Help me choose between GH5, X-T2, E-M1 mkii and lenses. Need information about colours!


TPF Noob!
May 28, 2017
Reaction score
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I am looking to buy a new camera, and I need help in choosing between Panasonic GH5, Olympus EM1 mkii (or EM5 mkii), and Fuji XT2 (or Xpro2). I have never owned any SLR cameras or any real pro level photo gear before. This is going to be my first high budget camera purchase. My noteworthy old cameras are Sony K810i phone, Sony DSC H50 point and shoot, Lumia 720, Lumia 920, and my current oneplus 3. But I know quite a bit in photography and with my mobiles, I generally prefer to use things in manual shutter speed (since lumia 720) and recently started using manual white balance on my oneplus 3 as well. And since they are phones with small sensors I try my best to keep iso at 100. I have fairly steady hands and can manage 4 second exposures on my lumia 920 and oneplus 3 handheld (both of them have image stabilization of some sort).

Now I'm looking to explore more into photography with some fairly sophisticated equipments. Over the past 6 months I have read and seen hundreds of reviews, articles and videos from sites like stevehuffphoto, photographyblog, david thorpe, etc and countless sample photos at flickr and other places. I have even learnt a bit of the engineering behind cameras and their optics and what are the compromises for each engineering decisions. Learnt about vignetting, fringing, their corrections, demosaicing, moire, even into MTF graphs and all those stuff. Know what makes a cine lens, what makes a macro lens. Also about the autofocus technologies and types. I kind of know what reviews to take seriously and what to take with a grain of salt. But the only thing is, I have never personally used any of these. I had been doing a similar thing with headphones last year. I research and learn about things for atleast 6 months before I purchase my products. Then I narrow down my feasible choices and ask for advice from others.

The reason why I mentioned these is that, I am an amateur photographer, and dont exactly know how each camera's result actually is, but I kind of know what things are like, what compromises are there in each and what I want. I am kind of PICKY ABOUT COLOURS and ergonomics. I kind of have a feel of how things would function. I know stuff about ISO, shutter speed, white balance (and also about aperture, though I never had an equipment where I could control it). My dream setup is a leica M10 with 28mm summilux, 50mm nocticron and 90mm summicron for photography and something else like A7S II for videography. Recently my dreams have shifted to the Fuji GFX50s and 32-64m f4+,110mm f2 lens. Dreams are nice lol, I wish they never come true so that I can save some money. Coming back to reality, I'm currently, and possibly for a long time to come, looking at GH5, EM1 mkii, or XT2 for my first good camera setup. I would love a camera that gives me lot of control over how I want it to shoot, but I also need the camera to capture good texture and colours. Or I should be able to extract from it in post.

Photography and videography are ART forms and art is subjective. There is no right or wrong, only preferences. I'll describe what I am planning to shoot, what I like and what I dislike so that I'll be able to find the tool that suits my needs.
I am going to shoot places, streets, people (some portraits in events, but mostly random people), dance and some small action. My preference is 65% photography and 35% videography. I would be willing to compromise on videography if photographic quality advantage of a camera are much higher but with compromise in video. I MIGHT be doing some short films and, small 5-10 minute videos like travelogues. I'll be recording dance sequences quite often as well. I am only looking to feed my creativity and not going to do any sort of paid professional work. I am NOT going to shoot marriages or such events, at best I'll shoot a few people at that time. So autofocus is not a major issue for me. Same is the case for extremely fast bursts. 5fps is plenty enough for anything that I might shoot and all three cameras well exceed that. And I mostly don't use flash anymore. I dont do vlogging, so I dont need continuous autofocus in video. Heck, I prefer to focus manually even on my phone. But programmed focus pulls in GH5 is something that I might quite use a lot. I'm mostly going to be shooting handheld (not really a gimbal or tripod guy), so image stabilization is welcome, but I can manage without it as well.
I am not very excited about one single parameter of an image. I like bokeh, but it is not the only thing that i'd be looking for. I love sharpness, but once again it is not the only thing I'd be looking for. If there is one thing I am freakish about, it is texture - the colour quality and how subtle colour transitions in skin, etc are captured. Texture is not just about colour, texture is a parameter that can be associated with black and white images as well. Texture conveys emotion. I love anything that conveys emotion. Being able to feel things as natural. I hate gaudy colours, the ones in which images look overly flashy (like as if a flash was fired up on them) and waxy texture. I want images to have colours that move from the subtlest of blues, greens, reds, pinks, browns to the deepest of them and not a single blob of thick colour splashed all over, especially in lips and clothes.

If that was very vauge, let me explain where you can spot that TEXTURE. It is visible in a lot of things. For photos of buildings and walls, they shouldn't look like someone used windows paint program and pushed some random colour onto a square block. There are subtle imperfections, and subtle colour changes. For a yellow wall, it is not always a constant yellow, it moves from very light yellow to light yellow back to very light yellow. And also the shadows which fall on certain places giving a slightly darker look there. I want my camera to capture and express these properly. Another place you can see this is in clothes. How well the camera captures subtle colour changes across the clothes, the wrinkles, etc and capturing the 3 dimensionality of it and make it feel lifelike. One more area is in hair. Being able to capture individual hair is resolution. But being able to capture the colour transitions from face to hair, the reflections bouncing off of it, etc are the ones that make an image feel pleasant. One of the standard tests for this is taking photos of flowers. Flowers have a lot of subtle transitions in their colours and texture that can test a camera. Cameras especially struggle with red tones, resulting in thick red all over making it unnatural. And there are patterns of rainbow like colours arranged manually or on kites/chairs,etc that can also be used to test it.

The other thing I really really want is a nice smooth transition from foreground to background. I dont want my photos to look like 3 or 4 planes of images layered together, in the name of 3d look. Instead I want layers to blend smoothly (and somewhat softly). Good colour texture also helps in a smooth transition from foreground to background. And being able to capture all sort of subtle reflections and colour changes at the edges off face/hair and the reflections off glasses and liquids that contribute to the 3 dimensional feeling. And I hate oversharpened images that remove all sort of 3 dimensionality from the image. Quite often I have seen awesome images spoiled by disturbances in the background caused by bad colour rendition in those places. Such a thing distracts our eyes from the subject. I would be happy to give up resolution and sharpness for texture and colour.
There are two types of colours I like. My SECOND preference is a cinematic, film/painting like look - the somewhat low contrast, slightly soft, matte look but colorful and retaining the texture and emotion. My gripe with this look is that it doesn't look lively enough. Still i find it more pleasing than and oversaturated, overcontrasty gaudy look, so I'll be happy with this. I adore film like filters, but not my first priority. My FIRST preference is the right amount of pop and glossy look, but it shouldn't go overbearing, in which case it will become my worst preferred look. I know this type of colour is not accurate, but for me the perfect balance of being close to the actual scene but also having a mild flavourish vibe and looking more modern and dynamic. Leicas, Canons and Fujis achieve this awesome balance of pop and contrast without going too far and overbearing. In both cases, what I want is a very colourful picture that doesn't look gaudy. I am not a fan of the national geographic like look with contrasty browns and greens, but I dont hate them either - in some cases they work and I like the look, but it is my least preferred tone on most cases.

