Image quality Pana G3 compared to Canon 5D

<p>It may be an odd question for some of you, but for obvious reasons (comparing apples and oranges) I didn't find anything on the net.<br>

My situation is as follows: I just updated from an Oly E-PL1 to a Pana G3 and I must say, like the G3 very much. Right now I have the 14-45 Panazoom and the 1.7/20 from Pana, but I'm thinking about replacing it with or adding the 1.4/25. I'm so much used to the classical 50ies-look that I don't want to miss it. In germany the price for the 25mm Pana is about 500 Euro, a bit more than I would pay for a used Canon 5D Mark I. This is my budget. I could adapt my Zuiko 1.4/50 ( and some other Zuikos) to the Canon for those shots that require a 50mm lens. I would certainly use the G3 for most occasions, esp. travelling.<br>

Can anyone of you compare the IQ of the two cameras? High ISO is not of importance. I hardly ever go higher than ISO400.</p>

<p>That really is comparing apples and oranges. Since I don't know if you meant the original 5D or the current model, the 5D III, I set up a comparison of the Panasonic with the two Canons on DXOMark <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/795|0/%28brand%29/Canon/%28appareil2%29/701|0/%28brand2%29/Panasonic/%28appareil3%29/176|0/%28brand3%29/Canon"><strong>here</strong></a>, which may tell you something about the different sensors. If you like, you can compare other sensors using the same tool.</p>

<p>LensRental did a comparison of m4/3 with a Canon 5Diii. They weren't as far different as you might expect:<br>

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/06/a-weekend-with-the-panasonic-12-35-f2-8</p>

 

<p>It is not only apples and oranges, it does not lay out any basis for comparison. Image quality at low ISOs will not be a significant factor if you like the IQ of the G3. I would say go for the high quality lens and commit yourself to the lightweight format. The lens will last you for as long as you need. IQ has gotten to be a "wash" factor lately. Meaning the latest micro four thirds cameras deliver the goods. On the other hand there is nothing wrong with the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 lens either in my experience with your lens, so it is a little short but we like to crop in sometimes.<br /> We as well <em>grew up</em> on the 50mm look, because that was the kit lens that we all owned first, but we can I argue <em>get fond</em> of the 40m look as well if you give it a chance.<br /> No shots I can think of, I would argue, <em>require</em> as you say a 50mm field of view over a 40mm field of view. arguable naturally, that is a matter of taste and eyeball preference and maybe personal history.<br /> Think of this: One of the best selling and also costly Leitz lens sizes was its 35mm Summar--- something as an all around all purpose lens ... the AF film Hexar I got came with that particular focal length a chosen standard FL for day to day walk around shooting.<br /> But hey, got to say, all the reviews of the 25mm Panasonic quality of images yield that it is pretty first rate and they say it is well worth the cash. Meaning simply this- You got good taste, Stefan,-- a lens to keep for a long time, and the lens will always win in my eyes, and i would go for the 25 panaleica lens and yes, I say forget the alternative Canon business...personal opinion of course what else.<br>

Sounds like you may be wanting a short to medium telephoto to round out your kit. Just noticing. </p>

<p>I did a quick and dirty comparison of my OMD and Nikon D300, particularly with respect to high ISO. The Olympus won easily. At ISO 3200 it was as good if not better than the D300 at ISO 1600. But the striking thing was the level of detail retained - the OMD walked all over the D300 at all ISO settings (D300 with Tamron 90mm macro @ f8, tripod, RAW high ISO NR off; OMD 45mm f1.8 @ f5.6 IS off, NR off; processed in DxO Pro 8 with relevant lens plugins). So I'd agree - stick with the small form factor!</p>

<p>Thanks for your responses. Actually that was what I wanted to hear. I was just curious if the Canon (actually I could only afford the first 5D), being a FF camera, could probably produce better photos when it comes to large scale photos. So I guess I'll go for the PanaLeica 25mm.<br>

The Oly 45mm is tempting, but I use 50mm Rokkor or Zuiko primes in this length and have to admit I only use them seldom.</p>

