Next GH3 versus E-M5 comparison at ePhotozine.

FacebookShare


Image courtesy: ePhotozine.

ePhotozine posted a complete JPG ISO comparison between the E-M5 and the new GH3. Some examples:
ISO 200: E-M5 vs GH3
ISO 1600: E-M5 vs GH3
ISO 6400: E-M5 vs GH3

Take your time to analyze the results and than let us know:

On a first glance: Which camera has the best image quality?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

GH3 preorders at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here)Panasonic US and in Europe at Wexphotographic UK, Photogalerie FR and Technikdirekt.

E-M5 at Amazon, Adorama, B&H, Jessops, Amazon UK, Amazon Germany, Amazon France, Amazon Japan and Digitalrev.

E-M5 Case:
There is the official CS-36FBC Olympus case. A leather half case from Hong Kong. A full leather case with strap from Cina. Than we have half cases from two well known producers, Zelenpol, Kaza and Gariz.

E-M5 Batteries, and other things:
The Olympus GS-4 strap and the DSTE E-M5 batteries you have to use with an extra charger. There is an E-M5 car charger a new E-M5 LCD screen and a Front Cover+ Top Panel.

FacebookShare
  • Jørgen

    To me these comparisons are incomprehensible. Click on one image…try to remember it. Click on the other and compare it with your memory. Doesn’t work for me. Unless I am overlooking something. I need tow pcis side by side. And well: I am not interested in JPGs.

    In most if not all reviews I see JPGS and only JPGS and sometimes truely useless shots. I can only compare if there are sensible RAW shots.

    • blah

      That’s why you open them both in separate tabs first and swap between them.
      (Hover mouse over tabbar and use scrolling wheel, or ctrl+tab/ctrl+shift+tab, or ctrl+number if you have less than 10 tabs..)
      Simple!

      • Jørgen

        yeah, found that out later too. Still the difference in colour can be attributed to a different JPEG engine. And for me, the RAW argument is valid. Otoh I do understand that not too many programms will support the GH3, so it is somewhat difficult and these preproduction cams won’t have SIlkypix with them I guess..

    • Duarte Bruno

      I couldn’t agree more.

      It’s pathetic that almost 1,000 people voted based by comparing a ZERO texture snap, taken with DIFFERENT lenses, at DIFFERENT nominal ISO’s and processed by DIFFERENT JPEG engines.
      These are probably the same kind of people that will look from the top of a DxOMark score and will solemnly proclaim that camera A is 14,5% better than Camera B.

      This comparison doesn’t tell us SH|T.

      • See if there is no label people don’t know what took it.

      • OllieS

        Get off your high horse, it says at first glance. I’ll happily change my mind as and when better comparisons come available.

      • jake

        does not tell how good their IQ is but actually it does show you what kind of feature set the GH3 got , and I think GH3 is the best mirrorless camera ever made because of its more professional or at least prosumer feature set.

        but I guess as for image quality, we do not know much about it yet.

        if what you only care about is image quality in RAW , just get the EPL5 , it is the current king in mirrorless or at least in MFT land.

    • Duarte Bruno

      I couldn’t agree more.

      It’s amazing how 1,000 people look at a ZERO texture snap, taken by DIFFERENT lenses, at DIFFERENT real measure ISOs, processed by DIFFERENT JPEG engines and believe they can say zit about IQ.

      These are probably the same people who will look from the top of a DxOMark final score and say that camera A is 15.3% better than camera B.

      It’s really pathetic and this test doesn’t tell SH|T.

      • digifan

        Well you probably can’t read because it’s asked to vote for a look “AT FIRSTY GLANCE”.

        So you are pathetic taking this way too seriously.

    • narutogrey

      Why don’t you just put 2 windows next to each other and open both pictures?

    • Only interested in RAW!
      What do you do with the RAW files? put them on some media and bury them?
      Seems the truth is people cannot tell what cameras produced what unless it has a label on it.

  • EM-5 is clearly superior, especially at ISO 6400. However, I have read that the EM-5 “cheats” on ISO; that is, the setting is really lower ISO. So when EM-5 says ISO 6400 it is really much lower ISO. How much is the difference due to this, and to the GH3 that are available are not yet final firmware.

