GH3 vs G5 for stills

[bluekorn]

I'm turning seventy next week and plan to indulge in a fine zoom lens  or a couple/three primes. When I shoot my masterpiece I don't want to be disappointed by having used inferior glass...ahem. If I go with the zoom option it will probably be the new Panasonic 2.8 12-35. If I go with primes I plan to start by treating myself to the Panasonic (Leica?) 25 1.4. (I've always enjoyed handling Leica equipment just for the heft and the feel of the engineering but my retirement funds don't allow an indulgence so grand.) I find a great deal of pleasure in low light, waist level shooting and the reviews of the OM D EM 5 make it a very attractive option, but there are physicists writing of being stagerd by the operational learning curve.

So my question is this. Are the differences in the GH3 and the G5 in ANY WAY significant when it comes to shooting stills? The GH3 is environmentally sealed and has a presumably more robust magnesium alloy body. It is larger in overall size. The GH3 sports an OLED screen, the G5 has an LCD screen. The viewfinder resolution of the GH3 is a little better than the G5 and the flash range of the GH3 is slightly longer. To my way of thinking these respective attributes would make no appreciable difference in a final print???

I've always been seduced by the notion that "you get what you pay for" but after a good deal of excessive spending over the years it has crept into my thinking that if you pay for what you don't need there is nothing to be gained. Does anyone know if there is anything buried in the GH3 that makes it the better choice over the G5 regarding the camera body aspect of the digital still photography process?

Thank you.

[k bennett]

Like most of us, I haven't seen a GH3 to comment. The G5 is a nice camera, but I'm not sure it's any better than the GH2 for stills. The GH2 has the multi-aspect sensor (sort of a weird way of using sensor real estate), and is $20 cheaper than the G5 at Amazon. (And half the price of the GH3, but you knew that already.) I've been using the GH2 for almost a year, with the Panny 14 and 20 and the Olympus 45 -- good combo for candids and low light. I'm very happy with image quality up to ISO 1600, and have made good prints at 3200 and 6400. The 25/1.4 and the 12-35 are on my short list, but the 20 and the 45 are a great combo.

In general I think it's better to spend the big money on lenses rather than cameras. The investment lasts a lot longer. That's why I'm always a little behind - I wait until the latest-and-greatest camera is near the end of its life span, then buy it. Heck, I'm just about ready to get another GH2 and take advantage of the $200 rebate on the 12-35/2.8 at Amazon.

[kencameron]

I find a great deal of pleasure in low light, waist level shooting and the reviews of the OM D EM 5 make it a very attractive option, but there are physicists writing of being staggered by the operational learning curve.

I have G3 and EM 5 bodies. In the end I do prefer the Panasonic interface but I haven't found the EM5 that hard to learn and I do think that says something about the camera and nothing about my (unexceptional) learning skills. The interface is highly customisable and the default settings probably won't suit you so there is no alternative to putting in the time setting the camera up, but once you have done that, it is very usable with all the key settings readily available. DPReview has a useful guide.

[Jim Pascoe]

I have two GH2's and a number of prime lenses for them.  Panasonic 14mm, 20mm, and A Voigtlander 25mm.  I also bought an adaptor for Nikon AI lenses and so use the 50mm 1.8 quite a bit.  The last two lenses are manual focus, but focussing is very easy, especially at wide apertures if that is your thing.  The only niggle is that it is very easy to accidentally push buttons with your thumb when you don't want to.  But then that seems to apply to lots of small cameras.  The GH3 looks as if it will be better in this respect.  I think I would buy a GH2 over a G5 even if video was not as important to me - which it is.  I agree that you will be much better spending your money on lenses than bodies.  Spend the extra you would have spent on the GH3 on buying a GH2 (or G5) and a great lens or two.  The images I get with the prime lenses are not so different from those out of my full frame Canon - and for much less weight.  Lenses will last a very long time - bodies will come and go in the next few years.

Jim

[bluekorn]

I appreciate these responses very much. I'm taking a hard look at the GH2 now and re-accessing my trepidations of the E-M5. The GH2 is listed at DP Review under specifications as having a 3" screen as is the GH3. In side by side views of the backs of these cameras the GH3 appears to have a larger screen in every comparison I've seen. Does the GH2 really have a 3" screen? These old eyes are tired of looking at the smallish, dark screen of my beloved R1 and screen size is a real consideration. The E-M5 definitly has a 3" screen. The other feature that is attractive about the E-M5 is the ibis. So, thanks to your help, I've narrowed my decision to lens choice. If I decide I want the 2.8 zoom I'll go with the GH2 and if I decide I want to use primes, I'll go with the E-M5.