I really really love images from film cameras, especially the medium format ones. The Mamiya 7 (or 7 II), Fuji GF670, Leica M3 and Plaubel Makina 670. I really love the Makina and Fuji for their foldable form factor, but Fuji has been jacking up GF670 prices lately, and I think it was quite a bit overpriced to begin with. Makina is more expensive, but has a wider aperture lens. Below are some awesome film images showing their texture retaining capability. You can easily see it in the walls, the patterns, the shadows and the reflections and how they are able to capture all those details with a natural appeal.

Good bye snow plow
Within Without
BALI, Nusa Pendia
Ektar 100
Ektar 100

Some awesome images of people

Ridge way
ektar 100
ektar 100

Some black and white images

Ema left hanging up at the shrine
Corey at Filoli

And a video of Leica M3 (all images above were from medium formats)

I love film images but not really because of the vintage look or anything. I do love the film look, but the primary reason is becasue they capture texture and subtle imperfections so well. There is almost no pixel in the scanned film image that is in a confused state. You can't say that off a image from a digital camera. There is something special to those film images, I find them very resolving in colour space. The grain on them, if any is very pleasing to look. Sometimes this grain adds imperfections, but still the images feel great. And they have practically almost infinite resolution. And if I want black and white, I can just switch to black and white film roll and get the full benefit of using black and white, the higher sensitivity, lesser artefacts. Analog colours aren't perfect. For example I can never get a very modern looking image like the one below on an analog camera. But what they have in exchange is that feel and texture when I want them, especially for portraits and special moments in life. That lack of digtal issues that benefit certain scenarios. And not to mention, the medium format film cameras are much more compact and portable than their digital counterparts.

There are limitations, but I actually love these limitations as they would actually force me to alter more things than just doing some extra setting in the camera, and since I had been shooting with limited gear I don't think I'd have that much of a problem. Digital images are great and gives you lot of options in post. But they don't always have that feel. There are quite a lot of instances where I can feel the limitations of demosaicing and digital noise and other digital issues. Film cameras do have their own drawbacks, I can't take shots whenever I like, colour grading options is very less and I won't be able to get that modern saturated contrasty look when I want. And I can never think of shooting videos with film. So they will never be my primary camera. But I'd love to own a film photo camera at some point in time as a secondary camera for those really special shots that I don't think I'd get enough of on a digital camera, and unlike M10 or GFX50s, I actually intend to buy them someday.

Someday... Until then, the next best option for me is using filters on the digital camera I would buy when I desire that feel. While they dont eliminate the digital problems, they atleast can give me the film image feel which I also love at times.

Now the reason I explained my love for film cameras is because I wanted to convey what things I love and feel in photography. Here are examples of how I like skintones and lipsticks to be portrayed. These images taken on a leica is my most favourite rendition of skin tones and lipstics, walls and cloth texture. The images are a combination of different colour profiles, but one thing they all have in common is that they have awesome texture and convey a lot of emotion.

f/0.95 Blütentraum
der sprung.

For video, I am not a fan of 24fps. The only reason I might take at 24fps, is to put a 25% speed up and render at 30fps. I am actually a fan of 60fps since I find it smooth and fluid (If you game a lot, you can understand this), and this is the primary reason why I am looking at GH5. Dance/action feels a lot more lively and same is the case when shooting natural scenery and flowing fluids. I am okay with 30fps because there are technical difficulties in 60fps especially given that under low light, getting good 60fps video might be difficult as well. It's just that I find 60fps far more lively and much better for recording and playing back dance/action videos. So I'd really love to have high frame rate options but I can compromise if required. But one thing that I really really hate is choppy/jerky footage rising due to using a shutter angle significantly less than 180 degrees. Literally gives me headaches. There is no continuity, looks like individual frames and not a continous action.

I love slow motions as well. But my first priority in video will always be colour and texture and conveyance of emotion. Fast framerates are just one of the tools to convey emotion. I want good rolling shutter performance for taking certain actions and panning. I might run with the camera, jump, pan and roll when taking videos once in a while, and most stuff that I take would he shot handheld. Another thing I hate is jellows, unnatural motion blur and other jerkiness caused by electronic stabilization, pixel binning or interlacing.​
Last edited:
So I have reasearched quite a bit and narrowed down options to my taste and need help in choosing the one that would fit my needs properly.

The cameras are my biggest confusion. The primary concern for me is colour. I have been peeking at images on flickr, and videos on youtube and vimeo to judge the colours from each camera. I have no clue if I had been looking at a processed image or JPEG from the camera. I don't know if I can edit these photos, if taken in RAW to get the look,colour and texture I prefer.

If I can get fuji colours and texture out of GH5, my problem is solved - I'm buying the GH5. Just let me know how to do it. Else I'll have to compromise and choose. Whether the GH5 is capable or does it have only so much texture retaining capability and I can't make it look like a fuji. I have been looking at images of EM1 mark II, Fuji XT2 and Panasonic GX85 images mostly. I was able to find only a very few GH5 images, so the next best reference for panasonic colours was the GX85. So for panasonics, I used a combination of GX85, GH5, GH4 and GX8 to judge it. But I have seen a lot of GH5 videos, so I kind of know how GH5 looks for videos (and it looks gorgeous for most of them). For olympus I used EM1 Mark II and EM5 Mark II (EM1 Mark II images were noticeably inferior to my eyes, somewhat grainy and even less 3d, but the EM5 is extremely impressive considering its price).

I will post a few images along with the cameras to describe what I like and dislike about them, and in the end I'll post even more image links for each camera that I like and dislike.

1. Fuji XT2
The first time I really bothered about fuji was when a person mentioned about Fuji S5 pro's colours. I'm really glad I did. Went to flickr saw S5 pro images and I was stunned. Here is an example.


I find the XT2 and modern Fuji cameras to exhibit similarly great colours. The colours; the texture; the colours. Need I say more. Possibly some of the best I have seen. These have the right amount of pop, gloss, 3 dimensionality and liveliness without making things gaudy. And this thing nails skin tones, lipstick tones and cloth texture. This probably explains why the GFX50s has become my dream camera.

The following images show how much colourfullness and texture that the modern fujis can bring in.

Milan (Italy): Gae Aulenti square
Shooting in the sky at Paris Nord II and not in Ladakh, Tibet

Neither the panasonics nor the Olympus produced a pleasing flower image for me, from the images I have seen on flickr. This did. I will put some flower images taken on panasonics and olympuses, just for comparison when they describe about their colours. (Spoiler: i.m.o they don't even compete)

Chelidonium majus
Make a Statement

The brown textures on this is awesome. Browns are one of my major thing of concern in panasonic cameras (I will describe about this later). Olympus is pretty good, but Fuji is much better in this imo. And I love the way fuji captures the reflections off things.

