GX9 compared to EM5 III

[a100ps]

This isn't a debate as to which camera is the best, I think they're both fine cameras, but if you own both, is there one you prefer more? I posted back a bit that my GX9 died for the third time, in stead of repairing it I was going to replace it, my search started. I discovered I could get a EM5 III cheaper then a GX9 (all my cameras and lenes except one lens are Panasonic) I actually found and bought a mint looking EM5 III but the shutter kept locking up so back it went, when I get credited back for it I'll shop again, so... does anyone out there prefer one to the other?

Ron from Pickering

PS. the EM5 III also felt good in the hand

 

[a100ps]

Before calling it a night last night, I went on eBay, I noticed there was a GX9 taking bids, I put in a bid just beating out the previous bidder (they were low bids for a GX9)... and I won! I certainly was expecting that when I woke up, as I was looking forward to giving the Olympus a try, in fact so much so, I'm thinking of grabbing one of those too, I just have to save a bit more, wait for my refund, and sell off a camera or two. Then I can answer my own question LOL. Thanks everyone for chiming in, when the time comes that I have both cameras, I'll make another post

Ron from Pickering

 

[jalywol]

The E-M5 III has PDAF. The GX9 does not. No further consideration need be made if you prefer consistently well-focused photos.

Wow, that's quite a blanket statement.

Yes, if you do tracking shooting with C-AF. No if you do not.

I use S-AF for most things. I also have PDAF on my FF bodies, and yes, it is vastly better if you are trying to do BIF type shooting. But for everything else? Just...no.

Panasonics DFD CDAF is very, very, good for a whole lot of photographic work. So, a generalization that it's universally worse for everything is just...false. I have, over the years, for instance, been far more impressed by the low light CDAF behavior of the Panasonics than that of other PDAF cameras of similar generations. Has that changed over the years as some low light PDAF bodies have improved? Sure, but, again, broad generalizations are just...not accurate.

Yup, if you want to do tracking AF in reasonable light, PDAF has a definite advantage. In all other applications? It's a wash.

-J

I hadn't considered DFD and I have no experience with it. Thanks for filling in that gap. Never interested me because it is Panasonic proprietary and I have too much incompatible Olympus glass to even consider it.

Whether tracking or not, PDAF is vastly superior to CDAF for moving subjects. I also use tracking for subject locking and reframing.

If I want to use CDAF for low light, I can just switch my E-M5 III to S-AF.

I was never hugely impressed with the Oly CDAF, and the Panasonic implementation is certainly better if you have a CDAF only body. And, I have only Panasonic bodies at this point....but half and half OM and Panasonic lenses.

And, no, the glass is not "incompatible" . Yes, there are features that are available on either system that may not be on the other, but incompatible? No. "Incompatible" would be like trying to use L-mount glass on M43 bodies or vice versa. Or, if OM glass would not AF on Panasonic bodies at all....

I would posit you are actually missing out on some extremely good glass by limiting your options to OM only....But, hey, whatever floats your boat.

-J

 

[Bassam Guy]

The E-M5 III has PDAF. The GX9 does not. No further consideration need be made if you prefer consistently well-focused photos.

Wow, that's quite a blanket statement.

Yes, if you do tracking shooting with C-AF. No if you do not.

I use S-AF for most things. I also have PDAF on my FF bodies, and yes, it is vastly better if you are trying to do BIF type shooting. But for everything else? Just...no.

Panasonics DFD CDAF is very, very, good for a whole lot of photographic work. So, a generalization that it's universally worse for everything is just...false. I have, over the years, for instance, been far more impressed by the low light CDAF behavior of the Panasonics than that of other PDAF cameras of similar generations. Has that changed over the years as some low light PDAF bodies have improved? Sure, but, again, broad generalizations are just...not accurate.

Yup, if you want to do tracking AF in reasonable light, PDAF has a definite advantage. In all other applications? It's a wash.

-J

I hadn't considered DFD and I have no experience with it. Thanks for filling in that gap. Never interested me because it is Panasonic proprietary and I have too much incompatible Olympus glass to even consider it.

Whether tracking or not, PDAF is vastly superior to CDAF for moving subjects. I also use tracking for subject locking and reframing.

If I want to use CDAF for low light, I can just switch my E-M5 III to S-AF.

I was never hugely impressed with the Oly CDAF, and the Panasonic implementation is certainly better if you have a CDAF only body. And, I have only Panasonic bodies at this point....but half and half OM and Panasonic lenses.

And, no, the glass is not "incompatible" . Yes, there are features that are available on either system that may not be on the other, but incompatible? No. "Incompatible" would be like trying to use L-mount glass on M43 bodies or vice versa. Or, if OM glass would not AF on Panasonic bodies at all....

I would posit you are actually missing out on some extremely good glass by limiting your options to OM only....But, hey, whatever floats your boat.

-J

My comment about incompatibility was in the paragraph about DFD. DFD supports only Panasonic lenses.

Nor did I say I have only OM glass. I have two frequently used Panasonic lenses.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

The E-M5 III has PDAF. The GX9 does not. No further consideration need be made if you prefer consistently well-focused photos.

Wow, that's quite a blanket statement.

Yes, if you do tracking shooting with C-AF. No if you do not.

I use S-AF for most things. I also have PDAF on my FF bodies, and yes, it is vastly better if you are trying to do BIF type shooting. But for everything else? Just...no.

Panasonics DFD CDAF is very, very, good for a whole lot of photographic work. So, a generalization that it's universally worse for everything is just...false. I have, over the years, for instance, been far more impressed by the low light CDAF behavior of the Panasonics than that of other PDAF cameras of similar generations. Has that changed over the years as some low light PDAF bodies have improved? Sure, but, again, broad generalizations are just...not accurate.

