GH4, GH5, and GX80 are practically same, by DXO

Recently I saw good second-hand offer of an Panasonic GH4, and decided to compare it to my GX80 and it's successor GH5.

Here's comparison, on DXOMARK: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DC-GH5-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GX80-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH4___1149_1087_943

In charts, they look practically same. Why the hell, GH5 costs few times more than GX80???

kravemir wrote:

Recently I saw good second-hand offer of an Panasonic GH4, and decided to compare it to my GX80 and it's successor GH5.

Here's comparison, on DXOMARK: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DC-GH5-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GX80-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH4___1149_1087_943

In charts, they look practically same. Why the hell, GH5 costs few times more than GX80???

Honestly, if you're asking the question, the GH5 is not for you.

You can make it more complicated than that, but really...it's that simple.

kravemir wrote:

Recently I saw good second-hand offer of an Panasonic GH4, and decided to compare it to my GX80 and it's successor GH5.

In charts, they look practically same.

I had the GH4 and, almost to my own surprise, allowed a kind wife to buy me a G9 as a birthday present.

I don't care what the charts say, the G9 produces nicer images than older sensor GH4. I'm seriously considering selling my Pentax K1, not the case when I had the GH4.

For me the GH4 never quite matched the FF Pentax, particularly for landscapes, while the G9 does.

The GH4 has now replaced my wife's much loved G1 and the K1 stays in its case.

Wilu wrote:

kravemir wrote:

In charts, they look practically same. Why the hell, GH5 costs few times more than GX80???

more knobs and buttons

more pixels on the sensor

more pixels in the viewfinder

more pics per battery charge

more metal in the construction of the body

...and probably a pemium just because the GH5 is their flagship camera and because they can surcharge.

So, you confirm, that there's no image quality improvement over lower tiers of Panasonic cameras?

juncction wrote:

kravemir wrote:

Recently I saw good second-hand offer of an Panasonic GH4, and decided to compare it to my GX80 and it's successor GH5.

Here's comparison, on DXOMARK: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DC-GH5-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GX80-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH4___1149_1087_943

In charts, they look practically same. Why the hell, GH5 costs few times more than GX80???

Oh boy, if you only judge camera value by DXO charts then by your logic the Sony A7I is basically the same camera as the Sony A9! Then why does the A9 cost so much more???

Well, now I have one more question to ask: why also Sony cameras with same IQ (based on DXO) don't cost the same...?

The 20mp vs 16mp sensor should give a minor benefit if you print big or crop images and DxO mark does give minor improvement in score to that camera in your link too.

The real reasons to get GH5 over GH4 are things such as 60fps 4K video and in body image stabilization and such, while the real reason to get GH5 over GX80 are 60 fps 4K video, better video modes, no 4K crop, better video codec, slow-motion, somewhat better IBIS, mic jack etc, more dials etc.

But yes, for stills you can get pretty much any half-recent 16-20mp sensor MFT camera and if you shoot RAW the differences will be minor. Something like the very entry level E-PL5 from about 5 years ago will shoot fairly competitive stills compared to more recent cameras.

Still I would recommend E-PL5 only in quite special cases, like when I got E-PL6 - which is pretty much the same - with kit lens for 200€ as my first interchangeable lens camera. That was a good deal. The reason is that there is actual useful improvement in cameras as well, and of course E-PL5 video is pretty atrocious.

CharlesB58 wrote:

kravemir wrote:

juncction wrote:

kravemir wrote:

Recently I saw good second-hand offer of an Panasonic GH4, and decided to compare it to my GX80 and it's successor GH5.

Here's comparison, on DXOMARK: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DC-GH5-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GX80-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH4___1149_1087_943

In charts, they look practically same. Why the hell, GH5 costs few times more than GX80???

Oh boy, if you only judge camera value by DXO charts then by your logic the Sony A7I is basically the same camera as the Sony A9! Then why does the A9 cost so much more???

Well, now I have one more question to ask: why also Sony cameras with same IQ (based on DXO) don't cost the same...?

I kind of hope this is a joke. If you don't understand the degree to which additional features and build quality contribute to the price of a camera, how do you even decide what to buy?

It seems like it would make the buying decision really, really easy. Used Nikon D700 or original Sony A7, every single time. Whatever FF camera you can get for $500 or less.

Androole wrote:

CharlesB58 wrote:

kravemir wrote:

juncction wrote:

kravemir wrote:

Recently I saw good second-hand offer of an Panasonic GH4, and decided to compare it to my GX80 and it's successor GH5.

Here's comparison, on DXOMARK: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DC-GH5-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GX80-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH4___1149_1087_943

In charts, they look practically same. Why the hell, GH5 costs few times more than GX80???