Look my glasses ! ( from the series " one day in the live of an drugstore customer in the suburbs at the east of Paris ")
Luna - Dec 25 2016-4

And the portrait skin and lip tones are amazing. This is how I like brown and pink textures to look. And it also excels in black and white photography having that awesome texture and 3d feel.

Harmon Photo Shoot 5/20/17 4
Flor de Liz - December 2016-6
1 (11 of 11)
| New York, NY | 2017

I'm plenty sure I'll be able to get great images out of these even without processing. Additionally here are lots of colour profiles to choose from. I am a fan of their profiles, I have looked at their acros and provia profiles quite a bit and I love them.

But the problem with this is primarily the video capability. First the lens, in case of micro four thirds I can choose from pana, olympus and other manufacturers like voigtlander catering to different needs but here I'll have to make do with what Fuji makes (or) adapt other mount lens which is not my preference. All of fuji lens have stepped aperture, which makes them less ideal for video shooting involving different brightness which is the case when shooting outdoors.
Then the video features itself. Yes I am a fan of their colours, and their colour profiles, but there is very little room to add things in post. I am not sure if I will want to add things in post, but it would be nice to have that option. There is no log profile internal recording. I am not looking to do external recording. The recording time limit is not a problem, but the features is. I have possibly been spoiled by the GH5's feature set, the slow motions, etc. Also the rolling shutter performance of these are not that great from what I have heard.

I am not saying Fuji XT2 is incapable of good video. Far from it. I have seen awesome videos taken out of the fuji. Infact I haven't seen much other cameras having better skin tones. However there are compromises on other sides that I am not a fan of. I can be happy with this for video, but other options are far more tempting. GH5 is much more attractive from a video point of view.

The first video has gorgeous colours and detail. The shadows, the skintones, clothes, reflections from glass and water etc and what's more impressive is that there was nothing done in post it seems. However what I am not a fan of is its 24fps framerate. Wished for more fluidity. Also frames felt a little jerky at times, as if the shutter angle was much lower than 50% or something like that. The 1080p slowmo looked great though. The second video is a X100F ad but was taken on a XT2 and looks gorgeous. The third video is lovely. Seems like it was shot at 24fps and sped up to 30fps and feels extremely lively and extremely colourful. The reflections in the hair, the texture in clothes.. Just Wow.

In a less expensive price point is another awesome photo camera from Fuji called the XT-20 that shares a lot in common with the XT2. The images above are a combination of both these cameras. There were awesome videos shot on XT20 as well.

The first video is just dead on fantastic. I have no comments, I love it. The second video has some photos and a video at the end and you can see that it captures wonderful colours in the video.

However I will never get the X-T20 since it uses a far inferior sampling method whose limitations would become very visible in other scenarios.

And here is an ad video of X-T20.I have no idea what camera this was taken on. It looks pretty good but in the middle of the video I noticed some issues with sharpness. Regardless, it is still a lovely video and I enjoy it a lot, since it has an awesome feel to it. Everything like resolution,etc is only secondary to the feeling that you get.

Fujifilm X-T20: Moments Made Extraordinary

There is another problem for videos on the Fuji System as a whole. None of the native fuji lens have smooth aperture rings so shooting videos outdoor is going to be difficult. Also I have no clue how the manual focusing performance is on those lenses are either. From what I have heard it doesn't seem to be that great.

And the lens selection, I was able to find a replacement for the 42.5mm nocticron in its 56mm fujinon, but have no clue for other focal lengths. There is a 23mm 1.4 and 2 which are apparently great. Their 18mm (which is close to the 28mm which I like), doesnt seem to be that great and needs a revamp possibly. Regardless, even If I mostly won't be going for the XT2 (unless someone convinces me to), I might look into the X100F + wide converter at a later time as a secondary camera with pana/olympus as primary, or just chase my dream GFX50s (but that's for full time professionals and I'm not one).

2. Olympus EM1 Mk ii
I'm sure there are audience for the very high burst rates and the hi res mode of this camera. Unfortunately I am not one of those audiences. I may use those features very rarely but they are not anything pulling me into this camera.

There are two things drawing me into this camera. First, rolling shutter performance is apparently amazing. Second, the colours. To be honest, the colours of olyumpus fall into the category of my second most favourite rendition of images. I love the images of these, but I find them sligtly less lively, in exchange for a more cinematic look, which I am still very happy about. Skin tones are amazing, colour filters and film filters work very well with images from Olympus cameras and they have a nice organic grain that I like. While they have a matte look, they are very very colourful, yielding a painting like presentation. There is less amount of 3 dimensionality here. Yet I love the way the foreground and background blends on these, except for a few rare cases. Given a choice of a well balanced poppy look from fuji, I'll take the fuji over these (Unfortunately I am not a fan of the video options in the fuji system). But given a choice of gaudy image (which is how I feel about most other cameras) vs these, I'd take the olympus any day of the year. The best part of olympus images is that it maintains good colour in all areas of the frame so that when we are looking at the specific point of interest in an image, we don't find anything distracting in other areas.
It is also stunning how great the images from E-M5 Mkii as well. If it were pure photography, and my interests, I see no reason to spend more and get the E-M1 over E-M5. I don't know how they compare to the E-M1 when it comes to video though, both in detail and lack of artefacts and in rolling shutter performance.

I instantly fell in love with the images below. Quite a few of them were taken on the E-M5 Mkii.

Container Ship 'Mayview Maersk' - Prinses Amaliahaven - Port of Rotterdam
Bokeh Madness
Prema Hara
The Boys
Hollywood Boulevard
Chacun son sac

The first image - The colour, the texture.. just WOW. I just love the way it pulled out detail and colour from the clothes, but above all it conveys a sense of emotion while doing so. Same in the case of the second photo. Despite being primarily blue everywhere, Olympus managed to keep it interesting because of the different levels of blue it captured. The images could be a little more lively and poppy, but they are great the way they are already. The third image is stunning... very colourful, very textured and somewhat painting like. It doesn't feel much 3 dimensional, but that itself is a part of the appeal it gives. Just love it. The fourth image is lovely 3d looking and colorful. The fifth image is what is more in line with what we might shoot everyday. Love the skintones, love the colour and texture in the clothes. What is great is that the parts of the image like the green plants, or the paintings behind the singer are awesomely captured and colourful so there is nothing feeling off in the image. Just love it!. The sixth image is very colourful and emotive, and it seems to have been taken on an E-M10 mkii which is a quarter of the price of EM1 mkii. But you can see the limits of the E-M10 in that there is not much scope to push up darker areas, which is why I am trying to push for atleast E-M5. The seventh image - really nice skintones, the details captured in shadows. It captures the subtle changes in colour of the building behind, (capturing the different shades of white) and the shadows which makes it feel more natural. The eigth image is just similar to the fifth image with awesome skintones, cloth texture and nothing in the image is out of place when it comes to colours.

Two more images that I love

Dans le coin du coin d'un coin !
Scotland 2017

I would wish for a more modern, little more glossy contrasty look to these images, but I still love them as it is.

