E-M5 or GH3? You tell me

Ah, but I do - that's yet another ridiculous comparison, but one that I haven't seen made in a very long time. Months, actually. Although you still harp on it every chance you get. I wonder whether you'll still be harping on it a decade after the last misinformed E-M5 fan makes that obviously silly assertion. I wouldn't be surprised, the slightest.

Heck, I've even seen you harping on this in OTHER forums at DPReview in the past couple of weeks. Care to provide a link to the last instance of someone saying the IQ of the E-M5 is equal to that of the D800 that you've seen here?

And, lastly, that's a bit of a red herring, really. I'm interested in comparing the GH3 to the E-M5 here. If you'd like to compare the E-M5 to the D800, I'd invite you to do your own work and start your own thread - feel free!

Surrounds? Present-tense?  OK 

I know of at least three GH3 owners who've claimed in the past week or so on this forum that the GH3 ahs better stills image quality than the E-M5 (one of them just today). I know of exactly 0 E-M5 owners who've made similar statements in the past week on this forum.

Learn to let the past go, Jim. It gets old hearing someone complain about wrongs they heard months ago. And it's an immature tactic, anyway. I'd prefer to out all incorrect claims, whether they be about the E-M5 or the GH3.

Wouldn't you? Or do you just prefer to correct incorrect claims about the E-M5 and let incorrect claims about the GH3 (and other Panasonic cameras) stand unchallenged? Certainly seems that way. Two wrongs don't make a right

Sorry, I have no interest in comparing the JPEG files here. If you'd like to do that, feel free to start your own thread. This one's talking about the differences between RAW files.

RAW Therapee is free to download and easy to install - give it a shot!

And on this we agree - the differences aren't in the stills image quality, I'd say. The differences are in the other features and attributes of each camera.

tex