I own a GX7 in addition to the E-M1 & E-M5. Each renders JPEGs a bit differently by default, but via in-camera tweaking you can get 'em all pretty close. I don't see anything inferior in the GX7's JPEG output. I will say the E-M5 has the most pronounced default tonal separation of the three. This does make a good visual impact and is likely what Olympus JPEG fans have been refering to.
Dave, I too got a chuckle (after initial "huh"?!) about
the assertion that m4/3 cameras have become fashion
statements !!! Now, titanium cameras with a Red Dot,
To the question about JPEGS should be added some
remark about 5-axis stabilization : a non-blurred
JPEG will look better (usually, not always
a blurred one. And to those "margin"ally better APS-C
bodies, not all come with such a nice set of lenses
--at least, to my awareness, it seemed as though
Nikon, e.g., was really interested in selling bigger
glass and not putting out the lenses that Oly & Pany
have been doing.
DXO shows very little to mark out the EM-5 as a 'better' camera whereas APS-C cameras are noticeably higher scoring.
Interestingly, I countered a friend's remarks
that he found his OM-D E-M5 well superior to
his Pentax K3 for low-light shooting; I pointed
out that DXO scores suggested the contrary
(He now uses the K3 only for telephoto shots.)
With all the current hype about the OMD models I almost got taken in and became interested that Olympus had actually beaten the laws of physics in some way and arrived at a camera system that made anything else or bigger completely superflous.
But, you know, it was a long time ago that Michael on
this very site led with a "You've Got to be Kidding" article
that claimed the tiny "P&S"/compact Canon G10 could hold
its own and fool experienced viewers on images seen up
close & personal, in full size (13x19") compared with a
Hasselblad 39mpx camera --that's REALLY-"full frame"
vs. compact, a far cry from the differences in sensor
turf of APS-C & M4/3--: oddly, I didn't see anyone
questioning this (or what had been smoked before viewing)!?
Yet now we want to discriminate between so many much
closer-in-size (& generation) cameras ... .
All over the web people were apparently relaying their decisions of taking out their EM-1 and leaving FF canons and nikons on the shelf and their unremitting delight in how much better the experience was........ On this site particualrly, 'bcooter' became a voluble commenter, but although I became tempted, my researches into the OMD models has not caused me to aquire one.
I don't know about how broad this sentiment is;
but hype and echoes of hype do grow well on the Net.
(But wasn't it DigiLloyd who had some articles about
the maybe imminent Death of M4/3? Is it still dead?)
BCooter, aka James Russell of Russell-Rutherford
and Ming Thein have claimed to happily use Olys
(both E-M1s) in their professional lives. BCooter
goes on to admit to the complexity but that in the
end one can do much via the options AND THEN,
once set up well, the subsequent use is pretty smooth.
And among the set-up, he claims are good ways to get
good color/etc. out of the camera. (Ming seems to stick
with the "bigger must be better" view re sensors --and
leaves the question "but how much better matters?")
I see no reason to "dump the G5" : if they're selling
new for so little, what will dumping a decent camera
get you? --better to keep it, maybe married to a
special lense for quick use, resting the Oly (should
you go for one of those).
Finally, Dave, how do you feel about the stabilization
of the GX7 vs. Oly's ? My reading led me to believe
that Oly's was head if not head & shoulders better,
a class act; but recently I came across someone with
the same belief who tested and found otherwise
[re GX7 >>bettering<< the E-M5 in >>stabilization<< !! ]http://tysonrobichaudphotography.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/the-gx7-vs-the-om-d-e-m5-battle-for-my-affection-round-1-ibis-evfs-lcds/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=2831&relatedposts_position=1
(Reviewer Tyson Robichaud claims to be neutral, and presuming
the superiority of Oly's 5-axis vs Pany's 2-axis, but his tests showed
the latter to be better in many instances!?)
I’m really amazed by, and confident in my findings and the only other thing that I would really like to do is to test multiple copies of the E-M5 and the GX7 to see if the IBIS findings at these shutter speeds are consistent between bodies. The OME EM5 does really well, and in some cases better down to 1/25sec or even 1/15sec comparatively, but I feel that “testers” will take one shot at 1/25sec with the 75mm lens for instance and proclaim that “X is better than Y” which, at that time, in those conditions and with that lens at that shutter speed is correct.
But what about overall, at differing shutter speeds, differing apertures?
(Which puts Pany in the awkward position of maybe
having great in-body stabilization but yet already
some stabilized lenses --what to do?