The olympus renders lovely skintones and retains aweome colour detail in lips, clothes and hair especially. You can see different shades of black in the hairs, which helps in a more natural feel.

Rhiannon Giddens 2 at Bluesfest Byron Bay, Aust 2017
Rhiannon Giddens 3 at Bluesfest Byron Bay, Aust 2017
Love My Girls
Alone on the beach ;-)
Blind Boy Paxton 3 at Bluesfest Byron Bay, Aust 2017
Blind Boy Paxton 2 at Bluesfest Byron Bay, Aust 2017
Pink Oculus

All images look perfect except for a few cases where hilights were a little bit blown off. The third image is a representation of how everyday general shots would look like, and I love it (except for the hilights). The fourth image manages to have a nice glossy look without being overblown. When it comes to brown skin tones, I do like the Olympus's brown tones, but I feel that Fuji images are noticeably better in this respect. Olympus has that matte look to it while Fuji manages to have that glossy look and they are definitely more 3 dimensional looking. However I do like the olympus rendition far better than panasonics (the problem which I will describe with the GH5 later).

I have seen very little videos from Olympus EM1 Mkii. The lack of jello is quite amazing. Not sure how the GH5 compares.

em1 mark II from the shinkansen (rolling shutter test clip 3) (4K)
E-M1 MarkII Rolling Shutter Jello Effect

I do love the videos taken on the camera. The colours are great and the rolling shutter performance is incredible. It really challenges the panasonics on that front. There is not much slow mo options though. The video editing and post processing features of GH5, the amount of manual control I can have as well as it's modern looking videos kind of pull me towards that camera (it's just the photo colours that I am worried about in panasonics). But if I were handed over an EM1, I wouldn't complain at all.

Here are Few videos from Olympus EM1 Mk2
Build Your Own Dreams!
OLYMPUS OM-D E-M1 Mark II - Exploring Bali in 4K
4K UHD 江ノ電鎌倉高校前駅 Olympus E-M1 Mark II // 12-100mm F4

The first video is flawless. Should have taken a lot of production values, but the camera probably kept up very well. The second video also feels amazing. The lack of jello makes things really fluid for close up pannings. Great colours. Everything is very fluid. Makes me question if I really want 60fps. The third video looks pretty good, but it feels a little too 2d for my liking. The foreground to background transition didnt feel that great, especially around the 40 second mark. Colors could have more pop but they are fine the way they are. I guess this is some video profile inside the olympus since there were other videos that I found were more lively and 3d. The fourth video showcases the awesome rolling shutter performance of this camera and also has nice fairly punchy colours and a 3d like presentation.

Now some images to compare how well the olympus can capture colour and texture. The last 3 images are flower images. Most images were from the EM5 mkII.

Prayer flags in the Tibetan border mountains
Rainbow facade
Summer test run :-)

These images show that the olympus systems can capture really nice colourful images. The first 2 images show that it can capture subtle changes in colour intensity very well and in a very organic manner. The same is the case for third image, and it has awesome skintones in this as well. The fourth image, taken on an EM1 II, has a slightly matte look to it, but it works out very well for that image. The fifth image has nice rendition of leaves and the tree texture and hence there is nothing distracting from the point of attraction of the image which is the bucket. The sixth image is a little overexposed, with too punchy oranges, but I think it can be pulled down easily, and even with with punchy nature it shous subtle differences in the intensitly across the image. Otherwise a very colourful image. For the last 3 images, olympus does make an attempt to render fairly nice flower images, but it is nowhere close to that of Fuji's. The seventh image is pretty decent, but looks a bit dull. The eigth and ninth images have a little too blown up reds which makes it look less resolving and the image less interesting.

Images taken on Olympus cameras seem to adapt very well for film like filters. They produce a grain that is very natural and pleasing and any color cast applied to them also look very pleasing.

Model photographs on Olympus is especially stunning. They are more of a result of the awesome tones in portraits and the organic grain that they produce for filters. I am extremely impressed despite this not being my area of interest. I know stuff like these are heavily processed, but you should have enough detail and stuff to begin with. I really love the output. I wish to know how to obtain similar pictures - kind of looks warm, slightly grainy and soft.. pretty sure lot of softness and blending applied near eyes and lips.

Black and White images from this camera were great, but this was one area where I preferred panasonic images over olympus since they felt substantially more 3 dimensional and substantially sharper. There's nothing wrong with Olympus images, it's just preference. Infact, for the first six images below I preferred the matte look of Olympus. But for the next five images, I wished for more 3d, more sharp and a little glossy image. The sharp, contrasty and 3d look of panasonics had something more special to them when viewed in black and white. Regardless, if Olympus was all I had to have, I'd still be happy to try out black and white images with them.

For the most part I was very pleased with images I saw. But there were images where I felt that there was something missing to them. They were still nice, but they felt like they needed improvement - They were a little too flat, or they were too soft, or didn't have nice blending between the foreground and background. Or they had visibly unnatural grain.

The first image lacked a bit of 3 dimensionality for my tastes and I would have wished for quite a bit more punch to the image. The second is really good, but it doesn't feel as much lively. It feels more like a painting which in this case didn't suit very well. Also the transition from foreground to background could have been more continous. For the third image, I would have wished for better transition from foreground to background. It feels as if the duck and water droplets was photoshopped to the image as a layer. I would have wished for slightly more pop in the fourth image. The fifth image feels less emotive than it could, the matte look doesn't suit it much. The sixth image lacks three dimensionality and sharpness. The seventh image is awesome from a composition point of view, but it is one of the rare olympus images where I felt that the grain and texture was out of place. Also had a mildly wierd colour cast. The eigth image also looks too matte, a glossy 3 dimensional look could have suited it much better. The ninth image, would have wished for better sharpness and 3 dimensionality.

There were very few images that I disliked, mostly because of an warm/orangish or some other colour cast to them. There were few other photos that I didn't like but they were mostly due to excessive post processing, mainly oversharpening leading to loss of 3 dimensionality (olympus has lesser of that to begin with imo). But these were all a very small minority.

3. GH5 - my current top pick for everything except two things which "I am not sure about and need help". 4K 60fps should be awesome for my type of work, especially dance and shooting natural scenery. Slow motion is cool and I can put it to use. I'll mostly stick with 120fps since 180fps gets a little too soft and kinda takes away the feel when you try to do shallow depth of field. Maybe once in a while I may crank it up to 180fps in situations where the softness isn't an issue, or actually more pleasing. The ergonomics are apparently amazing, I'm not bothered about the weight (Infact I actually like that it is somewhat heavy). IBIS and Dual I.S. with panasonic lens should be great for video and long exposure shots. And I really really really love the amount of customization options and the button layout, having a dedicated dial for white balance, and the focus joystick.
What is really bothering me is the lack of reviews about the photographic capabilities of the GH5. Every review seems to say, it's photos are good and move into the video. There were very few reviews I have seen that looked into the photo capabilities of this camera. I understand that the GH5 is primarily marketed to the video crowd, but it has a lot of things appealing to photo shooters as well. There was this video about a model photo shoot on GH5 that brought some excitement into me. And a few reviews - a old GH4 review by Slrlounge, a GH5 review by David Thorpe, and a GH5 review by photographyblog.