Yup, if you want to do tracking AF in reasonable light, PDAF has a definite advantage. In all other applications? It's a wash.

-J

If autofocus is the only factor, I agree this is a little bit of a blanket statement. Though beyond the fact that for non moving subjects it's pretty much the same thing, it's worth mentioning that the E-M5III has the ability to capture some action if you ever need to, while the GX9 doesn't really provide those capabilities. I guess it's a matter of versatility. What can do more can also do less. What can only do less can't do more.

However this is not the only area where the E-M5III pulls away from the GX9. There is also :

- sensor performance (dynamic range and noise, the GX9 uses the same IMX 269 as the GX8 and Pen-F which has lower DR and noise compared to the IMX 272 used in the E-M5III)

- weather sealing (I was rather surprised to see it removed after the GX8 was itself weather sealed but whatever)

- card speed (UHS-II vs UHS-I on the GX9)

- EVF quality (OLED vs TFT, higher magnification as well).

- screen articulation (matter of taste, but a fully articulated screen is more versatile as it provides articulation in both horizontal and vertical orientation, and you can close it to protect it)

- IBIS efficiency (somewhat compensated if you have a Lumix lens with OIS for Sync IS)

- I/O ports (the E-M5III has a microphone jack for video)

- burst rate (10fps shooting with full AF, 30fps with fixed focus, the GX9 caps out at 6fps no matter the shutter or AF mode used)

If AF might be a wash for non critical work, the cameras are different enough that we can differentiate them on pretty much everything else besides AF.

Only areas where the GX9 would mark points over the E-M5III is for stuff like build quality, the tilting EVF, the tilting LCD (if that's your preference) and the control structure that is somewhat easier to use. Also, of course, the Panasonic menus are tremendously easier to use compared to the old Olympus menus.

 

[jalywol]

The E-M5 III has PDAF. The GX9 does not. No further consideration need be made if you prefer consistently well-focused photos.

Wow, that's quite a blanket statement.

Yes, if you do tracking shooting with C-AF. No if you do not.

I use S-AF for most things. I also have PDAF on my FF bodies, and yes, it is vastly better if you are trying to do BIF type shooting. But for everything else? Just...no.

Panasonics DFD CDAF is very, very, good for a whole lot of photographic work. So, a generalization that it's universally worse for everything is just...false. I have, over the years, for instance, been far more impressed by the low light CDAF behavior of the Panasonics than that of other PDAF cameras of similar generations. Has that changed over the years as some low light PDAF bodies have improved? Sure, but, again, broad generalizations are just...not accurate.

Yup, if you want to do tracking AF in reasonable light, PDAF has a definite advantage. In all other applications? It's a wash.

-J

If autofocus is the only factor, I agree this is a little bit of a blanket statement. Though beyond the fact that for non moving subjects it's pretty much the same thing, it's worth mentioning that the E-M5III has the ability to capture some action if you ever need to, while the GX9 doesn't really provide those capabilities. I guess it's a matter of versatility. What can do more can also do less. What can only do less can't do more.

Geez, from the way you all are describing the GX9, you'd think it was utterly unable to focus on anything other than totally still subjects.

News flash: I shot birds with mine. It does not have a problem with capturing fast moving objects. Where PDAF is better is in C-AF and tracking.

However this is not the only area where the E-M5III pulls away from the GX9. There is also :

- sensor performance (dynamic range and noise, the GX9 uses the same IMX 269 as the GX8 and Pen-F which has lower DR and noise compared to the IMX 272 used in the E-M5III)

Oh for Pete's sake. First of all, the differences are literally splitting hairs. And, secondly, the GX8 was far worse at higher ISOs than the GX9, in terms of both noise and color retention and accuracy, so it's not just the sensor itself that makes a difference in output, but all of the other bits in the image processing pipeline in the camera (and I owned both the GX8 and GX9, so I know how both behaved, and they were not the same).

- weather sealing (I was rather surprised to see it removed after the GX8 was itself weather sealed but whatever)

Meh.

- card speed (UHS-II vs UHS-I on the GX9)

Another Meh. If you are planning to do heavy duty burst shooting or major video work? Sure. For everything else? Not a big deal.

- EVF quality (OLED vs TFT, higher magnification as well).

The EVF in the GX9 is awful. No ifs ands or buts about that one. And, it's not TFT, it's field sequential, which is worse.

- screen articulation (matter of taste, but a fully articulated screen is more versatile as it provides articulation in both horizontal and vertical orientation, and you can close it to protect it)

This is one of those personal taste things. If I had my druthers, I prefer the screen on the GX9 for walk-around shooting, but at this point, all the other cameras I have have a fully articulated one, and I honestly don't care, as long as I can see it in the daylight.

- IBIS efficiency (somewhat compensated if you have a Lumix lens with OIS for Sync IS)

The GX9 has TERRIBLE IBIS

- I/O ports (the E-M5III has a microphone jack for video)

Again, a bit of a wash here, but if you are doing video, sure.

- burst rate (10fps shooting with full AF, 30fps with fixed focus, the GX9 caps out at 6fps no matter the shutter or AF mode used)

Can't tell you much about this because I don't do burst work. But, sure, if you do, it's a great choice.

If AF might be a wash for non critical work, the cameras are different enough that we can differentiate them on pretty much everything else besides AF.

Only areas where the GX9 would mark points over the E-M5III is for stuff like build quality, the tilting EVF, the tilting LCD (if that's your preference) and the control structure that is somewhat easier to use. Also, of course, the Panasonic menus are tremendously easier to use compared to the old Olympus menus.

Honestly, you could not pay me to use an OM camera again. They do two things that bug the crud out of me (menu system, and some intrinsic NR that you cannot escape, even in RAW that's processed using the OM software), and I simply do not like their output, as a result.

