G5 vs GH3 - a very quick image comparison

[arad85]

EDIT: This was originally posted on Lumix Lifestyle as the images were from a member there (yes, I do have permission to post them)....

Firstly, let me say I don't have a GH3 - I am living life vicariously at the moment My thanks go to Davidwa from Lumix Lifestyle forums for providing me some raw images to play with to test the dynamic range of the two cameras. I asked him to take pictures of some areas that were both bright and close to or actually overexposed and dark and close to black and I got some images of his garden together with the sky. A set of raw files appeared and I've had a play with them.

Why did I want these? Well, I am interested in the GH3 if it is a better camera than the G5 (which I already have) but don't want to spend a shedload if there is only a little in it (I have a computer habit to feed too!) So... on with the show.

All images have been imported to Lightroom 4.3RC, and the only processing applied as described and then written to a JPEG. Default screen sharpening has been used and the full images have been resized. The crops are 1:1 - that is, the crops are smaller than 800 pixels, so they have not been resized. I have obfuscated the cameras by calling them Camera A and Camera B. I think the EXIF is still intact, so anyone who wants to cheat can look before the answer is revealed. The cameras both have the excellent 12-35 on the front of them too. Firstly, lets have a look at the scenes (all the images are at ISO200 although David did send me 3 scenes at ISO 200, 800 and 3200 for comparison):

Camera A:

Camera B:

To me, straight out of the camera and processed by ACR, camera A has chosen a better white balance (it is about 400k cooler with a slightly better tint looking at the raw) and it has exposed the scene about 1/3 of a stop less (using 1/200th rather than 1/160th). This means that the very slight blowout (we'll look at that later) to the left edge of the image, is not blown out on camera A, but is slightly blown on camera B. +1 for camera A.

Now, let's look at the shadow area in the bottom left corner. Here is the original capture from A and B

Camera A:

Camera B:

and the processed versions (pushing the Shadows slider to +100)

Camera A:

Camera B:

Other than the colour cast differences to do with the white balance, they are pretty much of a muchness. This isn't EXTREME shadow pushing, but I'm happy enough to give them equality for practical purposes.

 

[arad85]

What about highlights?

Here's the mid left section of both:

and the processed versions (pushing the Shadows slider to +100)

Camera A:

Camera B:

(camera B has "blown" these highlights according to Lightroom) and the processed images with the Highlights slider set at minus 100:

Camera A:

Camera B:

It's easy to see Camera A is not so exposed as camera B tos start with, but since it is not a controlled scene, it's difficult to tell exactly how it has been captured. What is clear though is that it has recovered better - the sky is blue rather than a mid grey colour and there are no blown highlights in the clouds.

+1 Camera A

One thing you might note is that there are differences in sharpness. This is really seen at the centre of the image. Here the image has been pushed +100 shadows, -100 highlights, just to see what happens, but the immediate thing for me is how much more contrasty the image from camera A is. Remember, they are with the same lens, at the same aperture, and similar lighting. This wasn't a fluke either, all 3 pairs of images images exhibited the same - camera A appeared more contrasty and more lifelike (for want of a better description) than camera B

Camera A:

Camera B:

I'd say +2 to camera A there (remember, these are totally overprocessed to see how far you can push the data off the sensor)....

 

[arad85]

So... have you guessed it yet...

Camera A is the GH3, camera B is the G5. Just looking at the few files I have, I'd say the GH3 captures the better pictures. I don't think there is too much in it in dynamic range (we'll have to wait for more scientific measurements to tell us that) but I'd say the GH3 produces better raw files that give you more to work with.

Having said that, there probably isn't a lot in it in real world situations for dynamic range, but it might be worth tweaking with the G5 exposure controls to do a -1/3ish exposure offset to keep the highlights from blowing out. The GH3 looks (in this very small test) to be better here. What was really surprising looking at the images was how much more contrasty the images appear (look at the branches in the centre and green leaves to the bottom right of the crops in the last post). I was not expecting this.... Whilst it could be the individual camera David has, I doubt it as the images from his G5 remind me of the images I get from my G5. Now, do I get the GH3 - well, I'm still undecided - the camera is definitely better - just not in the way I was expecting it to be!

 

[woof woof]

Looks to be an improvement over the G5, the only question is if the improvement is worth the extra dosh and that's something for each of us to weigh up.

I'm itching to buy something new but for me the size of the GH3 is the killer and I can't see myself looking at the next Gx or GFx assuming they get the same chip if the base ISO is 200, me being a lover of wide aperture shots.

 

[arad85]

Shadows I'm a bit meh about. Highlights yes, but it isn't clear if this is due to the different exposures chosen or truly a sensor change. I don't think it is a huge difference though. The sharpness and colour balance - yes, that's an improvement, but not enough (at the moment) for me to warrant the purchase (although I may change my mind in the next day or so).

The word on the street from those that have it is that the sizing is just right by the way....

 

[woof woof]

I doubt I'll bother to look even if I do come across one in the shops.

I bought into MFT because I wanted a smaller system and although the camera + lens will still offer a saving in bulk over APS-C/FF it's closing the gap and making features and handling the deciding factors with an arguable bias towards video performance.

