Om-D vs GH3 for stills image quality, which is better?

texinwien wrote:

That's neither here nor there.

That's sort of an old rule everywhere, at least for rigorous thinkers. Uncorroborated / unsourced rumors are generally ignored by the serious. Dunno, maybe you take that sort of thing at face value?

I just went through all posts tagged 'GH3' that had comments, and, again, didn't find a corroborating quote. To be clear, I'm not accusing you of making it up, but the fact that it's so hard to find, and that I can't seem to find any corroboration for it anywhere online makes me doubt its relevance.

Not painting anyone as anything. I'm painting unsourced and uncorroborated quotes as poor sources of information for anyone who's interested in the facts.

Really? The vast majority of posts are very much in favor of it? Let's just say there's been a lot of talk about the camera. Lots of it positive, and plenty of it negative, as well. That's what I've seen, at least.

I recall, back before DxO came out with their measurements for the E-M5, a number of people claiming that the E-M5 performed no better than or even worse than the GH2 and/or GX1, and that it was all unsubstantiated hype. Of course, we have the DxO results now, which proved those people wrong. Facts quieted those people down, but there seem to be a few hangers-on who still bash the camera, either to get a rise out of people or out of some kind of reverse fanboyism - hard to say.

Note, I'm not accusing you, personally, of being involved in any of that behavior. If you haven't noticed any of that behavior, though, I have to wonder about your observational skills

tex