The first thing that I am not sure about is it's rolling shutter performance. I haven't seen much rolling shutter tests for this camera but I think it should be fine, since I have seen lot of GH5 videos other than that. How much different is it from an olympus EM1 mkii or EM5 mkii?

The primary thing that is kind of holding me back from this camera, is "APPARENTLY it's colour and texture". This is perhaps the only reason why I have even considered the above two cameras in the first place. But I did so because a lot of the images I have seen from panasonics have had me questioning. I use the word apparently because I have not much clue if the camera is limited in this area, like having less dynamic range to work with,etc.. or just that I didn't see the right images. I have no clue whether it is just one of it's colour profiles that I dislike or is it just the way the camera captures images, whether I can shoot in raw and make it look the way I want. Is it that the sensor in the fujis (or olympuses) actually capture better texture and subtleties or is it just their JPEG engine that can be emulated in post?

Most of images I have seen from panasonic cameras were really good in detail and resolution, infact they felt significantly more 3d and detailed than olympus, but I was left wishing for better colours quite often. A lot of images felt overprocessed. I find the images to have a nice 3 dimensional glossy look, but most of the time it is either too dull and lifeless or it is just too popped up, contrasty and gaudy (quite often getting very dark away from the centre). I found olympus less lively for my tastes quite often, but I found panasonics take it to the extreme on the opposite end often. Given a chance, I would prefer olympus for portraits and panasonics for street photography (even for street photography, there are lot of times where I would prefer olympus). The flashy look does work for magazines and newspapers, but there is very little emotion to it for a lot of my areas of interest. I found quite a few images having the colour and look of national geographic or some documentary, which is nice, but unfortunately I am not a fan of that look either. It works for some images and doesn't for others. I also found that panasonic images were not that much suited to using film like filters, since the grain they provided felt unnatural and more like noise, and the colour cast on them was unappealing as well. However I really really loved most black and white images from panasonics. They had a really nice sharp and 3 dimensional imaging to them and I preferred panasonics over olympus for black and white images, especially portraits (the exact opposite of the cameras I preferred for colour photography).

First about the images where panasonics were upto my tastes. There were quite a few images where I really adored the look of panasonics, really much over the olympus (Fuji still has better colours). It was the case quite often for street photography with those 30mm lens. Had that nice balance of pop and liveliness. Some were ever so slightly overhyped but I'm fine with that for street photography (not the case for portraits though). Here are a few examples of panasonic images that I love before I move on to images which I am not much of a fan of.

The skin colours in the first image was adorable. The second image has a more glossy look, which I am generally not a fan of but I liked it in this case. Also the cloth texture was very well retained. The third image is lovely and slightly soft, which I like. The fourth image has an awesome pop feel to it. The fifth image is gorgeous - very dynamic and true to life, and very leica like. The sixth image is pretty good - texture and colours are great. I wish it could be a hair brighter though. The seventh image was from a GH5 and I really love the 3 dimensionality from it and the colours (the green in the right top was blown out though). The last image is very good.
And I really preferred the look of panasonic images over olympuses for black and white photos. Panasonics felt more 3d and this time the colour wasn't an issue. Very surprisingly I really loved the skin and lips texture for black and white images from panasonics. Few images had a little overblown hilights and a few where I wished for better transition to blacks (subtleties in blacks felt a little lost at times), but I'm more than just amazed by all of these photos. There were a few images from even the older GX7 in these that I really love.

The first image is just perfect. The hair texture, the colours, the sharpness. The 2nd and 3rd image are almost perfect, just wish their transition to black was as smooth as the first picture. I love the sharpness of the 2nd image. The fourth one is from a GX7, just awesome. The 5th image is very contrasty, but I love the way it feels for black and white. And it is extremely sharp. The 6th image is also amazing, but wish for better transition to blacks in the left corner. But I guess they did this intentionally for a more appealing look. Its still an awesome image that I love anyways. The 7th image is sharp and lovely, but I wish for better hilights (less exposure) near the eyes. The 8th image is amazing, but there's somthing about this image that I wish was better. Cant really point a finger to it. Quite possibly the transition from foreground to background doesnt feel as smooth as I would like. It is 3d but kind of slightly like one picture layered on top of the other. The last 2 images are awesome, but wish for better hilights, and colour texture in clothes.

I didn't find most images taken on panasonic with some classic filters appealing enough. But there were a few colour filters that worked well and looked great.

There were some images with documentary/architectural feel or brownish cast in some cases, where the contrasty look of GH5 worked well and went with the feel. Can anyone explain me how to get this look? Unfortunately this is not my area of exploration for now, but I would love to use this look for photographing historical places.

The other thing that I noticed, was that I really love the way most videos taken from GH5 look.

This thing is a video beast isn't it. The first video is very professional. The second video has some nice filter on top (the audio sucks tho). I wish to know the name of the filter/color profile used in that. The third and fourth video show much more of the GH5 beauty since vimeo doesn't compress as hard as youtube. The fifth is another stunning video. The sixth one shows different color profiles. The seventh and eigth videos show the awesome slow mo capabilities of this camera.

The GH4 was already a category pioneer in this.
However GH4's slow motions felt much more softer and some videos also seemed to be a bit noisy and off colours on some other. The GH5 seems to have punched strongly in all those areas. Most videos that I didn't like off of GH5 were only because of the color profile chosen, which is purely preference based. Infact, I find the results fairly close to this colour graded footage of Blackmagic that I love. Hmm... well not exactly, but a small relatively inexpensive camera being able to hold its own in a lot of scenarios is just amazing.

Now about texture and colour comparison. Unfortunately, I was mostly only able to find GH4 for this type. There were few examples of really good texture, not quite perfect enough, but very acceptable results to my tastes. They felt a little too poppy but it didnt bother me much. But there were lot of examples where I found the panasonics textureless and lifeless. First the images that I like.

The first photo is awesome. It captures the reflections off the buildings very well and is very colourful. It kind of looks a little computerized looking and I would have wished slightly more natural look to it, but I still love it the way it is. The second image is just as great. Just like the first image, it is a little computerized looking to me, especially in the waters, but I still love it. The third image has really nice transition from browns to blacks and really great sharpness, and one of the rare panasonic images where I liked how it renders darker colours. The fourth image has really nice natural look to it, just wish for slightly better texture in the white areas of the walls, and also wish for a slightly more lively image (but that could be gained by just exposure probably).

So those were the images where I think panasonic had pretty good colours. But that wasn't the case in the photos below. They still had pretty nice colours but they were no longer that much attractive.

The first photo is actually pretty sharp. But there's something to it that I don't really like, but i'm not able to put a finger onto it. The 2nd photo seems like it looks great with nice clouds until you look into the walls. They dont look natural. Instead of having a lot of subtle transition from a lighter grey to darker grey (or yellow) it just looks like a constant intensity paint. It also doesn't look as much 3 dimensional. The third image is actually pretty nice. But the reds, to me are somewhat disturbing. The fourth image is similar to third, except that it is yellow that is somewhat disturbing instead of red.