The GX9, aside from its IQ, which was really good, was a great disappointment to me. To be honest, I am happier with the G100D than the GX9, for my small body. And the G95, which has a little less nice color rendition, is also a much better camera all around than the GX9 was. But, I still wouldn't get an EM5, as I know it would annoy the heck out of me, and what's the point of that?

-J

 

[Deadfisheye]

Yes

 

[MJ_Photo38]

The E-M5 III has PDAF. The GX9 does not. No further consideration need be made if you prefer consistently well-focused photos.

Wow, that's quite a blanket statement.

Yes, if you do tracking shooting with C-AF. No if you do not.

I use S-AF for most things. I also have PDAF on my FF bodies, and yes, it is vastly better if you are trying to do BIF type shooting. But for everything else? Just...no.

Panasonics DFD CDAF is very, very, good for a whole lot of photographic work. So, a generalization that it's universally worse for everything is just...false. I have, over the years, for instance, been far more impressed by the low light CDAF behavior of the Panasonics than that of other PDAF cameras of similar generations. Has that changed over the years as some low light PDAF bodies have improved? Sure, but, again, broad generalizations are just...not accurate.

Yup, if you want to do tracking AF in reasonable light, PDAF has a definite advantage. In all other applications? It's a wash.

-J

If autofocus is the only factor, I agree this is a little bit of a blanket statement. Though beyond the fact that for non moving subjects it's pretty much the same thing, it's worth mentioning that the E-M5III has the ability to capture some action if you ever need to, while the GX9 doesn't really provide those capabilities. I guess it's a matter of versatility. What can do more can also do less. What can only do less can't do more.

Geez, from the way you all are describing the GX9, you'd think it was utterly unable to focus on anything other than totally still subjects.

News flash: I shot birds with mine. It does not have a problem with capturing fast moving objects. Where PDAF is better is in C-AF and tracking.

I never said that you cannot capture anything with CDAF only. But a PDAF system is more versatile.

The CDAF system will be great at capturing a single frame of birds in the sky. The PDAF will keep them in focus for a full burst. That's the difference.

However this is not the only area where the E-M5III pulls away from the GX9. There is also :

- sensor performance (dynamic range and noise, the GX9 uses the same IMX 269 as the GX8 and Pen-F which has lower DR and noise compared to the IMX 272 used in the E-M5III)

Oh for Pete's sake. First of all, the differences are literally splitting hairs. And, secondly, the GX8 was far worse at higher ISOs than the GX9, in terms of both noise and color retention and accuracy, so it's not just the sensor itself that makes a difference in output, but all of the other bits in the image processing pipeline in the camera (and I owned both the GX8 and GX9, so I know how both behaved, and they were not the same).

Never said the sensor performance difference was big. It's not. But it's still there.

- weather sealing (I was rather surprised to see it removed after the GX8 was itself weather sealed but whatever)

Meh.

? meh what? You specifically don't want your camera to be weather resistant?

- card speed (UHS-II vs UHS-I on the GX9)

Another Meh. If you are planning to do heavy duty burst shooting or major video work? Sure. For everything else? Not a big deal.

Never said it was a big deal. It's a difference nonetheless. And it's further step towards the E-M5III being a good burst shooter while the GX9 isn't.

- EVF quality (OLED vs TFT, higher magnification as well).

The EVF in the GX9 is awful. No ifs ands or buts about that one. And, it's not TFT, it's field sequential, which is worse.

Somehow confused TFT and field sequential, thank you for the little correction

- screen articulation (matter of taste, but a fully articulated screen is more versatile as it provides articulation in both horizontal and vertical orientation, and you can close it to protect it)

This is one of those personal taste things. If I had my druthers, I prefer the screen on the GX9 for walk-around shooting, but at this point, all the other cameras I have have a fully articulated one, and I honestly don't care, as long as I can see it in the daylight.

- IBIS efficiency (somewhat compensated if you have a Lumix lens with OIS for Sync IS)

The GX9 has TERRIBLE IBIS

- I/O ports (the E-M5III has a microphone jack for video)

Again, a bit of a wash here, but if you are doing video, sure.

- burst rate (10fps shooting with full AF, 30fps with fixed focus, the GX9 caps out at 6fps no matter the shutter or AF mode used)

Can't tell you much about this because I don't do burst work. But, sure, if you do, it's a great choice.

If AF might be a wash for non critical work, the cameras are different enough that we can differentiate them on pretty much everything else besides AF.

Only areas where the GX9 would mark points over the E-M5III is for stuff like build quality, the tilting EVF, the tilting LCD (if that's your preference) and the control structure that is somewhat easier to use. Also, of course, the Panasonic menus are tremendously easier to use compared to the old Olympus menus.

Honestly, you could not pay me to use an OM camera again. They do two things that bug the crud out of me (menu system, and some intrinsic NR that you cannot escape, even in RAW that's processed using the OM software), and I simply do not like their output, as a result.

The GX9, aside from its IQ, which was really good, was a great disappointment to me. To be honest, I am happier with the G100D than the GX9, for my small body. And the G95, which has a little less nice color rendition, is also a much better camera all around than the GX9 was. But, I still wouldn't get an EM5, as I know it would annoy the heck out of me, and what's the point of that?

-J

I got to say though, as someone that took his first step in micro four thirds with an E-M5 mark II, and now use an E-M1 mark II : the menus are a little bit daunting, but they are also very complete. If you search for something in particular, chances are that it's in there, while sometimes other camera systems simply don't have the option.

There are some things that you simply can't do with the GX9 that you can with the E-M5iii, regardless of personal preferences. If one is the right tool for the job, and the other isn't, stuff like menu system is irrelevant.