    • krait

      This may come as a surprise, but it is possible to actually open *two* browser windows side by side so that you can compare the images without remembering. And with two images each more than 4000 pixels across its understandable that they don’t put them side by side on one web page.

      And yes, there are those of us who actually care about OOC jpeg quality. It doesn’t mean that RAW is uninteresting but this particular test chose to compare jpeg. Maybe you should just wait till someone makes a raw comparison instead of telling the world how incomprehensible this is to you?

      • Chris

        That comparison is frickin’ stupid. First of all, they don’t tell us what lenses they are using. To be fair they would pretty much have to use the same legacy lens and adapter to compare the camera’s.

        If they are using the lenses stated in the video (don’t even get me started on that test, why did they have IS on if they aren’t hand-holding the camera’s), those are two lenses with completely different qualities AND they are both Panasonic lenses. There is a very good chance the GH3 is doing software corrections with the Panasonic lens that the EM5 is just not programmed to do (the chromatic aberration seen in the Olympus image that is non-existant in the Panasonic image, for instance).

        Apples to apples or I (and none of you) can fairly judge!

        • Seems that people can’t tell the difference between apples and oranges unless they are labelled. Referring to different lenses is a cop out for not seeing what is happening. Some apples are small and gnarled some oranges are big and dry. Same with pictures.
          Reality is unless it is cabled you can’t tell what took what, can you?

          • Anonymous

            How would I? I have never seen an image from the GH3 before. How would you expect me to tell where it was from unless it was labelled?

            Really, I think I understand what you’re trying to say but you’re saying it completely wrong.

      • bousozoku

        Sure, it isn’t cheating. It’s just inaccurately favourable.

    • Adam

      You can check the exif info. E-M5 image is shot at f/7.1 and 1/160s. GH-3 image is shot at f/5.6 and 1/400s. Both “ISO 6400”. Difference in aperture is 2/3 EV and in shutter speed 1&1/3 EV so the total difference in exposure is 2/3 EV. I think that makes the real sensitivity of E-M5 lower than of GH-3. Assuming the light conditions were constant, of course.

  • To bad they didn’t use the same lens on both cameras. Clearly the lens on the EM5 has much more CA. These non rigorous test are just like organic junk.

  • TTTulio

    It would be better to do it blind and just call them camera A and camera B.

    • Yes agree. But then there is a problem that people who are spouting off about this or that camera and RAW or jpep would not have a clue which shots belonged to which camera.
      If you had 3 cameras and 4 photographers taking 4 shots each in different locations with the same camera and their choice of lens and displayed them as A to L with each being a photographers entry.
      That would cause utter confusion. But would be the most real test of all.

  • TheDan

    Isn’t this like comparing apples and oranges? I’m pretty sure the focus of the GH3 is the video capability.

  • BLT

    I don’t see why they couldn’t have evened the white balance between the two cameras. The off-white of the panasonic photos doesn’t help things.

    All I really notice is how much more i prefer the noise form the olympus camera.

    • ozymandias

      Yeah the oly has better noise control, and yes again, why the hell did they try to match the white balance. I use a GH2 and I can assure anyone wondering that Panny does not think a manilla folder is white.

  • The WB being way off on the GH3 doesn’t help, but they look very close to me.

    You can open each in a different window, enlarge the same section and click back and forth to compare.

  • Peet

    I love apples and oranges! And the topping is, that both kameras are beautiful AND different! If you make video, you have to carry the GH3, but if you go outdoor for many days, you can take the smalest, most beautiful digital-kamera ever to shoot extrem high quality pictures.
    2012 is a great year for all of us!

  • Voldenuit

    Where’s the button for ‘Not enough information to determine’? Until the GH3 gets widespread RAW handler support (and RAWs with production firmware circulate), it is very hard to separate detail and noise characteristics from NR algorithms and JPEG engines.

  • Dave

    White balance on the Panny is awful (so shoot raw I guess). They are close at ISO 200, then the EM-5 effortlessly pulls away at 3200 and is out of sight at 6400.

