The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Too chicken to buy the new OM-D, got GH2 instead

nostatic

New member
HI Todd
coming from a very similar place here (I also have an A77 together with the M9 stuff). I rather liked the NEX 5n with the viewfinder . . . and the NEX7, but I agree, had more fun with my EP3 in the autumn, and I have an OMD on order too.
Truth be told I do like the focus peaking, even with AF on. I don't really have to "see" what's going on, the red peaking tells me what's up. But I just can't really wrap myself around the ergos of the system - the lenses are just too big. That is where u4/3 wins I think - balance of design form and function. From the pictures the OM-D knocks it out of the park in that regard.

I've thought about picking up an EP-3 in the meantime to tide me over. I figure the Sony viewfinder is an easy sell on eBay, and maybe the 5n as well. For whatever reason the Oly 45/1.8 is seductive, and the two new primes are singing a siren song as well. Now if only Oly would put focus peaking on the OM-D :D
 

Tesselator

New member
All the samples from all of the sites show the OM-D to be the best µ4/3 so far and in fact is on par with nearly identical IQ, to the Nex 5n. That said I tend to agree with the OP's philosophy here. GH2 for now and in the next 6 months sell it off for the OM-D. I'm doing the same thing but with my almost brand new GH1 (again for the 4th time now) at around $250 (body only).

Even if the GH3 has slightly better IQ than the OM-D I just don't care. The OM-D looks and feels like a real camera instead of a plastic junker like all of the Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic cameras. Additionally Olympus is a camera company of some repute while Sony and Panasonic I feel are only a half a step removed from Hong Kong style cheap-o electronic manufacturers - Samsung is not even a half a step. I haven't investigated Oly's warrantee and service policies but Panasonic's are just about non-existant - and I guess Sony's and Samsung's would be poor as well.

I can feel good about an Oly camera body! Especially one which includes a few professional features, has IBIS, introduces some new firsts technologically, and reminds me of a few old friends; namely the OM1, OM2, OM10, and the OM4! I've always felt my decision to buy Panasonic was the lesser of the evils - but with good video - after hacking it. :p Besides a new Leica, the OM-D is my 1st choice from among the current selections - and let's face it; there's just no way I'm willing to pay out what Leica is asking - for an electronic gadget which will meet up with the demon of obsolesce in less than or about 5 years time.

If I were richer I would have gone GH1 -> GH1 -> GH2 -> GH2 -> OM-D!
But as it is I'm quite content to go GH1 -> GH1 -> GH1 -> GH1 -> OM-D!
and maintain a saner less risky budget profile of $550 -> $400 -> $300 -> $250 -> $??? (respectively). :)
 

davemillier

Member
This may sound silly but I would recommend this wholeheartedly: there is a very simple and cheap way to transform a plastic computer lumix into a proper feeling camera. Buy leather half case. I have acquired one for my G3 an it now has a "feel" little different from early 1980s film cameras, they heyday for convincing feeling consumer cameras IMO.

All the samples from all of the sites show the OM-D to be the best µ4/3 so far and in fact is on par with nearly identical IQ, to the Nex 5n. That said I tend to agree with the OP's philosophy here. GH2 for now and in the next 6 months sell it off for the OM-D. I'm doing the same thing but with my almost brand new GH1 (again for the 4th time now) at around $250 (body only).

Even if the GH3 has slightly better IQ than the OM-D I just don't care. The OM-D looks and feels like a real camera instead of a plastic junker like all of the Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic cameras. Additionally Olympus is a camera company of some repute while Sony and Panasonic I feel are only a half a step removed from Hong Kong style cheap-o electronic manufacturers - Samsung is not even a half a step. I haven't investigated Oly's warrantee and service policies but Panasonic's are just about non-existant - and I guess Sony's and Samsung's would be poor as well.

I can feel good about an Oly camera body! Especially one which includes a few professional features, has IBIS, introduces some new firsts technologically, and reminds me of a few old friends; namely the OM1, OM2, OM10, and the OM4! I've always felt my decision to buy Panasonic was the lesser of the evils - but with good video - after hacking it. :p Besides a new Leica, the OM-D is my 1st choice from among the current selections - and let's face it; there's just no way I'm willing to pay out what Leica is asking - for an electronic gadget which will meet up with the demon of obsolesce in less than or about 5 years time.

If I were richer I would have gone GH1 -> GH1 -> GH2 -> GH2 -> OM-D!
But as it is I'm quite content to go GH1 -> GH1 -> GH1 -> GH1 -> OM-D!
and maintain a saner less risky budget profile of $550 -> $400 -> $300 -> $250 -> $??? (respectively). :)
 

aboudd

New member
Interesting thread. I picked up a GH2 last month and I like the light feeling of the body. If I want the feel of a "real" camera I can always shlep around my D3s with its bevy of heavy lenses. I started with the 14-45 and since picked up the 20 1.7 and the Oly 45 1.8. I don't think the whole kit in the small Billingham pouch bag weighs two pounds.The results from the Lumix GH2 - and I use it exclusively as a walk around camera, have been surprisingly good. In the end, it is that fact and not whether it looks or feels like a real camera that I am concerned with, but then again, that's just me.
 