 

[Promeneur]

The E-M5 III has PDAF. The GX9 does not. No further consideration need be made if you prefer consistently well-focused photos.

Wow, that's quite a blanket statement.

Yes, if you do tracking shooting with C-AF. No if you do not.

I use S-AF for most things. I also have PDAF on my FF bodies, and yes, it is vastly better if you are trying to do BIF type shooting. But for everything else? Just...no.

Panasonics DFD CDAF is very, very, good for a whole lot of photographic work. So, a generalization that it's universally worse for everything is just...false. I have, over the years, for instance, been far more impressed by the low light CDAF behavior of the Panasonics than that of other PDAF cameras of similar generations. Has that changed over the years as some low light PDAF bodies have improved? Sure, but, again, broad generalizations are just...not accurate.

Yup, if you want to do tracking AF in reasonable light, PDAF has a definite advantage. In all other applications? It's a wash.

-J

If autofocus is the only factor, I agree this is a little bit of a blanket statement. Though beyond the fact that for non moving subjects it's pretty much the same thing, it's worth mentioning that the E-M5III has the ability to capture some action if you ever need to, while the GX9 doesn't really provide those capabilities. I guess it's a matter of versatility. What can do more can also do less. What can only do less can't do more.

Geez, from the way you all are describing the GX9, you'd think it was utterly unable to focus on anything other than totally still subjects.

Perfectly fine for anything, but BIF.

News flash: I shot birds with mine. It does not have a problem with capturing fast moving objects. Where PDAF is better is in C-AF and tracking.

I've used my GX9 and my GX85 with the PL50 -200mm for sports without any problem. Used the GX85 to shoot the NYC Marathon a few years ago.

However this is not the only area where the E-M5III pulls away from the GX9. There is also :

- sensor performance (dynamic range and noise, the GX9 uses the same IMX 269 as the GX8 and Pen-F which has lower DR and noise compared to the IMX 272 used in the E-M5III)

Oh for Pete's sake. First of all, the differences are literally splitting hairs. And, secondly, the GX8 was far worse at higher ISOs than the GX9, in terms of both noise and color retention and accuracy, so it's not just the sensor itself that makes a difference in output, but all of the other bits in the image processing pipeline in the camera (and I owned both the GX8 and GX9, so I know how both behaved, and they were not the same).

- weather sealing (I was rather surprised to see it removed after the GX8 was itself weather sealed but whatever)

Meh.

I seldom need weather sealing in a urban setting, but it comes in much more handy when out in nature.

- card speed (UHS-II vs UHS-I on the GX9)

Another Meh. If you are planning to do heavy duty burst shooting or major video work? Sure. For everything else? Not a big deal.

- EVF quality (OLED vs TFT, higher magnification as well).

The EVF in the GX9 is awful. No ifs ands or buts about that one. And, it's not TFT, it's field sequential, which is worse.

Disagree here. That's only if a person is sensitive to a field sequential EVF. It was considered fine at the time of launch. After that there have been substantial improvements of course. You know, the GX9 is my go to camera for shooting with manual lenses. The EVF works perfectly fine for magnified view.

- screen articulation (matter of taste, but a fully articulated screen is more versatile as it provides articulation in both horizontal and vertical orientation, and you can close it to protect it)

This is one of those personal taste things. If I had my druthers, I prefer the screen on the GX9 for walk-around shooting, but at this point, all the other cameras I have have a fully articulated one, and I honestly don't care, as long as I can see it in the daylight.

Tilt screen makes the GX9 a great "street" camera. Also, it's plenty fast and no worries about missing a shot.

- IBIS efficiency (somewhat compensated if you have a Lumix lens with OIS for Sync IS)

The GX9 has TERRIBLE IBIS

I've no complaints about the IBIS. I don't undertand why you said that?

- I/O ports (the E-M5III has a microphone jack for video)

Again, a bit of a wash here, but if you are doing video, sure.

- burst rate (10fps shooting with full AF, 30fps with fixed focus, the GX9 caps out at 6fps no matter the shutter or AF mode used)

Can't tell you much about this because I don't do burst work. But, sure, if you do, it's a great choice.

If AF might be a wash for non critical work, the cameras are different enough that we can differentiate them on pretty much everything else besides AF.

Only areas where the GX9 would mark points over the E-M5III is for stuff like build quality, the tilting EVF, the tilting LCD (if that's your preference) and the control structure that is somewhat easier to use. Also, of course, the Panasonic menus are tremendously easier to use compared to the old Olympus menus.

Honestly, you could not pay me to use an OM camera again. They do two things that bug the crud out of me (menu system, and some intrinsic NR that you cannot escape, even in RAW that's processed using the OM software), and I simply do not like their output, as a result.

I'm traveling now and after a month am finding I probably won't use the OM-3 as a future travel camera even though I love it to death. I just want a smaller kit from now on. It will probably be the E-P7 in the future, but will also consider the GX9. One thing I do appreciate on this trip is the Creative Dial on the OM-3. I use it a lot as a quick way to control highlights, lift shadows, and play with the contrast.

The GX9, aside from its IQ, which was really good, was a great disappointment to me. To be honest, I am happier with the G100D than the GX9, for my small body. And the G95, which has a little less nice color rendition, is also a much better camera all around than the GX9 was. But, I still wouldn't get an EM5, as I know it would annoy the heck out of me, and what's the point of that?

The G95 is very nice, but I sold it to help pay for my OM-3. If I am going to carry a bit larger camera then the OM-3 is the way to go. I bought two GX9s, one for me and one for my wife.

-J

I'm M43 brand agnostic. Both, Panasonic and Olympus/OM System have unique features I enjoy and grab a camera according to what I think I will be doing for the day or on a trip.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

The E-M5 III has PDAF. The GX9 does not. No further consideration need be made if you prefer consistently well-focused photos.