<p>The D300 is not a 5D! It is an APS-C camera and therefore the sensor is not much bigger than the M4/3 OMD sensor. The 5D sensor is more than double the size of an APS-C sensor and dwarfs the size of the OMD sensor.<br>

I have a 5D classic and an OMD with both high quality Canon and M4/3 lenses. The OMD images are superior at high ISO and modest print size. However, if I were wanting to print large (13x19 or bigger) at low ISO I would far prefer the 5D. <br>

The 5D is less demanding on lenses as the amount of enlargement of the image for a given print size is much less. This shows in large prints.<br>

The 5D is very clean at ISO 800 unless you need to pull details out of shadows. At 1600 is is still acceptable. I regard ISO 3200 on the OMD about the same as 1600 on the 5D except there is still more room with the OMD to pull details out of shadows.</p>

<p>The D300 is not a 5D! It is an APS-C camera and therefore the sensor is not much bigger than the M4/3 OMD sensor. The 5D sensor is more than double the size of an APS-C sensor and dwarfs the size of the OMD sensor.<br>

I have a 5D classic and an OMD with both high quality Canon and M4/3 lenses. The OMD images are superior at high ISO and modest print size. However, if I were wanting to print large (13x19 or bigger) at low ISO I would far prefer the 5D. <br>

The 5D is less demanding on lenses as the amount of enlargement of the image for a given print size is much less. This shows in large prints.<br>

The 5D is very clean at ISO 800 unless you need to pull details out of shadows. At 1600 is is still acceptable. I regard ISO 3200 on the OMD about the same as 1600 on the 5D except there is still more room with the OMD to pull details out of shadows.</p>

<p>Why limit yourself to the 5D as a choice? The 5D mark one was THE camera to have (for anyone outside sports) about 6 or 7 years ago. It has been surpassed in terms of image quality by many many cameras, even in the APS-C sensor range. If IQ is what you are after there are many more options to consider within the same price bracket.</p>

<p>My impression was, that I wouldn't have any advantage with an aps-c camera over my Panasonic G 3. I like the compactness and the high quality of mFT. For most occasions it servs all my needs. Another thought was to use my Zuiko 1.4/50 on the 5D, which is an excellent lens. But as I wrote before, I'm leaning towards the 25mm lens instead of another body.</p>

<p>The sensor on my D5100 is undoubtedly superior to that of my GX1- everything else is inferior. Below is the D5100 compared to the 5D. I vastly prefer using my GX1. Now that I have the least-well regarded prime for the GX1 (14mm f/2.5) I am eager to buy and get to know the 20/1.7 and am realizing I have not even begun to push my sensor. Put it this way, there has never been a time when I've regretted having to use the GX1. But there have been many shots lost with the D5100 due to backfocussing and it is just not so nice to handle. It also really gets in the way of street work.<br>

<a href="http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_5D-vs-Nikon-D5100">http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_5D-vs-Nikon-D5100</a></p>

<p>It is obvious things have moved on a lot since the 5D was released. Getting a good lens should make up the difference.</p>

<p>I have a Panasonic G3, and I don't like the EVF at all. Makes my Olympus E-410's kind of small optical viewfinder seem like a luxury item in comparison.<br>

<br />Is the OM-D's EVF much different from the G3's EVF?</p>

<p>I don't have a VF for my GX1 and in fact find no need to look at the LCD screen while taking the majority of my shots, but I tend to concentrate on SP. There is an issue in bright sunlight, I admit, if taking shots which require careful composition, but I've done ok so far. Looking at the camera is just so passé! :-) </p>

<p>The OM-D EVF is excellent. A great feature is realtime shadow & highlight information before shooting. The saturation and refresh times are better than the G3. As a result of my OM-D tests, the D300 and my remaining Nikon gear are about to go on the auction site.</p>

My 5 DII is in a different league for IQ than my Panasonic G1. Even at low ISO there is no comparison. I cannot

comment on the G3 or 5D as I have never owned that but I will say that my Leica M8 (APS-H 10 MP) is much better than

my G1