Last edited:

Tesselator

New member
It sounds like you would like the OM-D even better then! ;) The OM-D is actually lighter than the GH2 I think. Smaller too. But then so was the OM1, OM2, and OM4. Size and weight do not a "real camera feel" make. ;)

The way i figure it there's so little IQ difference between any of these newer µ4/3 cameras that it's just ridiculousness at this point to think too much about it. Three years ago I didn't think that was the case but I do today. So what does that leave when selecting a camera?

Features, ergonomics, looks, company.

The OM-D's feature set is the sweetest IMO for me. It's got live bulb! A fast continuous drive mode and a big enough buffer to actually use it! It has an industry first anti-shake system! And I believe focus peeking was there as well but I don't recall exactly because that's not important to me.

Ergonomically the OM-D passed everything by with the simple phrase: "Portrait Grip". Boom!

Looks are subjective but most people have said they like the looks of the OM Film cameras a lot. Me too! For me nothing looks and feels better than a camera like the OM4, the AE-1, A1, F3, and so on. Those are what I like! Those seem to be what most hobbyists say they like. Second up are the RF style bodies but I've not heard anyone speak of any of the µ4/3 bodies in this way except for the new GX1 from the RF crown and now the OM-D from the rest of us.

Company... Well I don't need to say anything here. If people don't get the difference between Olympus and names like Panasonic, Sony, and Samsung there's little hope of explaining it to them.

So for me that's it! It's got it all! Features, ergonomics, looks, and a [camera] company I can respect!

There are only two things I don't like about the OM-D:

1) It hasn't been released yet!
2) I don't have one.

:D
 

RichA

New member
I re-chickened, chickened out (returned GH2, ordered OM-D)

Maybe I've been pre-conditioned to brand new cameras by having owned a D7000 (focus issues) for a week and seeing the Fuji X10 orb debacle?
I was able to pick-up a GH2 and 14-140mm for $1100.00 so now I can wait (though I want the OM) for a month or two and see what the consumers say about the OM when it's released. The GH2 is my first new m4/3rds since I got my G1 a couple years back, though I've used others.
I wanted the OM-D in the first place. My idea was to use the GH2 (which I got for a good price) then switch if the OM-D was decent. Then I did some testing of the GH2. Though it had noticeably better resolution than the G1, because of its lower sensitivity (about 2/3 stop) by the time you equalized the image illumination with the G1 in RAW, the noise levels of both cameras were not far off, at least at 800 ISO which is about as high as I shoot normally.
Plus, the studio shots on Dpreview look good, there appears to be less yellow blotch noise at 1600 and 3200 ISO than the G3/GH2's. Also, the GH2 RAWs are very flat and colour-subdued. They require noticeable work post-shooting and I don't see the point in increasing RAW workflow time. The RAWS differ from the G1 which are more saturated and contrasty.

The GH2 is about 2/3rd stop LESS sensitive than the larger pixel G1 Photo Gallery by Richard Anderson at pbase.com
 

henningw

Member
At present I have a GH2 and G3, both of which are very nice. The files are unfortunately a bit less resilient than I would like, but are completely adequate most of the time. When there are more stringent demands I have other equipment.

I have an OM-D on order because I have a number of lenses I like using that don't have OIS that could really use stabilization. As far as image quality is concerned I am optimistic that it will be another step forward, but am not really convinced yet.

So... the upsides to the OM-D:
IBIS, probably decent speed and a proper buffer (the achilles heel of the G3); finally an Olympus with a built in viewfinder.

The downsides:
Stupid styling. Putting hard edges and pointy bits on a camera body was necessary when you had to bend metal to make a body, but now it will just hook on things. I'll pick the G3 easily over the OM-D for styling.

Likely, the Olympus interface. I didn't care for it on the digital Pen models, and most likely it will still be somewhat problematic. But again, I'll reserve judgement until I get it in my hands. The later Pen cameras have gotten better. It amazed me when m43 started that Panasonic, a company with no camera history, got it so much better than Olympus.

Lack of CA correction for the lenses. I use LR for processing, so that's less of an issue now, but why can't Olympus and Panasonic get together on in in-camera corrections?

But all in all I'm eagerly awaiting the OM-D to use with lenses like the 200 micro Nikkor, 25/0.95 Voiglaender and some Leica lenses.

Henning
 

dick

New member
I think the 7-14mm because I have a Schneider 25mm f0.95 CCTV lens that works pretty well on the G1. As for macros, I'm kind of torn. I could get the 45mm, but 'I've owned older 50mm and 100mm macro lenses before and might get a Nikon 105mm (manual focusing of course).
Has anyone tried the Nikkor 200mm If micro on a GHh2... I think it should be great for insects etc., with or without the tilt adaptor.
 

dick

New member
Sometimes I wonder if I should give µ4/3 a second chance. Last year I owned the GH2 + 14-140mm system for just some weeks before selling it. I felt that I just could not get decent handheld pictures in the house. The zoom seemed too slow and the high ISO was nowhere what I was used to having with a good Sony APS-C sized sensor.

But then again, it was the darkest time of the year. And it DOES get dark here around 65° North. Also, perhaps I should've given the camera a chance with a 20mm f/1.7 pancake too. Admittedly the video was very fine and I might have use for that today.
I have the 20mm f1.7, and it is great for indoor shots, including gymnasts doing cartwheels @1/500!

The 20mm is too wide for many shots, so I have recently got the Olympus 45mm f1.8... and it seemed to be performing OK in a dark old pub last weekend... I am going to a (95th) birthday party in a pub on Saturday, so I might have another trial.

We are only 52 degrees north, but the small windows of an English pub make for a major challenge for flash-free photography... the gym/dance studios had larger windows.
 

kevinparis

Member
I have the 20mm f1.7, and it is great for indoor shots, including gymnasts doing cartwheels @1/500!

The 20mm is too wide for many shots, so I have recently got the Olympus 45mm f1.8... and it seemed to be performing OK in a dark old pub last weekend... I am going to a (95th) birthday party in a pub on Saturday, so I might have another trial.

We are only 52 degrees north, but the small windows of an English pub make for a major challenge for flash-free photography... the gym/dance studios had larger windows.
I got a GH2 late last year... mainly for the video side of things, which it does very well.

But have been using it more and more for still shooting, and I am getting to like it. The light weight means i can carry it using a Gordy wrist strap, having the 20mm pana and 45mm oly lenses gives me a fast walk round without a bag setup.... the 45mm fits in my trouser pocket.

Used this set up in a bar the other night and was pretty pleased with the results


P1010741 by kevinparis, on Flickr


P1010708 by kevinparis, on Flickr

more shots from the session here

Blues at the Hotsy Totsy - a set on Flickr


I will probably pick up an OMD when they become available.... and maybe a second GH2 for multi cam video shoots.... its just a pity the OMD video formats looks a little restricting at the moment 30p and 30 minutes of continuous shooting time

ah wel you can't have everything....where would you put it :)

K
 

f6cvalkyrie

Well-known member
Has anyone tried the Nikkor 200mm If micro on a GHh2... I think it should be great for insects etc., with or without the tilt adapter.
I use it very often, until recently on G1 and now on the GH2
Great combination for shooting insects and other things when you need to stay away from them.

I even use it with the TC300, a 2x teleconvertor. Still very good image quality.

C U
Rafael
 

dick

New member
I use it very often, until recently on G1 and now on the GH2
Great combination for shooting insects and other things when you need to stay away from them.

I even use it with the TC300, a 2x teleconvertor. Still very good image quality.

C U
Rafael
I also have a Leica-made Novoflex 400mm, and a Novoflex 2* converter!

With a film Nikon, the first thin I photographed with the Noflexor 640mm was a dragon fly in flight!
 

Tesselator

New member
The 20mm is too wide for many shots, so I have recently got the Olympus 45mm f1.8... and it seemed to be performing OK in a dark old pub last weekend... I am going to a (95th) birthday party in a pub on Saturday, so I might have another trial.
I can understand you but I also want wider too. I wouldn't mind having a 20 or 21 that was angled like a 20 or 21 on a FF camera. An maybe not so much just for the width alone but there are some really sweet lenses out there which really shine on a FF. For example I was reading along in a thread at another forum and was really intrigued with the Zx Distagon T* 21mm f/2.8 lens. When I got it here and put it on the camera it seemed pretty wide but it did't really have the same magic I was seeing in other people's shots. So I decided to see how much I was missing out on. After a visit to Wikipedia I came up with this:





The blue frame is what the ZE 21/2.8 would cover on a FF. The image there is an actual (uncropped) shot with it on my GH1 scaled correctly in order to visualize the differences.
 

dick

New member
I can understand you but I also want wider too. I wouldn't mind having a 20 or 21 that was angled like a 20 or 21 on a FF camera.
Wide Angle is difficult with sub-miniture.

Sometimes it is better to increase the format rather than decrease the focal length... some people use MF with a Hartblie camera and Canon or Nikon lenses.
 

Tesselator

New member
sub-miniture?

Not sure what you mean but that's a full-sized SUV parked in the parking lot across from my house. :)
 

dick

New member
sub-miniture?

Not sure what you mean but that's a full-sized SUV parked in the parking lot across from my house. :)
Decades ago cameras were classified by film format size,

large (5 * 4" and bigger)

medium 2.25" * whatever (120 film)

and miniture, or 35mm (24*36mm)

and anything smaller than 35mm was described as sub-miniture, (including half-frame (18 * 24mm) which used 35mm film.
 
Top