Wow, that's quite a blanket statement.

Yes, if you do tracking shooting with C-AF. No if you do not.

I use S-AF for most things. I also have PDAF on my FF bodies, and yes, it is vastly better if you are trying to do BIF type shooting. But for everything else? Just...no.

Panasonics DFD CDAF is very, very, good for a whole lot of photographic work. So, a generalization that it's universally worse for everything is just...false. I have, over the years, for instance, been far more impressed by the low light CDAF behavior of the Panasonics than that of other PDAF cameras of similar generations. Has that changed over the years as some low light PDAF bodies have improved? Sure, but, again, broad generalizations are just...not accurate.

Yup, if you want to do tracking AF in reasonable light, PDAF has a definite advantage. In all other applications? It's a wash.

-J

If autofocus is the only factor, I agree this is a little bit of a blanket statement. Though beyond the fact that for non moving subjects it's pretty much the same thing, it's worth mentioning that the E-M5III has the ability to capture some action if you ever need to, while the GX9 doesn't really provide those capabilities. I guess it's a matter of versatility. What can do more can also do less. What can only do less can't do more.

Geez, from the way you all are describing the GX9, you'd think it was utterly unable to focus on anything other than totally still subjects.

Perfectly fine for anything, but BIF.

News flash: I shot birds with mine. It does not have a problem with capturing fast moving objects. Where PDAF is better is in C-AF and tracking.

I've used my GX9 and my GX85 with the PL50 -200mm for sports without any problem. Used the GX85 to shoot the NYC Marathon a few years ago.

However this is not the only area where the E-M5III pulls away from the GX9. There is also :

- sensor performance (dynamic range and noise, the GX9 uses the same IMX 269 as the GX8 and Pen-F which has lower DR and noise compared to the IMX 272 used in the E-M5III)

Oh for Pete's sake. First of all, the differences are literally splitting hairs. And, secondly, the GX8 was far worse at higher ISOs than the GX9, in terms of both noise and color retention and accuracy, so it's not just the sensor itself that makes a difference in output, but all of the other bits in the image processing pipeline in the camera (and I owned both the GX8 and GX9, so I know how both behaved, and they were not the same).

- weather sealing (I was rather surprised to see it removed after the GX8 was itself weather sealed but whatever)

Meh.

I seldom need weather sealing in a urban setting, but it comes in much more handy when out in nature.

- card speed (UHS-II vs UHS-I on the GX9)

Another Meh. If you are planning to do heavy duty burst shooting or major video work? Sure. For everything else? Not a big deal.

- EVF quality (OLED vs TFT, higher magnification as well).

The EVF in the GX9 is awful. No ifs ands or buts about that one. And, it's not TFT, it's field sequential, which is worse.

Disagree here. That's only if a person is sensitive to a field sequential EVF. It was considered fine at the time of launch. After that there have been substantial improvements of course. You know, the GX9 is my go to camera for shooting with manual lenses. The EVF works perfectly fine for magnified view.

I guess the biggest issue I have with the GX9's EVF is how good the GX8's was.

- screen articulation (matter of taste, but a fully articulated screen is more versatile as it provides articulation in both horizontal and vertical orientation, and you can close it to protect it)

This is one of those personal taste things. If I had my druthers, I prefer the screen on the GX9 for walk-around shooting, but at this point, all the other cameras I have have a fully articulated one, and I honestly don't care, as long as I can see it in the daylight.

Tilt screen makes the GX9 a great "street" camera. Also, it's plenty fast and no worries about missing a shot.

- IBIS efficiency (somewhat compensated if you have a Lumix lens with OIS for Sync IS)

The GX9 has TERRIBLE IBIS

I've no complaints about the IBIS. I don't undertand why you said that?

- I/O ports (the E-M5III has a microphone jack for video)

Again, a bit of a wash here, but if you are doing video, sure.

- burst rate (10fps shooting with full AF, 30fps with fixed focus, the GX9 caps out at 6fps no matter the shutter or AF mode used)

Can't tell you much about this because I don't do burst work. But, sure, if you do, it's a great choice.

If AF might be a wash for non critical work, the cameras are different enough that we can differentiate them on pretty much everything else besides AF.

Only areas where the GX9 would mark points over the E-M5III is for stuff like build quality, the tilting EVF, the tilting LCD (if that's your preference) and the control structure that is somewhat easier to use. Also, of course, the Panasonic menus are tremendously easier to use compared to the old Olympus menus.

Honestly, you could not pay me to use an OM camera again. They do two things that bug the crud out of me (menu system, and some intrinsic NR that you cannot escape, even in RAW that's processed using the OM software), and I simply do not like their output, as a result.

I'm traveling now and after a month am finding I probably won't use the OM-3 as a future travel camera even though I love it to death. I just want a smaller kit from now on. It will probably be the E-P7 in the future, but will also consider the GX9. One thing I do appreciate on this trip is the Creative Dial on the OM-3. I use it a lot as a quick way to control highlights, lift shadows, and play with the contrast.

The GX9, aside from its IQ, which was really good, was a great disappointment to me. To be honest, I am happier with the G100D than the GX9, for my small body. And the G95, which has a little less nice color rendition, is also a much better camera all around than the GX9 was. But, I still wouldn't get an EM5, as I know it would annoy the heck out of me, and what's the point of that?

The G95 is very nice, but I sold it to help pay for my OM-3. If I am going to carry a bit larger camera then the OM-3 is the way to go. I bought two GX9s, one for me and one for my wife.

-J

I'm M43 brand agnostic. Both, Panasonic and Olympus/OM System have unique features I enjoy and grab a camera according to what I think I will be doing for the day or on a trip.

 

[Promeneur]

The E-M5 III has PDAF. The GX9 does not. No further consideration need be made if you prefer consistently well-focused photos.