    Jorgen, open them in separate browser windows, and then put those windows side by side.

  • DTC

    Quite disappointed with the results. Was hoping the stills would be on par with the OMD, but this is clearly not the case. For the longest time the reds from Panasonic’s sensors would have this orange hue. It looks like this is still an issue.

  • Olympus shows a bit better noise floor. Nothing critical but this comparison is so sadly limited and flawed.

  • ken

    My money goes to GH3. I want a well-rounded camera for everything(still, video, wifi for smartphones and tablets, timelapse(fav), heat dispersion, controls, multi-aspect sensor,power input to replace the battery using dc couplers, and etc). OMD is an awesome camera for STILL ONLY, but video? mehh. Dont get me wrong, Im not a fan of Oly or Panny, my previous camera was a canon s100 and a gopro hero2. In my opinion, As an undergraduate student GH3 is the “New Generation Camera”. The blooming of tablets and smartphones are parallel to the wifi feature of this camera.

  • At ISO 6400, the Olympus is cleaner at first glance. Then I looked closely and I find the letters to be softer. I suspect is has more to do with more aggressive noise reduction rather than superior sensor.

    For out of the body jpegs, that may be a lesser evil. That said, I’d like to see the comparison between RAW files before jumping to conclusions.

    • Falk Kuebler

      “At ISO 6400, the Olympus is cleaner at first glance. Then I looked closely and I find the letters to be softer”

      Very good observation, Jules. When looking closely I find the difference in letter sharpness even stunning, and I’m not convinced that it’s just some sort of artefacting.

      But we need to wait for the final devices and a test on dpreview.

  • anonymous

    There’s clearly ISO cheat on the OM-D. Look at their shutter speed.

  • Old Alaskan

    Olympus: 1/160 s, f/7.1 at iso 6400
    Panasonic: 1/400 s, f/5.6 at iso 6400
    That means that for this same exposure (I’m assuming the lighting is the same for both shots), Panasonic is 1 stop faster than Olympus. Granted, this is for a low dynamic range shot, but, many pictures are. I conclude that for the same shutter speed and f stop, Olympus would have to shoot at iso 12800 while Panasonic could use iso 6400.
    Comparing the results of the Panasonic at iso 6400 with the Olympus at iso 12800 is very favorable to the Panasonic.
    For a high dynamic range shot, the extra top end of the Olympus could change this equation to be more favorable to the Olympus.

    • Good catch! Though it’s not a whole single ev stop of difference, it’s still sizable and should probably have been visible to the naked eye if nominal ISO levels were comparable.

      • Old Alaskan

        You’re right. It’s not a one stop difference. I made a math error. It’s 2/3 stops.
        At iso 1600 and slower the difference is more like 1/2 stop.
        With these targets it’s not easy to evaluate how much difference 2/3 to 1/2 stops would make. It probably gives the edge to Panasonic though. What I love is that we can be discussing affordable cameras that can take fantastic pictures at iso levels undreamed of just a few years ago. Pick the one that suits you and enjoy it!

        • Yes best way of looking at it. totally agree.

    • Aside from the inferior WB of the GH3, to me it seems that its shots are underexposed by 1/3 of a stop or so, which leverages the exposure between both of them (more or less). As with all tests, this one is also flawed. Frankly, I do not expect that huge difference between them, although there might be some. No whole stop or two however..

    • sadwitch

      Of course its different. Its F7.1 vs F5.6 hence the shuttle is slower on the E-M5 no?

  • Mattschia

    Expose vulue are similar, no “cheats” from olympus.. from the exif you can easily see that at 1600ISO E-M5 was 1/60 f6 and GH3 1/100 f5.6 but from a quick comparison in Lightroom (after setting both to the same WB) i can tell GH3 is underexposed by -0.3EV

    BTW both looks very similar in noise, at least till 1600ISO.. GH3 has much worse noise reduction or JPEG engine and ISO3200 shots are ruined so you can’t compare them. We sould wait for RAW but it looks that there is no bug improvement in photo quality over EM-5, i’m disappointed but it was prevedible.

    If you are really interested you could just download the photos and compare them with lightroom or many other programs.. it’s not difficult.