Now the really bad part, here are panasonic images that I was able to find to compare the texture in walls, etc. All of them were from GH4, so not really a current gen comparison. Sadly,there is not much texture in any of these images. None that I like. Its just constant brown or blue or any other colour of constant intensity, with no subtleties captured and doesn't look natural at all. The very last image also has visibly unnatural grain. This is a big point of worry for me with panasonic colours, but given these are from a 3 year old camera with old colour algorithms, I am not sure if things have got better with the current cameras (and not to forget editing possibilities with that camera if any because there are good results like the ones above). Also, GH5 might have improved, so this is not a current gen comparison, but I'm posting those

NOW BELOW ARE THE IMAGES WHERE I REALLY REALLY DISLIKE PANASONIC COLOURS. The first image, skin tones are very off and unnatural, so are the lipsticks. There is no texture and is lacking in subtle colour transition details. The next image, I really love the composition, but the hilights feel way overblown and I feel a lack of texture here as well. The third image.. comparing this to fuji images, not even a competition. The brown skin tones on fuji were on another level. The hair rendered by panasonic looks like a paint of black. There is no proper transition from hair to skin tones. The 4th and 5th images are okay, but everything is too poppy (and yet somewhat dull imo), and clothes are lacking texture. The colour spoils what chould have been otherwise awesome images. The sixth image is actually really nice with great 3 dimensionality, but I just dont like the skintones and lipstick tones on the image. It also looks a little too flashy. The seventh image, also awesome resolution, but too flashy for my tastes, and wish for better lipstick rendition. I love the hair detailing though. The 8th 9th and 10th images, I dont like the pink cast on faces. Also in the 10th image and 11th image, there is no texture in the cloths, just a thick pink all over. The 12th image lacks subtleties in brown texture. Once again, a possibly great image capped by lacking colour texture. The last image looks overly punchy.

Then flower images.. atleast olympus put up a fight against Fuji. Panasonic flower images are just unappealing. They were either too dull or too flashy. And some images felt oversharpened (especially the last one, which looks a little too dull as well). Yeah the images had the resolution, but lacked any form of pull to look at the images (in other words, no emotion, no texture). Thanfully, I am not much of a macro shooter and not going to shoot flowers much. Regardless, the colour performance in this area is a thing of worry for me since it is one of the standard tests for colour.

There were a few fairly decent flower images, but still it was nowhere near appealing for me. The very first image below is actually pretty good except for some hilights.

Other than these tones, I found that panasonic images were not that much suited to using classic looking film like filters. There were few images that were nice like the ones I posted a few lines above, but most others weren't. Unlike Olympuses which had an organic smooth grain that I liked, the grain on panasonic images were a little disturbing and the colour cast felt a little disturbing as well. All images are great, but there are lot of things I dont like. The first 2 images have an unnatural grain to them. The third image looks a little dull and overdarkish colours.

So these were things that I really adored followed by things that I really disliked from panasonic images. But these 2 are just a fraction of the images that I have seen. In most images, I either felt that they really looked great, but just missing that something extra or I felt that there was some minor issue with colour and hilights that could quite possibly fixed quite easily.
Few of the images that I really loved, but felt something that can be changed to make it look the way I would like. Mostly it were that pinks were a little too overdone or some hilights in skin was a little blown off.

The first image is excellent except that I find that the pinks were a litttle overdone, even the skins had a little too much of pinkish cast to them. Other than that this image is very lovely. The second and third images had excellent resolution in the clothes. But I felt that the skin hilights were slightly overblown, and the reds in her belt could have been better textured as well. It was perhaps the only distracting part of an otherwise stunning image. The fourth image is great as well, but the colours are a little over the top. The pinks in her shirt are less well textured. The fifth image has a little bit overly punchy colours. the Skin tones in the fingers could have been better as well. The 6th image is great detail wise, 3 dimensionally and also in the hilights. But it is a bit dull looking. For the 7th image I couldn't put a finger to it, and say. I really love the image and the cloth texture, but it is slightly dull looking. The 8th image is similar, just a little dull for my liking but otherwise great. Skintones are almost perfect, just a hair too pinkish. The 10th image, I wish the colours in the cloth were captured better, but I like the skintones. The last image, I really loved the texture in the image. I wished the colours and tones were better. Also I felt that this was a little too oversharpened, had some minor grain and didn't have much 3 dimensionality.

I'm pretty sure these are edits that I can make in post (not sure about the hilights), so these are not a thing of worry for me unlike the ones mentioned above.

The following are images that actually make me a little worried, because they not only have the above problems, they have those in excess and also colour cast problems. They dont feel extremely over punchy or off, but they definitely feel far from perfect for me. Hope there are ways to edit images like these and make them look the way I like.

The first image has blown off hilights, and a warmish orangish cast. The second image is overly punchy, with overpulled reds and looks too contrasty and a little dark. The third image also feels like it has an orangish cast and not really a fan of the colours in this image, which could have otherwise been a very colorful impactful image. Fourth image, not so great skintones, the shoes look too flashy and the texture in the black cloth doesnt seem to be captured well enough. Fifth image felt too overblown and feels like it has chromatic issues. Sixth image is a little too dull, not much texture in clothes and the buildings at the right end. Kind of documentary look, but I'm not liking it much here. Seventh image, i dont like the skintones. It looks to have some orangish cast to it. The very last image, it has really really good texture and detail, but somehow fails to make an impact in my mind, mostly because of how too glossy and overpunchy it is.

And the last, images that I find are good, but don't move me, despite packing in a lot of detail. It may be because of too glossy looks or because of too flat looks or lacking in vibe/capturing the reflections properly or having inorganic grain or oversharpening or having an unnatural color cast.
Last edited:
Next to camera, I also have issues with choosing lenses. So once again, starting off with my priorities. I am not really that much into macro. Not a telephoto shooter either. Not going to shoot birds anymore. Most of things that I want would fall within 28mm to 90mm range.

For ultrawides, I am not sure. I dont know if I really want them since 28mm seems sufficient enough, though you never know what you are missing. There are a few type of videos I might do that would make use of the wide field of view, especially when using zooming in effects in 4k video. Below is an example of a video putting wide angle lens to good use. But my primary choices of video and photography would fall between 28mm to 90mm.

For photography, my biggest love is 28mm full frame focal length and field of view. I find it very different from 35mm. Infact, I find 35mm and 50mm very similar to each other that I'd only pick one of them. I just love the look of the 28mm for street photography, and the beautiful look it gives when you shoot unsymmetrically. Kind of drags you to a point deep in the image. You can shoot it anywhere - indoors, outdoors - kitchen,street, group photo - closeup, far away - anything. There's something really unique to that focal length, that field of view just greater than 35mm and that mild distortion. I can also use it to shoot normal symmetric photos as well, but it is more suited to unsymetric compositions that I like. I am not sure if I want wide aperture at this focal length, but subject isolation at this focal length is also something that I would like to do. Here are examples of photos taken on a leica 28mm summilux I have seen that made me fall for it's look.
Colorful umbrellas, Sardinia

Phones also have a field of view similar to 28mm so I'd feel more like home with a 28mm lens, except that these lenses will now let me explore stuff like shallow depth of field and being able to shoot low light scenes without having to go for long exposures.