Wow, that's quite a blanket statement.

Yes, if you do tracking shooting with C-AF. No if you do not.

I use S-AF for most things. I also have PDAF on my FF bodies, and yes, it is vastly better if you are trying to do BIF type shooting. But for everything else? Just...no.

Panasonics DFD CDAF is very, very, good for a whole lot of photographic work. So, a generalization that it's universally worse for everything is just...false. I have, over the years, for instance, been far more impressed by the low light CDAF behavior of the Panasonics than that of other PDAF cameras of similar generations. Has that changed over the years as some low light PDAF bodies have improved? Sure, but, again, broad generalizations are just...not accurate.

Yup, if you want to do tracking AF in reasonable light, PDAF has a definite advantage. In all other applications? It's a wash.

-J

If autofocus is the only factor, I agree this is a little bit of a blanket statement. Though beyond the fact that for non moving subjects it's pretty much the same thing, it's worth mentioning that the E-M5III has the ability to capture some action if you ever need to, while the GX9 doesn't really provide those capabilities. I guess it's a matter of versatility. What can do more can also do less. What can only do less can't do more.

Geez, from the way you all are describing the GX9, you'd think it was utterly unable to focus on anything other than totally still subjects.

Perfectly fine for anything, but BIF.

News flash: I shot birds with mine. It does not have a problem with capturing fast moving objects. Where PDAF is better is in C-AF and tracking.

I've used my GX9 and my GX85 with the PL50 -200mm for sports without any problem. Used the GX85 to shoot the NYC Marathon a few years ago.

However this is not the only area where the E-M5III pulls away from the GX9. There is also :

- sensor performance (dynamic range and noise, the GX9 uses the same IMX 269 as the GX8 and Pen-F which has lower DR and noise compared to the IMX 272 used in the E-M5III)

Oh for Pete's sake. First of all, the differences are literally splitting hairs. And, secondly, the GX8 was far worse at higher ISOs than the GX9, in terms of both noise and color retention and accuracy, so it's not just the sensor itself that makes a difference in output, but all of the other bits in the image processing pipeline in the camera (and I owned both the GX8 and GX9, so I know how both behaved, and they were not the same).

- weather sealing (I was rather surprised to see it removed after the GX8 was itself weather sealed but whatever)

Meh.

I seldom need weather sealing in a urban setting, but it comes in much more handy when out in nature.

- card speed (UHS-II vs UHS-I on the GX9)

Another Meh. If you are planning to do heavy duty burst shooting or major video work? Sure. For everything else? Not a big deal.

- EVF quality (OLED vs TFT, higher magnification as well).

The EVF in the GX9 is awful. No ifs ands or buts about that one. And, it's not TFT, it's field sequential, which is worse.

Disagree here. That's only if a person is sensitive to a field sequential EVF. It was considered fine at the time of launch. After that there have been substantial improvements of course. You know, the GX9 is my go to camera for shooting with manual lenses. The EVF works perfectly fine for magnified view.

I guess the biggest issue I have with the GX9's EVF is how good the GX8's was.

I totally understand the complaints people have and for good reason people will reject this camera if it doesn't work for them. More recently, on this tech forum people also complained about the EVF on the OM-3 when it came out. That was a bit too much for me, though.

- screen articulation (matter of taste, but a fully articulated screen is more versatile as it provides articulation in both horizontal and vertical orientation, and you can close it to protect it)

This is one of those personal taste things. If I had my druthers, I prefer the screen on the GX9 for walk-around shooting, but at this point, all the other cameras I have have a fully articulated one, and I honestly don't care, as long as I can see it in the daylight.

Tilt screen makes the GX9 a great "street" camera. Also, it's plenty fast and no worries about missing a shot.

- IBIS efficiency (somewhat compensated if you have a Lumix lens with OIS for Sync IS)

The GX9 has TERRIBLE IBIS

I've no complaints about the IBIS. I don't undertand why you said that?

- I/O ports (the E-M5III has a microphone jack for video)

Again, a bit of a wash here, but if you are doing video, sure.

- burst rate (10fps shooting with full AF, 30fps with fixed focus, the GX9 caps out at 6fps no matter the shutter or AF mode used)

Can't tell you much about this because I don't do burst work. But, sure, if you do, it's a great choice.

If AF might be a wash for non critical work, the cameras are different enough that we can differentiate them on pretty much everything else besides AF.

Only areas where the GX9 would mark points over the E-M5III is for stuff like build quality, the tilting EVF, the tilting LCD (if that's your preference) and the control structure that is somewhat easier to use. Also, of course, the Panasonic menus are tremendously easier to use compared to the old Olympus menus.

Honestly, you could not pay me to use an OM camera again. They do two things that bug the crud out of me (menu system, and some intrinsic NR that you cannot escape, even in RAW that's processed using the OM software), and I simply do not like their output, as a result.

I'm traveling now and after a month am finding I probably won't use the OM-3 as a future travel camera even though I love it to death. I just want a smaller kit from now on. It will probably be the E-P7 in the future, but will also consider the GX9. One thing I do appreciate on this trip is the Creative Dial on the OM-3. I use it a lot as a quick way to control highlights, lift shadows, and play with the contrast.

The GX9, aside from its IQ, which was really good, was a great disappointment to me. To be honest, I am happier with the G100D than the GX9, for my small body. And the G95, which has a little less nice color rendition, is also a much better camera all around than the GX9 was. But, I still wouldn't get an EM5, as I know it would annoy the heck out of me, and what's the point of that?

The G95 is very nice, but I sold it to help pay for my OM-3. If I am going to carry a bit larger camera then the OM-3 is the way to go. I bought two GX9s, one for me and one for my wife.

