OM-D, or a used G(H)?

[Peter Klein]

I usually buy cameras like my parents bought cars--used, a year or two old. Yet I've been getting OM-D fever like most of you. My old G1 is feeling, well, a bit old in terms of dynamic range and higher ISO. So, which impulse to follow?

In poring over the DxOMark scores, I noticed that the GH1 has a better high-ISO rating than either the GH2 or the G3. I really don't care about the video capabilities. Is the GH2 so superior to the GH1 that I'd be a fool to buy the older model?

What interests me is how the various micro 4/3 models shake out in terms of higher ISO performance and usability. I stuck with the G1 this long because most of its successors seemed have slight incremental improvements. The OM-D seems the first model that's really a leap. If the hype is true. Those of you who have tried it: How big an improvement is the OM-D over the GH2 or G3? In ISO 800+, and in usability?

My main camera is and will remain a Leica M8. I have a used Oly E-30 with the wonderful first-version Olympus DZ 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 semi-permanently mounted on it. The G1 has been the small, light, take-everywhere, "do everything reasonably well" camera, using the 14-45 kit zoom, the Panny 20/1.7, and occasionally some legacy glass. The G1's replacement would play the same role.

I've been waiting for DxOMark tests of the the OM-D, but maybe they can't get one yet, either

--Peter

 

[250swb]

Kind of the similar situation here, my G1 was the alternative camera to my Leica M9. And it started to look a bit creaky if I wanted to intermingle telephoto shots made with my G1 with other shots made with my M9.

So I got the E-M5 based on pre-order rumours and hype and couldn't be more delighted when it arrived. In fact in terms of dynamic range and higher ISO performance it makes the M9 look creaky although my photography doesn't depend on high ISO. But 800 ISO with the M9 is like 3000 ISO with the Oly. In terms of resolution it isn't so far away either, especially using the 25mm Summilux DG. With the higher end lenses, and the forthcoming Panasonic 12-35mm the E-M5 is a formidable camera.

Steve

 

[photoSmart42]

I'd stick with the G1 - it does plenty good for what you need. Images are cleaner than the GH1 with the banding, and OM-D would be overkill for your purposes. I have an OM-D, and I'm keeping my G1.

 

[Peter Klein]

Thank you, Steve and Dragos. I guess what complicates matters is that in film days, Leica was the ideal "available dark" camera. Now, the M8 and M9 outperform film in that area, but the big Brand N and C DSLRs go much farther. That performance is trickling down to APS-C now (D7000 and K5) , and maybe to micro 4/3 with the OM-D as well. But the RF is faster responding, and you see what you shot. No blackout or EVF delay. Conversely, the SLR is a better tool for landscape and precise composition, yet the M8/M9's lack of AA filter gives you better per-pixel IQ than most DSLRs. So things ain't what they used to be.

The OM-D seems to check a lot of boxes that I've been looking for, including:

- High ISO performance that approaches D7000/K5
- Faster/more responsive than previous EVF cameras
- Could do telephoto/macro just as well as a heavier DSLR
- Small and light (the older I get, the more I like this!)
- Fast primes in the classic 35-50-90 (equivalent) focal lengths becoming available.
- Can use any legacy lens with the proper adapter (with some PITA factor).
- Discrete controls for all important functions.

So I find it a very attractive proposition. OTOH, I have very large hands, and it is an EVIL, not an RF. And then there's the spectre of possible abandonment by Olympus. They've done it to me twice already, with the demise of the OM system, and the virtual orphaning of regular 4/3 without fast primes.

So it's a bit of a dilemma. I'm always going to be a Leica guy, but the OM-D looks like it could be *the* other camera, and it could intrude on the M8's turf a bit as well.

I'm going to head to a local camera store and put the OM-D in my hands. That counts for a lot. And I really want to see DxOMark figures for the OM-D.

--Peter

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Peter
You checked the check boxes that got me to the OMD - I really like it, both in terms of the results, and because it is, simply, a lovely camera. I use the small grip most of the time, but it handles well with the large grip as well (I'm not normally a grip person).
There isn't much of a PITA factor with legacy glass, the EVF is good and manual focusing is pretty easy.

I've had my M kit (like you, that's the basis). a dSLR kit (A900/A77-lenses) and also a mirror less kit (tried 'em all). I really feel that with the IBIS on the OMD, the image quality and the ability to use longer R lenses, I don't need the dSLR kit any longer. So I'm reducing my kit to just M and OMD - good for my back as well!

If you can try it with the grip I would recommend it. It's nice without it using the little lenses (25 f1.4, 45 f1.8 etc) but it improves handling with bigger lenses.


all the best

 

[Peter Klein]

Thanks, Jono. You may have cost me some money...
--Peter

 

[cjlacz]

My thoughts pretty much echo Jono's. I upgraded from the GF1 and 20mm lens and it's a large improvement. I have the grip, but I find I don't use it most of the time. I have average sized hands I guess. I had the Olympus E-30 and I've sold off almost all my existing DSLR equipment. Just need to find the boxes I saved for the 25mm 1.4 before I take it in.

I'm really happy with the primes in m43s. I wish 43s had these, but I'm thrilled with that I have so far. 12mm, 20mm and 45mm. The size and weight is just so manageable compared to the DSLR I've gone to using normal bags and trying to get rid of my camera bags. Too big/heavy.

I haven't tried much in the way of legacy lenses, but I have a nice OM macro setup. Both ring flashes, auto bellows, the 50, 85 and 135mm macros that I want to try on the OM-D now that the weather is nicer.

 

[Paratom]

Hi Peter
You checked the check boxes that got me to the OMD - I really like it, both in terms of the results, and because it is, simply, a lovely camera. I use the small grip most of the time, but it handles well with the large grip as well (I'm not normally a grip person).
There isn't much of a PITA factor with legacy glass, the EVF is good and manual focusing is pretty easy.

I've had my M kit (like you, that's the basis). a dSLR kit (A900/A77-lenses) and also a mirror less kit (tried 'em all). I really feel that with the IBIS on the OMD, the image quality and the ability to use longer R lenses, I don't need the dSLR kit any longer. So I'm reducing my kit to just M and OMD - good for my back as well!

If you can try it with the grip I would recommend it. It's nice without it using the little lenses (25 f1.4, 45 f1.8 etc) but it improves handling with bigger lenses.


all the best

Interesting. Just yesterday I went to sthe store and handeled the OMD a bit (without grip) and while I liked the sturdy feel of the camera I thought that it doesnt fit as good in my hands as a gh-1 of my wife or the g3 or the Nex5n/7.
It was sitting ok in the hand but not great-specially because the camera feels quite heavy (which is good).
I wonder if many do use the grip, how fast it is to attach, and how sturdy it feels.
Maybe they should have made the EMD just slightly bigger.