The next two loves are 85mm/90mm for telephoto and 50mm. I also love 35mm but I find it to be similar to 50mm and since I already would have 28mm I dont think I would need one.

For lens I have 5 options in micro-four thirds, of which I would have to pick 3 or 4. I prefer to restrict my choices to 3 lens since 4 lenses would start to make things too heavy for me. I dont have much idea about fuji XF lens at the moment, except that I am pretty sure they are not really suited for video and I'm not sure about their manual focusing performance either.

1. Panasonic 15mm 1.7 Summilux
The 15mm is the closest prime to 28mm full frame equivalent that I could find. There is a 14mm but it is only f/2.5. 28mm + subject isolation is why I think I need a wide aperture, but clarify me if I don't need such wide apertures. If there were to be a 14mm relatively compact,fast prime coming from any other manufacturer anytime soon, I might jump from the 15mm, but for now this is the closest I can get to that feel. On the other side, I think the 15mm would work better for video than 14mm, since it doesnt distort (it is the same distortion that i love for photography though). And I think I can learn to pull off very close results with 15mm with some work like the following
LR edit-1000963
Sunset Hong Kong
2am. Nearly.

So that could be still a tough decision. Image stabilization and autofocus is welcome. For photography I'm not really in any need of autofocus, but for videos, it would come in handy when I use the programmed multiple focus pull options in GH5, if i were to get that.

One question I have for this lens users is, how good is it for manual focusing when I need to. (I'll be getting a voigtlander 25mm for primary manual focus work, but I just want to know how good is manual focusing on this lens as well).

2. Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8 instead of 15mm prime. The zoom functionality of this could come in handy when shooting certain videos. It isn't cine lens, but at that wide focal lengths I dont think the focus would go that much off when zooming. I am not worried about the lack of image stabilization either in this case (in any worst case, I still have body based stabilization). It would also let me shoot wider stuff when required but I am not sure when I'll need them. And I would actually be able to get that 28mm feel I wanted (though, might have to compromise with subject isolation scenarios).
The only compromise is aperture, and that is my only real big concern of worry with this lens, whether I would be able to pull of good subject isolation with this. Also while I am okay with the weight of this lens, It would be too heavy for a street photography lens. One other question I have is whether I would be able to use the programmable autofocus pulls using the olympus lens on Panasonic GH5?

I am leaning towards the 15mm pana, but the Oly is also something that I am considering. Or I could get both the 15mm and 7-14mm but my setup would then become heavy. I wish to stick with just 3 lenses.

3. Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 II (or any other 25mm manual focus, smooth aperture lens) - primarily for videography, smooth aperture control, fully manual focus. I am looking to get the new second edition of the lens. There is lots of stuff I can do with this, bokeh, starbursts, shallow depth of field and more. Yeah it is kind of soft at full wide aperture, but I can stop it down and still get some good wide enough apertures and retain nice sharpness. The softness can even be used as a cinematic feel at times. 50mm FF equivalent focal length would work pretty well for filming a lot of stuff. And I find 50mm and 35mm to look similar because of similar distortion patterns, so this elimiates the need for having a 35mm lens. If I wanted 35mm equivalent framing I just move back and take.
However I have one issue with this lens. On almost all videos and pictures I have seen, this lens seems to have a slight warm tone to it, and a slightly 80s cinema like look with slightly less contrast or it feels a little undersaturated. I'm okay with this, but I prefer a more modern looking colourful image (I just don't want it overdone). I'm not sure if this is a property that goes off if I stop down the aperture. There is even a review where they mentioned this colour cast (four paragraphs down from introduction), but the review is for the version 1 of the lens.: The Voigtlaender Nokton 25mm f/0.95 Hands-On Review: a unique lens for your MFT camera!
Here are some examples of the videos and photos taken on this lens that have that warmish colour cast to them. It is very colourful but not much modern looking. The first video shows it very properly. The other two videos seem to have some grading, but I can still see some of that color cast. Everything else is upto my tastes.

some photos from the same lens
328/2011: Last Days of Autumn
àurea {III}
288/2011: Lights Bouncing on the Ground
Yellow cab in Times Square

The first 2 images look great with that old film like look. The third photo seems to have been edited and shows that bit of color cast which I don't like in this case. The fourth photo is great but also has some of that colour cast. Not sure if it is because of the lens or because of the colour profile.
The other alternatives I have seen are zhongyi mitakon and SLR magic hyperprime. I have seen a mikaton video and it didn't have such colour cast. Here is an example of the mitakon video

A couple more mitakon videos
Panasonic GH4 + Mitakon 25mm f0.95 (Low Light test)
Saturday Stroll (Panasonic G7 + Mitakon 25/0.95) - YouTube

However, I really prefer to get the voigtlander since they are a more reputable company (mitakon seems to have unit to unit issues). The only thing that is making me question the voigt is the colour cast.

4. Panasonic 42.5mm 1.2 Nocticron - It's expensive, but I think I can buck up this thing. The contrast and sharpness at f/1.2 are stunning. Image stabilized (and andding to that, it can couple with GH5's in body stabilization), autofocus. I plan on using manual focus for photos, but autofocus could come in handy for programmed multiple focus pulls. I wish to know how good the manual focus on this is, since it is fly by wire (but most reviews are positive). The other options I have here are, the cheaper pana 42.5mm 1.7 or voigtlander 42.5 ... but I think I'll make it to the nocticron, it looks like a worthy investment. And I have seen a lot of EM1 ii photos taken on this lens, so it should be a fine choice on olympus bodies as well.

The question I have here is the same as with the other pana, how good is this lens for manual focusing when I need to?

5. The Voigtlander 10.5mm f/0.95 - As an addition to the 3 lenses (15 25 and 42.5). Not sure if I need such wide aperture at such wide focal length. Might come in handy for wide shots when I need it. But carrying 4 lenses is not something I would like. And I dont really think I would use the wide aperture at that focal length. Olympus 7-14mm would be a far more feasible choice than the voigtlander 10.5mm for me since it would in that case also replace the 15mm 1.7.

For now, I am leaning towards 15mm Panasonic, 25mm voigtlander and 42.5mm Nocticron. I am fixed on the Nocticron but flexible with the other two lenses since I am not exactly sure if they are the perfect things for me. The reason why I chose this combo of lenses is that they would give me the best compromise of manual focus/autofocus options and also the best compromise of photo/video centric options. Voigtlander for manual focus pulls, Panasonics for manual/programmed autofocus. Also it would give me a good combo of soft and sharp lenses. And I have a combo of different focal lengths. There is no superwide, but I am not sure if I really need any superwides. The only major issue I have with this lens combination is the apparently warmish colour cast on voigtlander lenses.

