GH3/OMD - same sensor?

[crashwins]

I've heard conflicting/confusing reports on this. Same sensor so I should expect the same RAW output, correct? Thanks

 

[elavon]

According to the rumors they have the same sensor.
The RAW of the two camera will slightly be different because of different sensor tuning and because Panasonic has in camera CA removal for their lenses.

 

[crashwins]

Gotcha. Thanks. Well, I primarily take stills and always process RAW, but I'm also looking to get into video more. Seems like picking up the GH3 would be the no-brainer if it's comparable -- if not the same -- to the OMD. Does that make sense to anyone else?

 

[elavon]

Gotcha. Thanks. Well, I primarily take stills and always process RAW, but I'm also looking to get into video more. Seems like picking up the GH3 would be the no-brainer if it's comparable -- if not the same -- to the OMD. Does that make sense to anyone else?

The GH3 is a video work horse. In term of stills both camera have the same very good result in the DXO test.
The GH3 is probebly the best :43: camera at this moment, the OMD advantages are the IBIS with none OIS lenses and the smaller size.

 

[With_Eyes_Unclouded]

Gotcha. Thanks. Well, I primarily take stills and always process RAW, but I'm also looking to get into video more. Seems like picking up the GH3 would be the no-brainer if it's comparable -- if not the same -- to the OMD. Does that make sense to anyone else?

Each and every one of all GH3 tests indicate that sensor output is the same as the OM-D. So it's other a duck or the best imitation of a duck ever.

But sensor performance is only one parameter. Most people choose the
GH3 because of its bigger size and more comfortable controls thereof. Some of them choose it for its video capabilities. OTOH, others prefer the smaller size and modular approach (with grip) of the OM-D and the IBIS is invaluable for some.

What I can say is that, with prices as they stand today, if video is a somewhat secondary consideration and if you decide that the OM-D is more to your taste, with the same money you'd spend for the GH3 you could get the OM-D plus a used GH2. Which you can happily hack and enjoy excelent video performance. Just a thought.

But start with what will suit your everyday needs first.

 

[kwalsh]

What I can say is that, with prices as they stand today, if video is a somewhat secondary consideration and if you decide that the OM-D is more to your taste, with the same money you'd spend for the GH3 you could get the OM-D plus a used GH2. Which you can happily hack and enjoy excelent video performance. Just a thought.

This is a great and sensible idea for the OP.

And yes, every indication is that the sensors are if not identical their output is too close to be distinguished by measurements. You won't be making any trade in image quality between the two cameras.

 

[crashwins]

Great. That's what I was hoping to hear

That is a good suggestion, but I actually had a hacked GH2 for a while and while I really liked the camera, I'm not convinced it's something I'd want to pick up again. My feeling is that with the GH3 I'll be more and tempted to experiment with video given its capability. But, since I'm primarily a still shooter, it sounds like I want be at any loss with the GH3 (thought I definitely like the looks of the OMD, but maybe not the ergonomics). Anyway, thanks a lot for the help here folks.

 

[arad85]

The RAW of the two camera will slightly be different because of different sensor tuning and because Panasonic has in camera CA removal for their lenses.

The raws will be different, but not for the implied reason. For raws, all the lens processing is done on the host PC, not the camera - the information is passed by encoding the lens distortions/CA etc. in the exif information. The raws have no micro 4/3 processing applied to them. What is true though, is that Oly bodies don't pass the CA information back in the raws, even if the lens has it....

Or at least that's my understanding of it

 

[elavon]

The raws will be different, but not for the implied reason. For raws, all the lens processing is done on the host PC, not the camera - the information is passed by encoding the lens distortions/CA etc. in the exif information. The raws have no micro 4/3 processing applied to them. What is true though, is that Oly bodies don't pass the CA information back in the raws, even if the lens has it....

Or at least that's my understanding of it

You might be right I was not sure if the CA is on camera processed or during RAW import. In any case this is transparent to the user and will cause the RAW to be slightly different.

 

[ralfmouth]

I'm also looking to get into video more. Seems like picking up the GH3 would be the no-brainer if it's comparable

It is a no brainer. I love the Em-5 video. It's as detailed as the Gh3 with prettier colors....until something moves. It's a shame, that. The codec is the weak link, The picture breaks up during high detail motion. Its the only thing keeping it from being a serious video camera. Olympus doesn't seem to want to update the codec and i don't think they ever will (maybe some agreement with Panny considering their similar release dates?). But the GH3 probably has the same sensor (they look very similar to me), less moire/aliasing and many more video options so a no brainer for video. I don't like that it's bigger.
Disclaimer: I don't have the Panny, but the comparison points are well known among professional reviewers.

 

[Lisandra]

I have em both, use them for stills work. The gh3 is an ergonomic monster, the amount of fn buttons and features will make you cry. The em5 with a grip can be almost equally as versatile, but the important thing is the output is just about the same, the em5 requires you monitoring exposure more cause it tends to underexpose but all in all the output is equally fantastic.

 

[Halaking]

I have em both, use them for stills work. The gh3 is an ergonomic monster, the amount of fn buttons and features will make you cry. The em5 with a grip can be almost equally as versatile, but the important thing is the output is just about the same, the em5 requires you monitoring exposure more cause it tends to underexpose but all in all the output is equally fantastic.

All the pictures I took from OMD looks good on camera OLED screen, but later looks underexpose on monitor, so I use "exposure shift", it's useful option.

 

[Lisandra]

All the pictures I took from OMD looks good on camera OLED screen, but later looks underexpose on monitor, so I use "exposure shift", it's useful option.

yes, I set the exposure shift to 2/6 and mainly it works alright, but Im so happy you posted that comment, people keep telling me my OMD is defective!!! but its just as you said, everything looks flawless on the lcd and then back home its underexpose land. Im not alone!!!!

Another issue I have with it is that the histogram (im a firm histogramist) shows a curve in live view and when I take the shot it changes! whats the point of having it there then?
In that regard the GH3 is much more secure in exposing, 9 out of 10 times taking the exposure right up to the end of the histogram

 

[Halaking]

I guess omd has too many factory presets in the camera that controls its output.

The OLED screen is brighter than normal LCD, I think Olympus make the choice, users will see better picture on the first sight. it's logical lol

 

[savvy]

I guess omd has too many factory presets in the camera that controls its output.

The OLED screen is brighter than normal LCD, I think Olympus make the choice, users will see better picture on the first sight. it's logical lol

I do turn the EM-5 monitor screen brightness down a few notches, in the settings menu, for this very reason.

Doesn't help with the histogram issue, but if you're just eyeballing the scene, it gives you a more representative view.