BC, where does the GH3 fall, then, in you appreciation of files?
(IIRC, it was from the GH3 that you had summarized that you'd
come 'round a full circle to the smaller size, with still quality on the
order of 1Ds-II or so; this would see it arrears of the 1Dx, E-M1/5, then?)
Any experience w/GX7, which has yet a further improved m43 sensor
to the GH3's?
--dl*
====
hi.
I don't have a 7 but have taken a thousand images with the em-5 next to the canon 1dx, a few hundred next to the em-1 and thousands of the gh3 stills next to all of the cameras I just mentioned.
IMo the em-5 is bette rthan the 1dx expcept for very igh iso and track focus. For regular focus it's amazing in high and low light, very fast and a beautiful file.
The gh3 is softer, due to video, make a pretty file, (think 5d3 without the red faced color tones, more out of the camera brown, though fairly saturated, though it can be customized.
The problem with the gh3 for stills is at 800 iso and higher say 2000 it doesn't get pretty noise, it gets this kind ofa painterly look, even with noise reduction turned way down or off, especially next to the em-5 olympus.
The em-5 up to 1000 or so is very pretty noise, much like 1,000 iso film and with NR turned off, the raws are workable and very pretty. The depth of the file is much nicer than the canon 1dx, (the camera I can compare it with the most).
Now the em-5 vs. the em-1 I don't have huge experience with but the em-5 up to 1,000 I believe is prettier, actually much prettier, regardless of test samples. The em-1 is a better camera and goes to 2,000 iso easier, but loses some of that film like look at the same settings. The em-5 really has a superior look (imo).
The difference is usability between the two (the em-1 and em-5) is just the usability. If you add a vf-4 finder (which I recommend for both cameras, the em-5 loses the ability to fire a flash because there is no pc connection like the em-1 and the em-5 is just slightly small, not too small but bordering on too small.
There are other slight differences between the two and I've read the em-1 actually has 15 usable mpx vs. the em-5 16 due to the pdaf sensor for legacy 43 focus lenses. I don't know if that's true, but once again I see a difference in the look and given my use I'd rather shoot the em-5 than the em-1 in regards to the look of the file.
The file really, really, really is pretty on the em-5.
The autofocus lens line up for the m43 system is excellent and getting better. A nocton 1.4 pana is out (great lens, a 1.2 42 mm leica lenses is due out soon (though expensive). All oly primes are sharp and the panasonic 2.8 lenses are sharp and pretty, though 2.8 is a little slow for this format.
The gh3 track focuses well, the em-1 next as good, the em-5 not as good.
My suggestion is the em-5 if you don't need a pc slot and you add the right angle grip to add some size. Both olympus are very well built to a level of leica S quality. and both complicated to set up but very pretty files (though once again the em-5 wins).
Set both olys to nr off, 6fps max for follow focus, tune the turn curve to hold highlghts and open shadows, used portrait setting as a base then turn down saturation, contrast.
Then you'll have a beautiful file. Also set the evf to more match your computer taking out the green and addings a light amount of warmth.
The gh3 I only use as movie cameras now, though they are very good little movie cameras.
I bought the em-5 only to use the legacy 43 lenses (especially the 150 f2), and for the pc slot, to free up the hot shoe for the vf 4 viewfinder.
If I didn't need those I'd buy two em-5s adn I love that camera.
I'd put the em-5 look next to any camera I've ever used, even to medium format and not for detail but for look.
In lightroom the file just sings.
IMO
BC