    ISO200: http://i46.tinypic.com/30tqnm1.png
    ISO1600: http://i46.tinypic.com/s6rmgy.png

  • they are both brilliant cameras, for different users. I think that people that like OMD for its smaller size, design etc. will not like GH3…if you looking for something to shoot video with I think that bigger size is not disadvantage.
    What both cameras are leaking is faster shooter speed because 1/4000 in cameras that cost more than 1k euros is real shame

  • Anonymous

    Expose vulue are similar, no “cheats” from olympus.. from the exif you can easily see that at 1600ISO E-M5 was 1/60 f6 and GH3 1/100 f5.6 but from a quick comparison in Lightroom (after setting both to the same WB) i can tell GH3 is underexposed by -0.3EV

    BTW both looks very similar in noise, at least till 1600ISO.. GH3 has much worse noise reduction or JPEG engine and ISO3200 shots are ruined so you can’t compare them. We sould wait for RAW but it looks that there is no bug improvement in photo quality over EM-5, i’m disappointed but it was prevedible.

    If you are really interested you could just download the photos and compare them with lightroom or many other programs.. it’s not difficult.

    ISO200: http://i46.tinypic.com/30tqnm1.png
    ISO1600: http://i46.tinypic.com/s6rmgy.png

    • exactly my opinion, thanx for the nice job.

  • If this test is for real then everything that was said and reported upon during Photokina was B.S. Something’s not quite right.

  • OneEyed

    While it’s unfair and probably unproductive to compare production images with pre-release firmware images, the GH3 6400 ISO remiinds me why I’m not in love with my GH2 stills – the generally flat colours and the sometimes dodgy white balance make images far less likeable than a point & shoot, according to my wife, and I often have to agree.

    I’ll likely upgrade to a GH3 anyways, because I shoot video, I want 1080p60 and I already have the lenses. But it’d be nice if Panasonic could improve the still quality for their flagship camera. It ain’t no 5Dmk2/3….. or even a T4i…. when it comes to stills.

  • jr.hargrove

    All three Oly images are softer at the edges and have less noise than their analogous Pana images. Looks to me like the Oly jpeg engine does more noise reduction relative to the sharpening.

    Actually, I think both are amazing technological feats and could be happy with either one.

    richard
    -+—–

  • Marilyn

    GH3 is purely video
    Em5 is a great picture camera

    • Anonymous

      “Picture Camera”. LOL!

    • Who decided that?

  • thethirdcoast

    The GH3 looks far sharper at high ISO, but I’m not understanding the obvious WB variation.

    One disappointing thing about the GH3 is the 614k dot screen. It’s hard to take this camera seriously as a semi-pro device with such a low-res screen. My Nikon D5100 has an articulated 3″, 921k dot screen for less than half the price. C’mon Panasonic!

    • Chris

      Are we looking at the same images? Bring the ISO 6400 ones up side by side, click to zoom in to 100%, the GH3 image looks like a mud-puddle and the EM5 image looks spectacular.

    • MdB

      The GH3 uses an OLED display. Image quality should be about the same in resolution, but the panny will likely be brighter, have higher contrast ratio and be more power efficient than the one in your D5100. 921k LCDs are roughy the same res as 614k OLEDs. Personally I prefer LCDs for some reason, but there is no significant resolution drop with this panel.

  • james70094

    One thing I noticed is that the Olympus image is stated to be at 350dpi, while Panasonic is at 180dpi. I also believe the off white balance is skewing the result. Overall, I like the Olympus colors better and the higher dpi fits for me. And it is not only Oly that cheats on the ISO, I have heard that about several different brands.

    • Cellardoor

      Dpi are just a information for printing.
      You can change the dpi of any picture to anything as long as you don´t change pixels. So that point is pointless ;-)

  • Bob. B.

    I am still totally amazed when I see the size difference in these two cameras. Totally amazed!
    That coupled with the performance comparison makes the OM the most attractive camera for this photographer. MFT is ALL about size…small size that is.

