e. the ease with which things can be uploaded instantly without much thought. Like you I have no desire to upload to Facebook from my camera but it is cool that the feature is there just for the odd occasion where it might be appropriate to upload instantly.

I see no real use for simple file transfer to a computer, as it's much faster and simpler to use a card reader.

Ah my friend, that's where you and I differ.

If you are  shooting a lot, let's say you've got something like 500 shots or so, it's much faster to have the images uploading to your computer as you take them rather than having to wait for them to all upload at the end of a shoot. Furthermore, if you are getting your shots uploaded as they are taken, you have the opportunity to view the images on a much bigger and better screen as the shoot progresses and that way you can make adjustments mid shoot more easily than you could if you were uploading at the end of the day.

Even for landscape shooters, or other outdoor shooters (e.g.journalists), it's nice to know that you are getting backups instantly rather than having to wait until you get back to base. And of course there is that curse of mankind, violent crime; having your precious images backed up to say your smartphone is reasurring in the event of a mugging or theft.

It would REALLY be useful if we had live control while shooting video. That would eliminate camera shake and noise while manually changing AF points and adjusting shutter speed, and would allow use of those controls when the camera was pole mounted or otherwise hard to reach. I hope they can swing that in a firmware/app update but I have a feeling it will have to wait for the GH4 or beyond.

I am not a video guy. I am still holding out, refusing to join the modern world (whilst repairing my mud hut)

But yeah, that would be cool. So you're saying that there is no streaming of video by way of remote WiFi control? Maybe it's a bandwidth issue?

GPS tagging is nice, but it's clumsily implemented -- to be generous. Hopefully that can be improved as well.

Now, please tell me how this geotagging works? Does the GH3 also have a built-in gps device? If not, then I guess it's using the same trick for geotagging that Eye-Fi employs (taking readings from nearby WiFi access points)?

And why do you say, it's clumsily implemented? What's wrong with it?

Thanks in advance.


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow