Panasonic Lumix GH3 vs. Canon C300: The Non-Comparison / Semi-Comparison Video from Paul Kell on Vimeo.
You can now read online the full Gh3 review from Popphoto (Click here). It’s the review where they state that the GH3 is “the best ILC yet” (ILC= Interchangeable Lens Compact). And that’s the reason why they like the GH3:
“If you’re looking for the Micro Four Thirds body with the best possible video and wonderful still capture, the GH3 is the camera for you. Its obvious competition, Olympus’s OM-D, doesn’t offer the same level of video capture. Even without this advantage, we’d still be inclined to opt for the GH3 simply because you’d have to add the OM-D’s $250 optional grip to get the solid handholdability that you get with the GH3’s built-in grip. But the OM-D’s retro style has won the hearts of many, many shooters. And while we like to champion practicality over style, in this case it may be too close to call.“
GH3 specs and price check at [shopcountry 33624].
84 Responses
But the Gh3 is just too ugly.
The OMD looks outdated.
an outdated retro-look? hahahaha…
Big AND ugly!
It makes me wonder, how a camera with such a bad view finder can be called “best ILC”.
The handling of the E-M5, even without the grip, isn’t that bad, the GH3 also has severe ergonomic problems: you need to do finger acrobatics to use the buttons near the shutter. Last, the GH3 is simply too bulky for a lot of people, who used Panasonic’s former flagship, the GH2.
For a stills oriented photographer, IBIS has much more value than this video stuff, so the modular E-M5 should be the camera of choice.
It is unfortunate, that Panasonic has again broken a successful product line (GHx) as they did with the Gx and GFx series. There is no true GH2 replacement (yet), so customers switch to the highly successful E-M5.
To emphasize video in a stills camera to an extend as Panasonic does (i.e. sacrificing view finder quality) is a mistake, because video usage in a stills camera is far less important for the customers as Panasonic wants us to believe. To make quality video takes far more effort than doing excellent images and requires completely different skills. Only relatively few will work truly hybrid, and even less with success on both disciplines.
Its time for Panasonic to come up again with small cameras oriented at the photographer. They came up nicely when starting with the G1, evolved this concept till the GH2, and spoiled the concept with the GH3. I hope that the G6 will be the true GH2 successor, which will bring us back a camera with external controls in a small enough package with an excellent view finder and same IQ as GH3/E-M5.
555 the best ILC for all,not for you,
they don’t care.
Blah blah blah. The GH3 is targeted at people who, y’know, want the features that a GH3 has. Yes, we get that you are not one of those people.
Rather than telling Panasonic they should have made the GH3 more like an OMD, please just go buy an OMD (if you dont already have one), and stop whining!
He has a OMD. He, as many other OlyFanboys are trying to justify their purchase and can’t live with the fact that there “IS” a better Handling, better video and just as good stills camera in the GH3.
Oh, and that it’s a Panasonic.
Sure, the GH3 might have a target group, but a quite small one (videographers). It has gained so much in size, that it lost its attractiveness for photographers, who wants to go out with a smaller camera than DSLR. A Nikon D7100 is not so much larger, is more affordable, and has better IQ. In the end, only the smaller lenses will make the system smaller, but then an E-M5 fits better to it.
The ergonomics of the GH3 has turned worse in comparison with its predecessor, because it lost its main advantage: the ability to reach most of the photographic controls easily without changing hand position. That is not as easy with the GH3, because of its increase in size.
The problem is not so much the GH3, but that there is not replacement of the GH2.
Its so funny seeing people desperately trying to defend the em5. The fact is that once you ad the MUCH NEEDED grip:
They cost the same
Feel just as big
And the em5 lags faaaaar behind in ergonomics. Finger acrobatics? Hahahahahaha moving your index finger 2mm back hardly counts as acrobats and its definitely ten times faster than menu diving to change something like white balance.
I’ve got a E-M5. I’ve used a GH3 a lot. GH3 is simply a better camera overall with better ergonomics, better EVF, buttons are much better, AF slightly better, handling and menues are better and video is better. E-M5 is signifcantly smaller though and has the same IQ as GH3 and to me that’s important enough to keep the E-M5.
GH3 and better EVF – no way!
> A Nikon D7100 is not so much larger
So 120 grams more for GH3’s lot bigger battery, heck a lot better ergonomics and more external controls is too much but now D7100 being whole 40% heavier suddenly isn’t much more!
Double standard hypocrite, arent you?
The difference is that the D7100 has a larger sensor in fact it has the best ever APS sensor, which comfortably outperforms either the GH3/E-M5
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/865|0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28appareil2%29/842|0/%28brand2%29/Panasonic/%28appareil3%29/793|0/%28brand3%29/Olympus
in studio tests, but in the real world the GH3 and E-M5 easily trump Nikon D7100
Seriously, go buy an OM-D. It’s clearly for photographers in m43. I don’t see where the frustration is coming from. Why do you need the GH3 to compete with the OMD if the OMD is already great? Two different cameras for two different types of people.
The ergonomics of the E-M5 are hideous as is its design, the IBIS works very well and if my main interest was static subjects in low light, it would be a winner. The facts is that other than the 75mm 60mm and 45mm the bulk of Olympus lenses are dog slow zooms, along with a couple of mediocre primes one of which you can get in black for a few hundred bucks extra lol . The E-M5 is a very good performer but it remains the only Olympus mFT with a decent feature set , the Pens come in a range which play the feature lottery game, you can get feature Y but not feature X .
I have the following mFT kit 7-14mm,12-35mm.35-100mm, 100-300mm 14mm,25mm,45mm macro , and 75mm Olympus all used mainly with the GH3. The only thing that any Olympus offers over this kit is IBIS, which is of little benefit with the 7-14mm; I have 12-300mm covered with OIS lenses. I seldom shoot static subjects in low light { without any support} the only honest advantage of IS ,be it IB or OIS. The GH3 has far better video than the E-M5 { as does the GH2 } it also has near identical still image quality. The GH3 has a lot better handling due in part to the larger size and better menus and ergonomics.
I find the importance of “ergonomics” sometimes overrated; ofcourse its nice if everythings fits like a glove, but a little bit of adapting ourselves to a certain situation is not that hard is it?
Hmm, the flexibility to make the camera smaller or bigger as one desires might for some be a significant advantage, for others it might be irrelevant. For you it obviously isn’t relevant, but that doesn’t mean it is useless in general.
Additionally, you are wrong about image stabilization. It helps whenever camera shake might be an issue, that concerns a lot more then low-light static subjects and very low shutter speeds. Saying it improves almost every image and no-one can do without it is dishonest, as is ignoring its usefulness beyond the ‘in-your-face’ obvious case.
I am a stills photograpers and have owned the GF1, the G1, G2 and GX1….I bought an OMD (with grip…I use without battery compartment), because of the sensor AND the IBIS….and basically because the OMD had the size and features that I was after. As Mahler states…I am a skilled photographer who shyed away from the GH2 because of its emphasis on video…the GH3 is more in that direction and too large…it misses the “micro” in MFT. So I am a reluctant Oly fanboy..as I like Pany’s menu, tactile buttons, etc…but they lost me.
> I am a skilled photographer who shyed away from the GH2 because of its emphasis on video
If DSLR ergonomics is “video emphasizing” maybe Olympus should also embrace it more…
Canon and Nikon DSLRs just happen to sell like nearly 20 times better than Olympus retro compacts!
I have Oly Panasonic cameras but still largely agree with Mahler. The GH3 seems only relevant to a small minority who want to dedicate a lot of time to making high quality video AND stills. Most people do one or the other and buy a camera dedicated to the purpose. Nothing wrong with that, but it is a narrow niche.
Dropping features such as variable aspect and compact size was a shame. Too expensive also.
…I guess what bothers me about the cost thing with the GH3 is that I feel I am paying for features (video), that I will not use and apparently to accomodate the video (Mahler) the viewfinder is “less-than”. Those are compromises that are a deal-breaker for me.
I agree. Panasonic have “sold out” to videographers; they hit an accidental home run with video on their GH2, then designed the GH3 with videographers in mind (WHILE keeping the DLSR-like stills photo body to appease stills photographers). On top of it, they increase the size (so much for the “mirrorless allows us to shrink the body” plan when m43rds started). I laugh at/mock them. 😀
One could argue the GH2’s popularity was because of it’s video quality and that a large portion of GH2 owners are cinematographers/videographers. It makes sense to make the next GH iteration geared towards those who bought the previous model in droves. Those who wanted a Panasonic m43 body mainly for photography, were opting for the G5 and GX1. Both of which, were pretty damn well received.
Then there’s the OMD, if you want a flagship m43 camera that has a larger emphasis on photography while keeping the size down. Then there’s still the G6 coming and hopefully GX2. I’m getting a little tired of people talking about m43 getting too big. The GH3 is the only one, out of, 25 or so bodies.
The E-M5 is too small, and the GH3 is almost big enough to be great, and I didn’t have to add a grip (especially one that creates ergonomic problems) to make it useful with bigger lenses.
I regularly use my GH3 with my Olympus ZD 14-35mm f/2.0. I can’t imagine how bad the handling problems would be trying to use the lens with the E-M5. The 5 axis IBIS would be absolutely necessary.
I don’t really agree with Panasonic’s idea to follow Canon’s design since I hate Canon’s dSLR/SLR design but I’ve not had difficult in still shooting. I miss the Super Control Panel from my E-5, but the 3 custom settings on the mode dial make up for that.
Well let’s see… You are putting a FT lens On a MFT camera (OMD), a camera that was not designed for that lens and then complaining about it being awkward???
What is wrong with that picture?
Also, the GH-3 has no IBIS….so what is your point????
I have to use Four-Thirds zoom lenses since the micro Four-Thirds zoom lenses aren’t very good at all.
My point about the Olympus IBIS is that you need it to make up for the tiny, awkward body. My OM-1N was slippery enough, so I’m sure that the E-M5 will be equally bad.
>The handling of the E-M5, even without the grip, isn’t that bad
Correct, it’s worser.
Without grip it’s well below GH2, and even with grip it has less external controls.
GH3 again is way above GH2.
Compering ergonomics of E-M5 to GH3 is like compering ergonomics of some Powershot S (or EOS-M) and 7D: Small squarish box with too big display for its size vs. camera designed to human hand’s ergonomics.
Except for the tiny little detail of the gh2 having a single control dial. Maybe you care more for a dedicated af mode switch or such, which is totally fine, but your stating your preference as fact makes you no better then a sad pana fanboy.
So canon, nikon, sigma, sony, panasonic and tamron are not still oriented because they dont have ibis?
How stupid can the ibis argument get?
It’s obvious the GH3 is much better at video then the OMD will ever be. I do prefer a body with grip/ bg grip as option, instead of the GH3 all-in design, though the bulkier GH3 grip is superior to the OMD solution(portrait grip is excellent, but landscape grip is just ok).
Don’t know about Popphoto terminology, but ILC usually stands for interchangeable lens camera (not compact).
For me, GH3 is too large and IBIS is more important than video capabilities, so E-M5 wins. But the two are aimed at different crowds, so it’s not easy/wise to compare them.
OT: 43 Rumors is being mentioned as a news sorce by dpreview – http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/04/12/metabones-delays-shipment-of-speed-booster-lens-adapter-for-micro-four-thirds . Congratulations, admin!
yes congrats admin 🙂
they use steady for serious video footage,
what is something omd win IBIS but rolling shutter ,artifact ,limit frame-rate and more,
best ILC look all of feather if they focus IQ i agree it’s not the best IQ,
but everything is balance.
You’re in denial as well as the lot of fanboys here. The GH3 is just a better camera. Ibis (hahaha) still doesn’t make the em5 better in video. Just stop.
instead of claiming which one is better, you can also try to accept that both are great cameras.
Nothing Perfect .
And how many photographers really need video?
Or ibis
Get the OMD!
GH3 – Video emphasized. Bigger ergonomics. weather-sealed. Identical performing sensor. Stop making idiotic, baseless claims about how popular this type of camera is and who may or may not need it. You simply do not have that information in your imagination.
OMD – Photo emphasized. Smaller ergonomics. weather-sealed. Sony sensor.
I don’t get what your gripe is with the GH3. Get a OMD, or be happy with the OMD ya got, and move on. What did you want? a GH2, with improvements for photography in a small form factor? It’s called the OMD, and it looks cooler. If you’re not that serious about video, then you should be fine with the OMD’s video features.
Popular Photography magazine lost all credibility for me a number of years ago when it incredibly stated that some random Sony superzoom, I forget which one, the H5 or H9, had image quality equivalent to that of a dSLR.
Especially, because the whole world was complaining at the time that the variable compression algorithm of the camera was fuzzing out detail (such as grass) much worse than even the normal P&S cameras of the time.
Since then, whenever PP hypes a camera, I look for the commercial motive. In this case, it is because it is not selling well, is significantly larger than most m43 cameras, and does not offer better IQ than the year-older Olympus em5.
I await major Panasonic ads in PP in the coming months….
Where’s your Proof that the GH3 isn’t selling? When it’s selling out at major camera stores such as adorable and B&H? Link please??
Read the reviews, watch the YouTube vids… The Mojority of them call the GH3 the best MFT camera to date. Get over it, it just is.
It’s just like the 20mm pancake. Fanboys want to bash it, yet it’s the all time, best selling (and still is) MFT lens. The proof is in the pudding.
Stop With the propaganda.
“Reviewers” alway claim that the newest camera is the best. However, if you read reviewers, which have character and which are not afraid to report problems (read Ming Thein or Digilloyd), you’ll have a more balanced picture.
The GH3 already get its price reduction, which means it does not sell as well as it should. The E-M5 got its first significant reductions only recently, almost a year after its introduction. That should be enough evidence (another example supporting this, is the Canon EOS-M, which did not fulfill its expectations as well).
Ming tein? He will praise a turd if it says olympus on the front
+1
I prefer the Olympus because it has image stabilization in the body.
Having both GH2 and GH3 (for my video work) and a E-M5 (for everything else) I can say that GH3’s EVF was a real step back. What a shame for Panasonic. Hopefully I got a Zacuto EVF along with it. Can’t wait to add the BMPCC to this kit.
I have both the OMD,GH2,Just took delivery of the GH3.Having used Olympus OM’s from the OM1,to the OM4Ti,have a certain nostalgia for the breed.But having used the GH3 FOR 3 weeks,its a winner,using it more & more as my main camera.I will keep the OMD,only because I have the 60mm macro,& 45mm.
“And while we like to champion practicality over style, in this case it may be too close to call.”
Last I checked, it’s about taking great shots, not how cool my camera looks.
I’ll take the GH3 over the EM5 any day. To get the handling of the GH3, you’d have to buy the grip for the EM5, which brings the price very close to the GH3’s price.
GH3 all day…
In the UK the OMD body plus grip is about £1,030, the GH3 body is now down to £919.
Forgot to mention,I also have the battery grip for the OMD & GH3,on The GH3 its much more comfortable then the Oly’
I find that the reviews of cameras fall into two categories: those done by people with large hands, and those done by people with small hands. I think every reviewer should disclose their hand size, since “handling” often really determines the reviewer’s preference for one camera over another. It makes sense, since even the best-designed camera can give you that funny “something is not right here” feeling if you don’t feel comfortable holding it, and even the best-designed menu system can feel fussy if the buttons are too small for you or too far out of reach when your finger is on the shutter button. Image quality be damned, as this reviewer basically confesses.
We could use the E-M5 as the cut-off point. If you find E-M5’s buttons too small and fussy and find the body hard to hold without the grip, you are probably large-handed. If you find that it fits nicely in your hand, you are probably small-handed. 🙂 If you find that the Canon 1D is just the right size, or if you love the way the E-PM1 feels in your hand, you should just not comment on handling.
Back when cameras had rectangular bodies, this was not an issue, as they didn’t fit anyone’s hands. No one talked about Hasselblad 500s in terms of its superior handholdability (because it had none!), and I remember a review of Olympus XA that commented on the impossibly small ISO lever but, also noted, it’s actually easier to use than most other cameras’ ISO dials. No one complained that the Kodak Retinas are too small in the hand. The obsession with haptics began with the curvy, bulky SLRS, and now we all expect “perfect handling”. Ah, well.
Why ppl still want to use m4/3 when GH3 seem to become more and more like a DSLR? The reason ppl convert to m4/3 becos of the size but y defeat the purpose by going larger? Strange decision ppl…
The GH3–the worst of both (DSLR and m/43) worlds. PS- “handling” is the way overrated catch phrase these days.
@Tom
Firstly handling/ergonomics are critical to ones enjoyment of any device be it camera or car , obviously people have different interpretations of this. While I strongly favour the handling of the GH3 , I also prefer the more compact design of the RF models PEN/GF . Resulting in a compromise where I opted for the smaller form factors convenience ,the addition of an external EVF and a Franiec grip much improved the handling for me.
People also ” convert” to micro four thirds because they are easier to use, more aspirational and introduce new technologies and lenses as well as their usual smaller size…
To be honest all cameras have a simple mode that is capable of giving great results in most scenarios , whether it is a D5200 or a GH3 there is always a P button or {something similar}. The majority of my friends who use mFT have actually done so as a backup lightweight kit for their DSLR, the few who have went fully mFT { like me LOL } , have done so purely due to the size and weight of the kit.
I am happy with the results I get from mFT , but it is no more inspiring or easy to use , in fact prior to getting the add on EVF I found the P&S method of composing on the back of the camera held up in front of my face , both awkward and unnatural felling. But each to their own
Utru
for me, the “point & shoot” style framing using the lcd, sometimes much more convenient and ergonomic for your body(omg there is that word again)instead of gettin into bad body positions gettin low angle view. yes it looks less professional then watching thru the viewfinder, but its a nice addition in choosing how to shoot.I chose mft over the 24×36 because the latter format is overkill for my use, both in quality and weight/size.
That is why I posted ” But each to their own ” at the end lol .I am not egotistical enough to think that my opinion is universal, for me I will not buy another mFT until there is a PEN/GF style body with a high quality EVF built in.
I did not think your comment was egoistic.i just wanted to go a little bit more in depth about the use of the lcd for shooting(especially when-which i did not mention-in tilted mode), by saying it gives better options for shooting low or high angle, something which takes more effort if you use the viewfinder.
That’s one major reason why there’s little sense to keep dragging that flapping mirror of DSLR forever.
Just throw mirror chamber out of design and you can use seamlessly which ever framing device works better for the situation.
> majority of my friends who use mFT have actually done so as a backup lightweight kit for their DSLR
And why both main camera and small backup couldn’t be from same system?
Because that’s where mirrorless 4/3 needs to aim unless you want it to stay forever as small minority system stomped over by Canon and Nikon.
Without ability for Leica pricing even long term profitability of system to Oly and Pana depends on getting big enough market share.
Sure moving target focusing/tracking is weak for mirrorless now but photography has lots of areas where that isn’t needed.
Precisely correct.
There is no “advantage” to having a smaller sensor size. If you are getting a camera that is about as big as a small APS dSLR, get an APS dSLR.
And the lens argument is not convincing.
The lens argument is not convincing? Have you ever held a 70-200?
The 70-200mm F2.8 lenses for FF are designed for a sensor four times larger and to match them { DOF,AOV,total light} we need a 35-100mm F1.4.
Repeat this mantra with me: f2.8 is always f2.8… F2.8 is always f2.8… F2.8 is always f2.8…
IF you really believe that then I have excellent news for you there is a Panasonic camera with a 25-600mm focal length all at F2.8.On the other hand if it may cross your mind that sensor size has a huge influence on the effect of aperture { DOF and total light} .If this small inconvenient fact doesn’t quite sink in then congrats , you will be able to get a 600mm F2.8 lol.
Just to give you a small chance to work it out here is a link to a chart showing the difference in sensor sizes no look at the size of the Panasonic FZ200 then compare it to the size of FT sensor, are you with me so far lol. Now while you are looking at the FT sensor roll on over to the FF senor then figure out the difference an F2.8 lens from each format has.i am sure if you concentrate hard enough you can figure it out .Final clue when you multiply the effective focal length remember to multiply the effective aperture as well.
http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/index.php?t=helpCentre/page/39/image+sensor+size+comparison
If he really believes that, then I doubt any appeals to logic will help. I do not get how anyone is incapable of accepting what is an absolute fundamental fact. As you allude to if I posted that a P&S such as the afore mentioned FZ200 had an F2.8 lens that was just as fast as a Panasonic 35-100 with a much wider focal range , there would be a torrent of posts telling me about how a much smaller sensor does not do the same as an F2.8 on Mft, yet there are no shortage of posts that seem to accept that this nonsense is somehow true even when compared to a FF sensor that has almost four times the area.
Relative aperture (or focal ratio) is focal length / entrance pupil diameter.
It does not matter at all what sensor you put behind it, the ratio will always be what it is. Hence yes, F/2.8 is F/2.8 is F/2.8, just like 2 is 2 is 2.
What you are talking about is what it means for different formats, and then you are only looking at the results, and not the ‘why’ of those results.
A larger format sensor gathers more light at the same brightness, because it has more area, but this does not change what relative aperture means (see above).
This larger sensor can use that light in various ways, resulting in upto 4x the resolution at identical pixel level noise and dynamic range, or going in the other direction, 2 stops of dynamic range (or lowering noise by approx 2 stops, dynamic range is the difference between the noise floor and the highest level that can be recorded). However, you cannot have this 4x resolution AND still have the increase in dynamic range.
DOF? DOF is a function of distance, entrance pupil diameter and magnification with regards to how much DOF you get, focal length plays a role in how that DOF is distributed (in front/behind the plane of sharpest focus).
DOF and aperture aren’t the same thing, just like field of view and focal length aren’t the same thing.
Take a look at the list of all the m43 cameras to date. It’s about 25 if counting the bodies coming around the corner. How many of them are the size as the GH3? None. The GH3 is the ONLY body thus far that is that size. Where’s this conclusion of why m43 is getting bigger and bigger? As if the whole system of bodies coming out are getting larger. It’s one body.
Lens count. (Size and weight)
And when everything add up, you need a bigger bag for DSLR and is much heavier than a m43 system.
Both the GH3 and the E-M5 are good cameras and look like they are selling well.As for ergonomics I don’t think I would have a problem flitting between the two if I used both at an event.
The GH3 is of a similar size to the L10 and I’ve never had a problem using the GH1 and a L10 at the same event 🙂
Panasonic need to put more aspiration and excitement in their camera offerings, they have the opportunity to lead the way.
Olympus need to get their Pro offerings out the door.
The E-M5 bounces about the lower reaches of the overall digital camera sales charts be it Japan , USA or EU/UK. The GH3 is a ghost hardly seen in the top selling charts even in UK/JAPAN where it has been available for months.
For mFT users our most successful market has been Japan .But looking at the BCN data the numbers don’t look so good. 15 out of the 20 top selling cameras are DSLR’s. The only current mFT body in the top 20 is an E-PL5 in 15th spot .Neither the E-M5 or the GH3 make it in to the top 80. To put it into perspective the D800 which was released at roughly the same time as the E-M5 is in 12th place even the niche D800e is in the chart.
I am starting to get the vibe that mFT market penetration may be starting to peak and it is not going to get any better when the big two bring out a serious mirrorless camera, even the useless EOSm makes it into the top selling chart.
@wrewqr or whatever
Nikon D800 group on flickr (largest) 7,800 members 99,000 photos
Olympus OMD group on flickr 4700 members 88,000 photos
so the E-M5 evidently not too far behind Nikon D800 and it’s owneres are using it far more often.
Micro Four Thirds is still the best selling mount in Japan.
“The E-M5 bounces about the lower reaches of the overall digital camera sales charts be it Japan , USA or EU/UK. The GH3 is a ghost hardly seen in the top selling charts even in UK/JAPAN where it has been available for months.” You have zero proof…some kind of shill or troll you does be.
@BART
I agree that the usefulness of image stabilisation extends beyond low light static subjects. Though it is debatable how useful it is Panasonic owners who want OIS have it in lenses that range from 24mm { FF equiv} to 600mm, there is also a fast 42.5mm F1.2 on the horizon along with 150mm F2.8. Below 24mm the need and benefit of IS declines rapidly. As to the primes the 12mm, 14mm and 17mm when shot below their respective reciprocal shutter speeds you are back to shooting static subjects in order to avoid motion blur. There are more scenarios with the longer focal length primes such as the lovely 75mm which can benefit from IS , the reciprocal shutter speed for the 75mm is 1/150th { its effective focal length} . Personally I am happy to shoot it with no IS at 1/60th second. Below this you are again getting into the realms of motion blur.
I have IS on my Nikon lenses, Panasonic lenses , Olympus FT body and used it on Canon lenses in the past , I can’t really say for the vast majority of shooting that it was a deal breaker. For me its most useful on the long heavy fast telephoto lenses which we do not have in our system. I am not interested in old manual focus lenses on adapters. Unfortunately the situations where I would most want image stabilisation { low light sports, low light theatre etc} are exactly the scenarios where subject movement is not stopped by slow shutter speed resulting in motion blur, there are only so many shots you can use motion blur as a creative tool lol.
As for the ergonomics of the E-M5 i agree with the previous poster I really do not like them and far prefer the GH2/GH3 ergonomics. However I do find the design of the E-M5 quite attractive.
Both ‘issues’ are surmountable, even if doing so results in a less then perfect solution. Its all a matter of what priorities you have.
I have both. I like the way the GH3 handles, with the exception of the shutter release button placement. Unfortunately, the viewfinder is awful, the jpg processing is a little on pop color side, and overall the camera is a bit large. I like the E-M5’s IBIS, its color processing, and the fact that I can take the battery grip off when necessary. I do not like its overall ergonomics and button placement. They should learn something from their own E-1, E-3, and E-5, which all had wonderful ergonomics. At the moment, Panasonic has a great set of lenses and I can’t wait for the 150mm/2.8. Oly has still some room for improvement in their m4/3 lens program, but their recent primes, especially the 75mm and the 60mm are top notch.
I have seen a few folk complain about the GH3 EVF I find it works perfectly and gradually those who have had “issues” seem to be drying up , well apart from the odd { is there any other kind }Olympus fanboy trying to cause distress. It is the Olympus JPEGs that go for the Walt Disney look.I have my doubts you have ever touched a GH3 It is a little ironic that you bemoan the size of the GH3 while praising the E-5 the E-5 weighs 60% more than the GH3, it is also 25% taller.Combine this with the humongous FT lenses and you get all the downsides of a FF kit { weight , bulk and cost} with none of the advantages.
Case in point the Olympus 7-14 F4 weighs in at 780g which is over 2 and a half times the weight of the Panasonic . The Olympus may be a cats whisker better but in reality there is nothing in it. Well apart from the huge weight difference and price:
Olympus 7-14 costs £1450
http://www.camerapricebuster.com/Olympus/Olympus-SLR-Lenses/Olympus-ZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-7-14mm-1%3A4.0-Lens
While the Panasonic 7-14 comes in at £849
http://www.camerapricebuster.com/Panasonic/Panasonic-G-System-Lenses/Panasonic-7-14mm-f4-Lens-H-F007014
People didn’t adopt it, but I really prefer calling mirrorless cameras as DSLM, it makes sense and it is analogous to DSLR, not all mirrorless are compact anymore.
I think should people qualify their “It’s better” proclamations by rephrasing their statements along the lines of, “It’s better for me”; “I personally find the [camera model] has better ergonomics for my use”; I prefer the [camera model a] handling and ergonomics much better than [camera model b].
I personally have no problem with the handling and ergonomics of smaller cameras, even those with minimal or even no protruding grips. I wonder how users of times past ever managed to take photos with those flat front “gripless” cameras, including those almighty SLRs, which used to be around the same size as today’s OM-D E-M5.
There is no universal “best” design. It’s whatever works best for you—the individual user. People forcing their ideas on what is better or best onto others is just another form of peer pressure and bullying. BTW I’m not in either one of the OM-D or GH3 camps. I’m not a proponent of either body style or design. Though given a choice of which camera to use, I would go for the OM-D, with no additional grip required either. I really can’t stand the GH3 to be honest. And I qualify that as my prejudiced, biased, subjective personal opinion, without fear or favour. And not as a universal proclamation, as many others seem intent on doing at every opportune WRT their camera of choice.
I own the GH2, I’m a M4/3 fan simply because I carry my camera around a lot and I want it to be light.
Everybody here seems to overlook an advantage that both OMD and GH3 have. They are weather/sand proof and that, for many photographers, is an important advantage.
My reason for not upgrading to GH3 is that the image ratio is not 3/2 at 16 Mp, so I would actually downgrade.
Here in the sunny UK there are no DSLR cameras in the price category of the E-M5 or GH3 that don’t have weather sealing.I also still have my GH2 but did upgrade to the GH3 , i would also have preferred the multi-aspect sensor.
“simply because you’d have to add the OM-D’s $250 optional grip”.
Thats a very non-convincing statement! Do it better next time, reviewer.