  • Anonymous

    Expose vulue are similar, no “cheats” from olympus.. from the exif you can easily see that at 1600ISO E-M5 was 1/60 f6 and GH3 1/100 f5.6 but from a quick comparison in Lightroom (after setting both to the same WB) i can tell GH3 is underexposed by -0.3EV

    BTW both looks very similar in noise, at least till 1600ISO.. GH3 has much worse noise reduction or JPEG engine and ISO3200 shots are ruined so you can’t compare them. We sould wait for RAW but it looks that there is no bug improvement in photo quality over EM-5, i’m disappointed but it was prevedible.

    If you are really interested you could just download the photos and compare them with lightroom or many other programs.. it’s not difficult.

    • f/6 @1/60 is more than 1/2 stop brighter than f/5.6 @ 1/100 actually, so exposures are not similar.

      • MattSchia

        as i wrote gh3 files are underexposed of -0.3EV, i did a visual comparison after setting both files to the same WB and it’s obvious.. so the total difference is less than 1/3 stop.. exposures are similar

        • So, are you @Anonymous or @MattSchia ??

          • MattSchia

            i just forgot to fill the name form, it happens often.. i think it’s more important what is said than who is saying it, don’t you?

            • A bit like look at the pictures not at the microscopic analysis of the sensor, which can never be replicated in actual use by anyone anyway so is more or less irrelevant.

        • Ah, I see what you meant! Thanks for pointing out.

  • Anonymous
  • OASYS

    http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/816|0/(brand)/Panasonic/(appareil2)/793|0/(brand2)/Olympus/(appareil3)/737|0/(brand3)/Sony

    Check this out. You will find out the ISO is not a matter in the real life.

    • Bob B.

      Please do not back up anything with DXO. They are not consistent with their facts.

  • Duarte Bruno

    It’s amazing how 1,000 people look at a ZERO texture snap, taken by DIFFERENT lenses, at DIFFERENT real measure ISOs, processed by DIFFERENT JPEG engines and believe they can say zit about IQ.

    These are probably the same people who will look from the top of a DxOMark final score and say that camera A is 15.3% better than camera B.

    It’s really pathetic and this test doesn’t tell SH|T.

    • See if there is no label people don’t know what took it. If labels fell off all the images shown here and there was no identification you would not know who or what took it and have to judge it on its quality as an individual shot. That would of course not be a good idea as we all know this camera is better than that camera and this lens is better than that lens. OR DO WE. I don’t think so.

  • stimmer

    Pretty obvious it’s still a Panasonic sensor in the GH3. Splotchy at high iso and colors are not good. Not sure why they can’t fix the white balance on these samples and use the same lens though.

    I’m sure it will be a great video camera though. But then the GH2 is already that.

    And people, quit whining about ISO cheating. It’s just a matter of exposure settings with the camera.

    DXO will bear out the noise and DR levels soon enough. Expect G5 levels or slightly better.

  • Bob B.

    What REALLY amazes me is the size difference in the two cameras. MFT is ALL about small size…if you miss that, I really feel that you have missed the MFT boat. I am really happy that I own and use an OM-D. Whith these tech results for a still photographer it really is no contest. Go Oly!

  • Heat Legend

    The tester will have set both cameras to AWB and let them pick their own WB for the shot…. Which would indicate that the GH3’s AWB isn’t excellent.

    I checked the exif for both the iso 200 samples.Both were shot on Auto white balance, however there re slight variations in settings.

    GH3
    Exposure Time 1/13 sec
    F-Number f/5.6
    Exposure Program Aperture Priority
    ISO Speed Rating 200
    Exposure Bias 0 EV
    Color Space Information sRGB
    Exposure Mode Auto
    White Balance Auto
    Scene Capture Type Standard
    Gain Control Low Gain Up
    Contrast Normal
    Saturation Normal
    Sharpness Normal

    EM5
    Exposure Time 1/8 sec
    F-Number f/6.0
    Exposure Program Normal Program
    ISO Speed Rating 200
    Exposure Bias 0 EV
    Color Space Information sRGB
    Exposure Mode Auto
    White Balance Auto
    Scene Capture Type Standard
    Gain Control None
    Contrast Normal
    Saturation Normal
    Sharpness Normal

  • Ed

    I think the problem here is that most of us would rather have both, but can’t?

