Why is the EM5 so much more popular than the GH3?

If I could actually get my hands on a GH3 in Australia then maybe I could make a better comparison. Unfortunately in this part of the world it seems like Panasonic is stocked in far smaller numbers.

Here in Oz you can find EM5's everywhere - they're almost at Canon/Nikon availability levels and that real;ly counts. Even on a recent trip to the USA, it seems like Panasonic is just not stocked in numbers in Fry's, Best Buy, etc. Maybe it's different in specialist camera stores - I don't know.

Price is also a factor. The Panasonics seem to be expensive compared to the EM5. In Oz it's even worse - just look at the obscene Panasonic price markup at local retailers (and I'm sure this is Panasonic's doing as the prices are consistent across the country) compared to prices at B&H Photo. An expensive camera is made more expensive by rip-off pricing, a factor which doesn't seem to affect the EM5 to nearly the same extent.

Also, I think the retro design of the EM5 actually has an impact. People pick them up on display stands and show interest because they stand out. A GH3, to a non-tech consumer, just looks like a slightly smaller Canon or Nikon so they just keep on moving to the big brands with lower prices and more options. You see the same thing where Nikon J1/2 and V1/2 are on display. Whatever you think of the system they catch people's eye.

Technically, I'm not really qualified to judge the cameras. I don't own either but I am interested in a camera in this range so I've done a bit of study and both seem on paper to be comparable. Personally I'd lean towards the EM5 becasue of the stabilisation but then I want video as well and Panasonic seems to have the running there. Lenses (stabilisation issues aside) are comparable, both have EVF's, they focus similarly and perform with close to SLR responsiveness.

In the end, like some other posters have suggested, price and presence count.