Based on this, I would say that G5 and GX1 (and by extension G3), are similar to the OM-D E-M5 in high ISO sensor performance if you shoot RAW.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Mu-43 App

__________________
Amin
Mu-43.com Webmaster (Site FAQ | Help Forum | My Disclosures | My Flickriver | My G+ Profile)

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates. We get a small referral fee when you buy after clicking our link. Your price is unaffected.

Based on my limited experience with the EM-5 it has cleaner files @ 3200-5000 ISO (all I've shot up to) over the GX1. I found most of the GX1 files unusable at 3200, where a large amount of my EM-5 files at the same ISO were quite usable with minor NR. I wouldn't say that they are a ton different but the EM-5 seems to have at least a one stop advantage to my eyes. Interested to see more tests like this.

__________________
Add me on Flickr, I'll do the same

http://www.flickr.com/photos/danska8/

I would say you really splitting hairs between all 3 cameras, but the Oly does have ibs and when you mainly use primes that is a advantage. I think I might get the g5(or wait for gh3) just because I shoot 16:9 often and the multi aspect sensor is an advantage for me personally.

__________________
Photography isn't about the gear, but the ability to capture a moment

Micro Four Thirds Street Photography Group

I can clearly say that the best camera is the RX100. Oops, wait, that's another forum. Not much difference in these samples OM-D to G5 to GX1. To me, there's no real IQ difference between the G3 or GX1 either.

From these (and other) tests, it seems the OM-D is superior at the highest ISO settings. Big deal, if you ask me. I shoot the OM-D and it wouldn't make any sensible difference over the others at such conditions. The biggest difference would be for very high DR scenes, and the added latitude of almost one stop you'd have to work with in post. But, at that point, for real life situations, the lens selection matters most, IMHO. It's not a race for pulling the most detail out of shadows. Such exersices are silly, IMO.

What matters more for me is the way the OM-D renders noise, which is very pleasurable in my eyes at least. Also the way it handles highlights is very nice, IMO. Both these situations have a "film" element in them, I think.

__________________
http://500px.com/Eyes_Unclouded_Photography
http://eyesunclouded-photography.blogspot.gr/
http://www.facebook.com/eyesunclouded

I'll present some controlled testing from my E-M5 and GX1 when time/job permit.

__________________
Amin
Mu-43.com Webmaster (Site FAQ | Help Forum | My Disclosures | My Flickriver | My G+ Profile)

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates. We get a small referral fee when you buy after clicking our link. Your price is unaffected.

Based on what my eyes are telling me, the GX1 at base ISO beats the others for color reproduction, and at high ISO the G5 is the best.

Why pay more?

thanks for the comparison...i was looking at the g5, em5 and gx1 jpegs...the G5 kept the most fine details...they really did a good job here...can you take a look at it in the raw files too...

also do you all know if the g5 or panasonic cam in general, is a global cam...ie selectable fps for pal/ntsc video capture? thanks.

I think the E-M5 is very clearly the best here. Half stop to a stop better, if you factor in noise pattern and detail. I see it as the oly having a half stop over the G5, and the G5 a half stop over GX1. Which makes sense since I consistently see results of 2/3 to one stop better performance in RAW from the oly over my G3. I'm fine with the G5 as such personally.

I really can barely see a difference. Amin, it would have been more interesting to make it a blind test and see what people think is the best/guess the camera before you knew which sample was what. ;)

6400 may be the tiniest bit less noisy on the OMD but I feel like the detail is abit worse, so is that just NR applied? I'm not an expert on IQ but I really doubt many would see the difference.