    • st3v4nt

      +1

      Agree :-) But I probably choose GH-2 if they sell it for bargain.

  • Bob B.

    OK….the thing that really strikes me to be AMAZING is the difference in size of these two cameras! MFT is ALL about small size and if you missed that, your ship did not sail. I shoot stills and own an OM-D, so Panasonic I thank you for making the GH-3. The OM even with the top half of the battery grip is a much more nimble piece of machinery…..With this tech appraisal you have really allowed me to appreciate the camera that I own. How often does that happen!?

  • Bob

    Oh, Pleeze!

    You’re asking people to compare jpegs from a pre-production camera with a production camera, with no idea what jpeg settings were used on either one?

    Can there be a better definition of meaningless?

    • Ed

      Our posts?

      • caver3d

        Now, that’s funny.

        • David

          +1 :)

      • Sarek

        +1 :D

  • zebarnabe

    Even though they are not exactly comparable from those shots, E-M5 is clearly superior, yellow stains on the Panny are still there, I had my hopes, I guess it will be tweaked G5 sensor.

    About ISO and DXOMark: It is true that some cameras ‘lie’ about ISO in the sense that you have to use an higher ISO to obtain a comparable exposure, however a comparable exposure requires similar dynamic range among other proprieties. DXOMark measures ISO by ‘flooding’ the sensor, the more light it takes to flood the less sensitive it is, right? well, if you consider a camera with an huge dynamic range it might require lots of light to get flooded thus giving a skewed value as it could take the photo with the same exposure before it got flooded and just normalize it to the upper bound.

    Sensors with big ‘bucket’ photosites get lower scores for ISO, even though they can measure light more accurately and with better SNR.

    Real ISO is something very tricky to define as dynamic range and other proprieties vary when you change the ISO (giving it a bit of egg-chicken problem)

    Maybe a way would be to measure the top by flooding and a minimum by defining an acceptable SNR for shadow detail (measuring DR with absolute values), then put the correct exposure somewhere in the middle and compare the cameras using that, even then, with DR discrepancies, things wouldn’t be very accurate either.

    Oh well… I’m just babbling about it, GH3 is not looking bright (no pun intended) for stills, though it doesn’t mean it is looking bad. Panny still had to come with a proper sensor to kill that intrusive yellow noise, it got better but it is still there :<

  • Lovely photographer

    GH3 is too big for me. It’s quite bulky. I’d like to see something like GX1 with viewfinder.

  • agachart

    i think not ISO test but White Balance is so bad,White or Brown.???

  • Anonymous

    People keep saying you can’t compare because the GH3 is pre-production, but did anyone actually read the text from the test? The first few words…

    “We now have a final version of the new Panasonic Lumix GH3”

    I’m no literary expert, but I think that means its not pre-prod.

    • This is because there are so many experts here who only see what they want to see. That goes for the images as well, as long as they are associated with a camera lable.

  • chris

    People keep saying you can’t compare because the GH3 is pre-production, but did anyone actually read the text from the test? The first few words…

    “We now have a final version of the new Panasonic Lumix GH3”

    I’m no literary expert, but I think that means its not pre-prod.

  • Renato S.

    Panasonic is known for very good RAW files and Olympus for an awesome JPEG Engine.

    And just to remind the very stupid people that always rush into conclusion, the latest firmware for the GH3 out there is the 0.5, so let’s not try to be too stupid and try to have a solid opinion based on a pre production camera!

  • yo

    why didn’t they use the same lenses?

  • TW

    Why on earth is the WB so bad on the GH3? Is this as good as the auto WB got? Or was this test deliberately skewed towards the EM5?

  • OASYS

    Back to the link I provided. Please don’t look at the scores. Just look at SNR 18%. You shell see the real ISO preformences are quite closed for GH2, GX1, G5, NEX-5N, OM-D, 600D, and so on (within 1/3EV). What people expect to be improved in ISO is actually held up for a long time. That’s the fact. Again, I’m talking about the photography in real life not scores.