Oh boy, if you only judge camera value by DXO charts then by your logic the Sony A7I is basically the same camera as the Sony A9! Then why does the A9 cost so much more???

Well, now I have one more question to ask: why also Sony cameras with same IQ (based on DXO) don't cost the same...?

I kind of hope this is a joke. If you don't understand the degree to which additional features and build quality contribute to the price of a camera, how do you even decide what to buy?

It seems like it would make the buying decision really, really easy. Used Nikon D700 or original Sony A7, every single time. Whatever FF camera you can get for $500 or less.

Yep, if there's no difference in photo/sensor quality, then I would go for: compactness, and affordability of lenses, amount of available second-hand lenses. Much easier!

Cameras or at least ones these days aren't so much differentiated by image quality but by performance, features and build quality. This means that you shouldn't so much be thinking that the more expensive models are a poor value, but thinking that if you maybe don't need stuff like super-fast focusing or burst speeds, extra features or weather sealing and are mostly looking for great IQ, you ca save a lot by buying a cheaper model. Those who need that other stuff will spend more to get it even though they might not be getting any extra IQ...

I know about the high cost of (non-)software development. It's invisible time spent to think about things, design better things, and millions of wrong attempts until the success,... It all costs time, it costs material,... But, it's not visible and not touchable by a customer. Customer only gets a piece of metal, silicon, and other stuff, which came out of factory.

As a software developer, I know SW development isn't free. Also, development of ASIC(s) to perform specific purpose using low-power isn't cheap either. There's just tons of time and material spent by development, which has to be paid, somehow.

But, I just though that more expensive cameras would perform better. Didn't think about it from feature development perspective,...

AND, that makes me glad! It's great to know, that they are not artificially crippling lower-end models just by putting a few cents cheaper, but much worse, sensors in them.

kravemir wrote:

I know about the high cost of (non-)software development. It's invisible time spent to think about things, design better things, and millions of wrong attempts until the success,... It all costs time, it costs material,... But, it's not visible and not touchable by a customer. Customer only gets a piece of metal, silicon, and other stuff, which came out of factory.

As a software developer, I know SW development isn't free. Also, development of ASIC(s) to perform specific purpose using low-power isn't cheap either. There's just tons of time and material spent by development, which has to be paid, somehow.

But, I just though that more expensive cameras would perform better. Didn't think about it from feature development perspective,...

As others have both explicitly and implicitly stated, there is a lot more to performance and features than these charts can even begin to show.

No one has even mentioned the IBIS and sync IS, nor the video performance and features gain — those are huge differentiators for a large portion of the target market for the GH5.

AND, that makes me glad! It's great to know, that they are not artificially crippling lower-end models just by putting a few cents cheaper, but much worse, sensors in them.

-- hide signature --

Use devices as tools to create a value,.. Otherwise, turn device off and enjoy beautiful moments of an analog life!

kravemir wrote:

I know about the high cost of (non-)software development. It's invisible time spent to think about things, design better things, and millions of wrong attempts until the success,... It all costs time, it costs material,... But, it's not visible and not touchable by a customer. Customer only gets a piece of metal, silicon, and other stuff, which came out of factory.

As a software developer, I know SW development isn't free. Also, development of ASIC(s) to perform specific purpose using low-power isn't cheap either. There's just tons of time and material spent by development, which has to be paid, somehow.

But, I just though that more expensive cameras would perform better. Didn't think about it from feature development perspective,...

AND, that makes me glad! It's great to know, that they are not artificially crippling lower-end models just by putting a few cents cheaper, but much worse, sensors in them.

Think more along the lines of features. Think Wordpad vs Word. Assuming the contents the same (words), they produce the exact same thing.

So why is one vastly more expensive than the other (course one being free)? Features and performance (speed, buffer etc). That's the exact same reason GH4 and GH5 is more expensive than G80.

Apparently, a camera to you is nothing but a sensor? Just buy the sensor directly from Sony.

kravemir wrote:

Recently I saw good second-hand offer of an Panasonic GH4, and decided to compare it to my GX80 and it's successor GH5.

Here's comparison, on DXOMARK: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DC-GH5-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GX80-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH4___1149_1087_943

In charts, they look practically same. Why the hell, GH5 costs few times more than GX80???

They are most assuredly NOT saying that the cameras are the same.  They are saying the the sensors have similar scores, across a range of criteria.   If you don't grasp the fundamental difference between these two concepts, then I would suggest that the whole idea of which interchangeable lens system camera to buy is too complicated for you, and you should just get something that doesn't have interchangeable lenses at all - but a high DxOmark score.

The reason one cost more than the other is because it's not about sensor size or image quality alone. Some people pay more than the price of a GX80 for instance for a smaller sensor. Or a lot more for less mega pixels, like the GH5s. My feeling is that if you need to question the price you can't afford it.