-J

I'm M43 brand agnostic. Both, Panasonic and Olympus/OM System have unique features I enjoy and grab a camera according to what I think I will be doing for the day or on a trip.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

I guess the biggest issue I have with the GX9's EVF is how good the GX8's was.

I totally understand the complaints people have and for good reason people will reject this camera if it doesn't work for them. More recently, on this tech forum people also complained about the EVF on the OM-3 when it came out. That was a bit too much for me, though.

I think the complaints about the OM-3's EVF were warranted for the most part. While the EVF is fine, and not a usability problem in the grand scheme of things, it's also a small, relatively lower resolution EVF that was already in use back in the E-M5III days.

This is not the kind of EVF you expect to see on $2000 MFT camera.

 

[jeffharris]

in my opinion, the E-M5III is a better camera.

Same sensor, but PDAF, better IBIS, better grip, weather sealed, screen you can close and use for vertical articulation, better EVF, microphone port + Log video if you want to venture a littel bit into moving frames.

Only thing why the GX9 is "better" is the squared-off form factor that's easier to get in and out of a bag, and if you prefer the corner viewfinder instead of SLR style placement.

Other than that, I don't think there is much to debate about here, the E-M5III is very well rounded body while the GX9 lacks some stuff.

Both are great cameras.

Not the same sensor

Close enough.

 

[Carol T]

My take is that we just need a GX10. I love my GX9, but yeah, so much is outdated on it. We will never see one though. And the G100D is pretty much the opposite of what I want from a camera.

 

[Trolleyman]

My take is that we just need a GX10. I love my GX9, but yeah, so much is outdated on it. We will never see one though. And the G100D is pretty much the opposite of what I want from a camera.

Exactly my feelings too. Gave up waiting in the end and bought a used E-M5 iii

 

[Bassam Guy]

The E-M5 III has PDAF. The GX9 does not. No further consideration need be made if you prefer consistently well-focused photos.

Wow, that's quite a blanket statement.

Yes, if you do tracking shooting with C-AF. No if you do not.

I use S-AF for most things. I also have PDAF on my FF bodies, and yes, it is vastly better if you are trying to do BIF type shooting. But for everything else? Just...no.

Panasonics DFD CDAF is very, very, good for a whole lot of photographic work. So, a generalization that it's universally worse for everything is just...false. I have, over the years, for instance, been far more impressed by the low light CDAF behavior of the Panasonics than that of other PDAF cameras of similar generations. Has that changed over the years as some low light PDAF bodies have improved? Sure, but, again, broad generalizations are just...not accurate.

Yup, if you want to do tracking AF in reasonable light, PDAF has a definite advantage. In all other applications? It's a wash.

-J

If autofocus is the only factor, I agree this is a little bit of a blanket statement. Though beyond the fact that for non moving subjects it's pretty much the same thing, it's worth mentioning that the E-M5III has the ability to capture some action if you ever need to, while the GX9 doesn't really provide those capabilities. I guess it's a matter of versatility. What can do more can also do less. What can only do less can't do more.

However this is not the only area where the E-M5III pulls away from the GX9. There is also :

- sensor performance (dynamic range and noise, the GX9 uses the same IMX 269 as the GX8 and Pen-F which has lower DR and noise compared to the IMX 272 used in the E-M5III)

- weather sealing (I was rather surprised to see it removed after the GX8 was itself weather sealed but whatever)

- card speed (UHS-II vs UHS-I on the GX9)

- EVF quality (OLED vs TFT, higher magnification as well).

- screen articulation (matter of taste, but a fully articulated screen is more versatile as it provides articulation in both horizontal and vertical orientation, and you can close it to protect it)

- IBIS efficiency (somewhat compensated if you have a Lumix lens with OIS for Sync IS)

- I/O ports (the E-M5III has a microphone jack for video)

- burst rate (10fps shooting with full AF, 30fps with fixed focus, the GX9 caps out at 6fps no matter the shutter or AF mode used)

If AF might be a wash for non critical work, the cameras are different enough that we can differentiate them on pretty much everything else besides AF.

Only areas where the GX9 would mark points over the E-M5III is for stuff like build quality, the tilting EVF, the tilting LCD (if that's your preference) and the control structure that is somewhat easier to use. Also, of course, the Panasonic menus are tremendously easier to use compared to the old Olympus menus.

I was quite content with CDAF only but after getting PDAF, I found I needed to take far fewer and shorter bursts (1/3 - 1/5) to "guarantee" that at least one be sharply focused. Culling effort is vastly reduced. There is nothing that CDAF can do that CDAF + PDAF cannot.

(Again, I have no experience with DFD, although, being proprietary, its usefulness is limited.)

So, yes, I made a blanket statement but moving from CDAF to CDAF+PDAF was a "blanket" improvement except for extremely low light and tripod + still subject (absolutely no movement).

 

[Bassam Guy]

The E-M5 III has PDAF. The GX9 does not. No further consideration need be made if you prefer consistently well-focused photos.

Wow, that's quite a blanket statement.

Yes, if you do tracking shooting with C-AF. No if you do not.

I use S-AF for most things. I also have PDAF on my FF bodies, and yes, it is vastly better if you are trying to do BIF type shooting. But for everything else? Just...no.

Panasonics DFD CDAF is very, very, good for a whole lot of photographic work. So, a generalization that it's universally worse for everything is just...false. I have, over the years, for instance, been far more impressed by the low light CDAF behavior of the Panasonics than that of other PDAF cameras of similar generations. Has that changed over the years as some low light PDAF bodies have improved? Sure, but, again, broad generalizations are just...not accurate.

Yup, if you want to do tracking AF in reasonable light, PDAF has a definite advantage. In all other applications? It's a wash.