I don't care about many added features and I don't mind handling compromises that come with smaller bodies. I'm of average size and I have average hands but I suppose the difference is that I'm very dexterous and can cope with the smaller form and the compromises that are imposed on handling. The size of this camera plus the loss of ISO 100 will be killers and my future may be Nex if MFT doesn't return to why I bought into the system.

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

This thread was mentioned in the G-owners thread, so I'm bumping it now for topicality!

 

[fulwood]

I doubt I'll bother to look even if I do come across one in the shops.

I bought into MFT because I wanted a smaller system and although the camera + lens will still offer a saving in bulk over APS-C/FF it's closing the gap and making features and handling the deciding factors with an arguable bias towards video performance.

I don't care about many added features and I don't mind handling compromises that come with smaller bodies. I'm of average size and I have average hands but I suppose the difference is that I'm very dexterous and can cope with the smaller form and the compromises that are imposed on handling. The size of this camera plus the loss of ISO 100 will be killers and my future may be Nex if MFT doesn't return to why I bought into the system.

I'm 6ft 2in with large clumsy hands so a slightly bigger M43 body would suit me nicely - believe the GH3 is about the size of a Nikon D5000, which is about as small as I'm comfortable with.

I like the idea of a pro take anywhere quality body with small good quality (but expensive!!) lenses. Wonder how the GH3 compares with, say 5D II image quality.

I've dabbled with Panasonic M43 stuff in the past but have never been really happy with skin tones and landscape greens, is the GH3 improved here?

Woofwoof - Believe the GH3 goes down to 125 iso, near enough to 100?

 

[arad85]

Wonder how the GH3 compares with, say 5D II image quality.

Before I moved to the G5, I had a 5D2 with L lenses. I compared a couple of shots and was happy enough that the G5 was just slightly worse when pixel peeping than the 5D2 (I didn't test extremes of dynamic range, but image sharpness - I was happy enough for DxO to tell me the dynamic range info). I think the GH3 will produce similar sharpness to the 5D2 images. I think the 5D2 will have better extremes (ISO performance for example) but I was happy enough to move from 5D2 to G5. I'd be even happier to move to a GH3.

BTW: I'm 6'8" and find the G5 OK... Also, as you can see from the first image, the GH3 has a cooler - and I think more natural - tone.

 

[Musicman]

thanks for posting that.

The 'sharpness' test is revealing.

I wonder how the GH3 would stack up against the OM-D on the same tests?

 

[fulwood]

thanks for posting that.

The 'sharpness' test is revealing.

I wonder how the GH3 would stack up against the OM-D on the same tests?

Thought they used the same sensor so differences could be just down to Panny vs Olympus processing.

If they are the same sensor wonder whether Adobe Camera Raw would process them to give near identical results!

I like the OM-D results but intensely dislike Olympus handling/ergonomics.

 

[fulwood]

Before I moved to the G5, I had a 5D2 with L lenses. I compared a couple of shots and was happy enough that the G5 was just slightly worse when pixel peeping than the 5D2 (I didn't test extremes of dynamic range, but image sharpness - I was happy enough for DxO to tell me the dynamic range info). I think the GH3 will produce similar sharpness to the 5D2 images. I think the 5D2 will have better extremes (ISO performance for example) but I was happy enough to move from 5D2 to G5. I'd be even happier to move to a GH3.

BTW: I'm 6'8" and find the G5 OK... Also, as you can see from the first image, the GH3 has a cooler - and I think more natural - tone.

I'd be very interested in a side-by-side GH3 and 5Dii landscape/portrait shoot out - I suppose it's a no brainer that the FF will beat the M43 on ultimate quality, but printed on A3 must be close??

Now that the 5Diii is here and proved to be good, suspect that a 5D ii is the best bang per buck used camera available, used prices seem to be collapsing at the moment - as will happen to the GH3 when the GH4 comes out!

 

[woof woof]

Woofwoof - Believe the GH3 goes down to 125 iso, near enough to 100?

I'm just average sized with average hands but I've always been very dexterous and the GF1 and G1 have never been a problem, neither is my LX5. The GH3 is deffo a non starter for me due to the increased bulk and I wouldn't have bought into MFT if this had been their first camera. I appreciate that with a lens the overall package is possibly still pretty compact but there are better options in the market for me.

The base ISO is also an issue for me. With the wider angle lenses wider apertures are an advantage but I already find myself being hindered by the max shutter speed. Couple that to another hindrance, the rising base ISO, and I'll be swaying towards Nex as Sony at least give ISO 100 even if still limited by the max shutter speed. The higher the base ISO coupled with the max shutter speed of 1/4000 the more time I'll be spending messing on fitting and removing ND's and wishing I'd taken my 5D with me.

I'm hard to please, but there are now other options apart from Panny and I wont be investing any more money in MFT until a body comes out that I'm happy with.

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

I wonder if the "true" base ISO of the GH3 can possibly be different to the e-M5?

I use my e-P2 for most things for the base ISO & shutterspeed advantage in bright conditions ... could the GH3 beat the e-M5 for that?
Let me put it another way : my e-P2 & 17mm wide-open truly spanks the e-M5 with the same lens in giving Jpegs with retained sky detail ... despite the greater dynamic range.
I hope I understand Alan is talking about a similar situation.