  • sc

    This is nothing other then a comparison of jpg engines.
    From what I can see the oly realy pushes the saturation giving the impression of better high iso performance, to me the GH3 is miles ahead there is still some semblance of edges at the top isos it aslo appears the NR engion is a little over zealous. I would really like to see to direct raw conversions to TIFF.

  • Alexander

    gH3 = dslr size

    Om-D = m4/3 size

    Any questions?…..

  • michael

    Not a very good comparison, because
    1. jpg
    2. gh3 underexposed nad white-balance is off

    But what i see, nevertheless:
    1. e-m5 has much nicer noise. Gh3 applies stronger noise reduction, smearing in the image results. e-m5 has a nice, grainy and film-like noise compared to the gh3.
    2. gh3 seems to retain the colors better at 6400, despite the underexposure. clearly better than the e-m5 in my eyes.

  • 5657

    Just as with every other article that mentions anything Panasonic we have to read a load of BS Olympus fanboy whining. The Olympus Walt Disney JPEG’s may well appeal to many { hey ,a lot of folk like cartoons} , but they have little to do with reality . If you want to see the truth about a sensor take a RAW film turn off all NR { if you can } then if you must compare do so with another RAW file from the comparison camera treated the same way. Not forgetting to use the same damn lens on both cameras, and exposed properly according to the respective cameras actual ISO number.

    The Olympus fanboy destruction of any forum where they exist is getting real old. The E-M5 is a great camera with an excellent feature set however it is less than a stop better than the GH2 and liable to be pretty much identical to the GH3. This is a great step up from the 12mp which was getting on , the E-M5 compared to the best APS models { the Sony 16mp }is behind by what sensor size would dictate .Which is hardly a surprise considering Sony make the best sensors in every sensor format it competes in so the major differentiating factor is sensor size. The E-M5 is the first and only DSLR by Olympus that is even competitive against the better APS models. FT failed miserably and is in its death throes the last remaining model the E-5 is just a 2007 E-3 body with a 2009 e-620 sensor in it so let’s not get carried away one competent camera { if you ignore AF speed and real high ISO quality} in the digital era does not make Olympus amazing .

    • ose

      What is funny is read your opinion about jpgs if you shoot all at raw format you are wasting your live. I prefer to have a good jpg engine than to expend hours revealing a cup of cofee also pana still improving his green cast . By the end if I want this sized camera I will be more than happy with one D7000 near same size.

  • bert

    It´s the question if it´s good to compare jpg´s in this early phase of the GH3.

    Looking at the bookshelfs with iso 1600, the GH3 has a little more noise, but : the border lines between colours are much cleaner! You can see this also on the photos of the colour checker.

    With cleaner I mean : It looks like ” digital dirt ” on the OM-D photos, at least at the edges.

    If you want to pixel peep to excess, compare the photos with Fast Stone Viewer at 200 %, then it´s getting very clear …

    From my own experience with my OM-D I know, that there is a difference when shooting raw if you look at the ” dirty ” edges , but for jpg the edges doesn´t look good..

    PS : you can see this also at ISO 800 and 400..

  • DingieM

    GH3 looks quite bulky…designed for bigger hands?

  • the gh3 “grain” is so much bigger !! beurk !

  • Heat Legend

    Why are they comparing a video camera to a stills camera???????????

    • They’re both still cameras. GH3 simply has a heavy emphasis on video as well.

  • Poorly tested.
    They need to stop relying on automatic exposure and do like for like.

    the olympus images are brighter and better exposed/white balance. they should have manually set exposure to ensure the Panasonic can be properly compared. Obviously, proper exposure can have a lot to do with clarity and noise of the image.

    Granted, this does highlight the difference between how the cameras expose, but that only needs to be shown once.

  • Seth

    There is no option to pick “The tester doesn’t understand white balance.” That’s what I would pick.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website, 43rumors.com, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/partners/
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/cookie-usage?csw=1#cookiesSet Addthis cookies: http://www.addthis.com/privacy.
Disqus cookies: https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466235-use-of-cookies.
Vimeo cookies: http://vimeo.com/privacy.
Youtube cookies: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en-GB

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.

Close