-J

If autofocus is the only factor, I agree this is a little bit of a blanket statement. Though beyond the fact that for non moving subjects it's pretty much the same thing, it's worth mentioning that the E-M5III has the ability to capture some action if you ever need to, while the GX9 doesn't really provide those capabilities. I guess it's a matter of versatility. What can do more can also do less. What can only do less can't do more.

Geez, from the way you all are describing the GX9, you'd think it was utterly unable to focus on anything other than totally still subjects.

News flash: I shot birds with mine. It does not have a problem with capturing fast moving objects. Where PDAF is better is in C-AF and tracking.

However this is not the only area where the E-M5III pulls away from the GX9. There is also :

- sensor performance (dynamic range and noise, the GX9 uses the same IMX 269 as the GX8 and Pen-F which has lower DR and noise compared to the IMX 272 used in the E-M5III)

Oh for Pete's sake. First of all, the differences are literally splitting hairs. And, secondly, the GX8 was far worse at higher ISOs than the GX9, in terms of both noise and color retention and accuracy, so it's not just the sensor itself that makes a difference in output, but all of the other bits in the image processing pipeline in the camera (and I owned both the GX8 and GX9, so I know how both behaved, and they were not the same).

- weather sealing (I was rather surprised to see it removed after the GX8 was itself weather sealed but whatever)

Meh.

- card speed (UHS-II vs UHS-I on the GX9)

Another Meh. If you are planning to do heavy duty burst shooting or major video work? Sure. For everything else? Not a big deal.

Meh. Meh. Meh. I think the speed thing needs some reassessment. Even at their slowest burst rates, my E-M1 III gives me far too many photos to sift through at the end of a day shooting events. But you gave me a great idea: use a slow UHS-I card in slot 1.

- EVF quality (OLED vs TFT, higher magnification as well).

The EVF in the GX9 is awful. No ifs ands or buts about that one. And, it's not TFT, it's field sequential, which is worse.

- screen articulation (matter of taste, but a fully articulated screen is more versatile as it provides articulation in both horizontal and vertical orientation, and you can close it to protect it)

This is one of those personal taste things. If I had my druthers, I prefer the screen on the GX9 for walk-around shooting, but at this point, all the other cameras I have have a fully articulated one, and I honestly don't care, as long as I can see it in the daylight.

- IBIS efficiency (somewhat compensated if you have a Lumix lens with OIS for Sync IS)

The GX9 has TERRIBLE IBIS

- I/O ports (the E-M5III has a microphone jack for video)

Again, a bit of a wash here, but if you are doing video, sure.

- burst rate (10fps shooting with full AF, 30fps with fixed focus, the GX9 caps out at 6fps no matter the shutter or AF mode used)

Can't tell you much about this because I don't do burst work. But, sure, if you do, it's a great choice.

If AF might be a wash for non critical work, the cameras are different enough that we can differentiate them on pretty much everything else besides AF.

Only areas where the GX9 would mark points over the E-M5III is for stuff like build quality, the tilting EVF, the tilting LCD (if that's your preference) and the control structure that is somewhat easier to use. Also, of course, the Panasonic menus are tremendously easier to use compared to the old Olympus menus.

Honestly, you could not pay me to use an OM camera again. They do two things that bug the crud out of me (menu system, and some intrinsic NR that you cannot escape, even in RAW that's processed using the OM software), and I simply do not like their output, as a result.

I haven't seen the OM-1 style menus yet but from what I can tell, they're a marginal cosmetic improvement - a mocking final curse from the Gods of Mt. Olympus before selling themselves for the lowest bid. The E-M5 III, however, is the same old s#!t. Go to menu item A3 to enable something, go to menu item G1 to adjust one aspect of that feature, then to menu item D2 to adjust another - but that is somehow disabled, ad infinitum...

The GX9, aside from its IQ, which was really good, was a great disappointment to me. To be honest, I am happier with the G100D than the GX9, for my small body. And the G95, which has a little less nice color rendition, is also a much better camera all around than the GX9 was. But, I still wouldn't get an EM5, as I know it would annoy the heck out of me, and what's the point of that?

-J

Does the GX9, or any Panasonic, have Live Composite? I don't use it a lot but what it does is indispensable to me. To a lesser extent, same question for Live Time/Bulb?

 

[gaisma]

I guess I'm a bit luckier than you, I don't need a camera's bells and whistles to organise and tell me how to take photos with all the gadget software add ons .

One could give me any camera and I'll get a great shot out of it

 

[Bassam Guy]

I guess I'm a bit luckier than you, I don't need a camera's bells and whistles to organise and tell me how to take photos with all the gadget software add ons .

One could give me any camera and I'll get a great shot out of it

If you really believe what you stated then you do not understand Live Composite. What it does cannot be recreated with any amount of luck.

"Micro Four Nerds" Emily says "If you're new to Live Composite then get ready to have your mind blown" and then demonstrates it here:

Maybe you'd prefer using Live Composite for lightning, one of my favorites, as demonstrated by Robin Wong:

If you still think what it does is simply "bells and whistles" or "gadget software" then watch at 0.5X or watch others on the same topic.

 

[gaisma]

Quite aware of live. composite and all the bells and whistles of high end camera etc I run a university's creative arts photographic program that is also affiliated with their science faculty..

There is a lot more to photography than internet camera specs and reviewers

 

[Bassam Guy]

Quite aware of live. composite and all the bells and whistles of high end camera etc I run a university's creative arts photographic program that is also affiliated with their science faculty..

I doubt it because if you did understand Live Composite, you wouldn't have made your "I guess I'm a bit luckier..." comment that betrays a misunderstanding of it. Okay with me, though. Just trying to provide friendly advice about a great creative tool.

There is a lot more to photography than internet camera specs and reviewers

Profound and insightful.