So summing up my problems. Cameras - GH5 vs EM1 ii vs Fuji. Love the GH5 video features, but is it possible to get Fuji or atleast Olympus colours out of GH5? If so how (for olympus primarily since it is something that seems feasible)? Lens - Fixed on Nocticron. But not exactly sure about other lens. Looking at Prime 15mm vs wide zoom or other possibilities. Also looking for a choice of manual focus 25mm (FF 50mm equivalent) lens with stepless aperture and good colours - right now looking at the voigtlander nokton.
Last edited by a moderator:
Something about my previous experience in photography, if that would give any information of what I might best put to use. I have never owned any real mid/high end gear, but I have been quite a bit into photography since I was 13 years old (now I'm 21).
My past cameras are (most of them are still in working condition)
1. Sony K810i cameraphone - A decade old phone, times when having a camera on a phone was so special. Had quite a lot of fun using it, though I was too amateurish at that time. Managed to take a few good photos after many trials and errors. Here's an example of a photo I took with it.
2. Sony DSC-H50 point and shoot - 15x zoom (whatever that meant, actually it is 32mm to 465mm FF equivalent), used to take lots of photos with it. Had nice optics for the price. Used to take a lot of bird photos with it. A cumbersome camera, can't do much manual work easily. I was still an amateur pulsing flashes for every photo I took, and most look gaudy. Did manage to take some decent photos.
3. Nokia lumia 720 - My first real favourite camera (yeah its a phone, but I love it as a camera). Had great colours with a nice punch and pop to it. An update made it possible for me to change shutter speed and focus manually and I really loved using it, for over a year.
4. Nokia lumia 920 - An upgrade over the 720. Really loved it. Loved taking long exposure shots with it. Was able to do 4 second handheld shots helped by it's okayish OIS and a fairly steady hand of mine.
5. Oneplus 3 - my current phone. Really like it. I like a bit of reassuring heft and grip in my equipments. I put a relatively thick and heavy case on my oneplus 3 to bring it to a feel of lumia 920, because I felt it too light and slim for my tastes. The camera UI copies the manual controls from lumia, but it's okay because it felt more like home for me. Now I prefer the lumia cameras to the oneplus 3. OP3 is kind of dull in comparison. But it's okay for me.Fairly good for photos, can't get that depth of field that I could on my 920 and 720, but once again, I can pull off fairly good long exposure shots handheld. Quite a lot of the photos below were taken handheld with 4 second exposure (because I wanted to keep the iso at 100). Also learned to use manual white balance with this phone (though there are only 5 options).The phone has problems with video focus jumps in bright situations. Also I don't like the display much. There are two profiles, one is too gaudy and the other is too bland (actually has a green tint in this mode). I don't like either mode, but i prefer the blander one. I have no issues with it's brightness though.
Had 2 other phones in between with not so worth cameras, the sony xperia mini pro and lumia 630. Also had the iphone 4s, didn't like it's images either (and it had an awful position of the camera and my finger would hide it when I hold it). My favourite display is the surface book display and next favourite I have owned is the lumia 630 display (though it has far less pixels, and exhibits some pixelation, i like the colours of it).
So this rounds up my decision problems. For camera, there were barely any images I've seen from XT2 or EM1 MKii where I could fault it's colours. Fuji was great all around, while Olympus felt a little too 2 dimensional at some instances only. For video, Fuji has awesome colours and captures awesome, but everything else about it is unappealing to me from a video point of view. Olympus has pretty nice video, especially it's lack of rolling shutter is amazing, but it is not the video beast that the GH5 is and the lack of 3 dimensionality shows much more than in photos. For GH5, the video features are nothing short of stunning and it has all but spoiled the other two cameras in that front. Unfortunately, I am pretty confused about panasonic colours. There were a lot of great images, but unlike the olympus and fuji, there were a looot of images where I wished for better colours and there were quite a few images where I just disliked the pansonic colours. I don't have much clue about the video colours either, but from what I have seen, I have been very pleased.
I just wish to know if I can get that fuji colours from GH5 if I shoot in raw. Technically the bigger sensor from Fuji and it's technology might have certain advantages, so I'm not sure if that is entirely possible. If I can't get fuji level colours, I really hope I can get the Olympus colours atleast.. the matte paint like colorful images. Both GH5 and EM1/5 have similar sized sensors and similar technologies. I have even heard people say that both share the very same sensor with slightly different implementation but not sure. So there should be a way to get olympus like colours out of GH5 atleast.
Then comes the lens, I have described my preference earlier. I need some fairly good lens for video and photo. For standard telephoto, I'm probably fixed on the nocticron. I am interested in the voigtlander nokton 25mm ii for video purposes, but I'm not sure about the colour cast that it puts, which is perhaps the only complaint that I think I have for this lens. Not really worried about the wide aperture softness. For standard/wide lens I dont know which one to pick. Right now I'm thinking of summilux 15mm since it is close to my favourite 28mm focal length and it's wide aperture can get me some subject isolation when I desire. The other option is the olympus 7-14mm but it doesnt have as wide as an aperture.
I can definitely be contended with any of these cameras and any of these lens. But If I am going to spend 2 grands on a body and more on a lens, I would want it to be the best match for my styles. Now you might be wondering why I am fixed on not getting some full frame from Canon and Sony. The reason is pretty much the same as why I am not getting a medium format yet. They are expensive. But there's more than just that. Canon does have good colours, but their priority has been autofocus in the recent. I'm sadly not the audience for that. The autofocus system would contribute atleast 30% of the weight of the system which I would needlessly be carrying. Besides, the video capabilities on 5D IV is unappealing. There is no focus peaking for manual focus lens. Buying an expensive gadget to get videos only one-third the size of the sensor. I know they would have done it for a better sampling method, but it doesn't change the fact that I would be paying huge cash only to underuse it and that they were lazy to not implement a better solution. Huge file sizes isn't much of a bother as long as it gives back something worthy. Sadly 5D doesnt. Canon forcefully handicapped this camera. Sony is a better appeal when it comes to hybrids, but I am not a fan of sony ergonomic choices. I have purchased quite a bit of sony products but have never been a fan of how they prioritize menus. A7s II doesn't seem to be of my taste either. And their cameras have bad rolling shutter. Their native lens choices were lackluster till last year but they have been patching it up lately.
Before I finish off, here are more images from each category/camera.
Some Film images
kids in water
PLAUBEL makina 670
Nusa Pendia, Bali
One video with film Images

Some examples of 28mm Full frame field of view, sometimes with wide aperture
Leica Summilux-M 28/1.4 ASPH - 1 month Field Review
Leica 28mm Summilux: The Perfect Vacation Lens?
Grand Canal at Twilight
"Self portrait" in the city library of Stuttgart
Photos from Fuji camera. All photos are lovely.
A couple of videos from Fuji Cameras

Panasonic images that I like
Panasonic images that I am not a fan of because of the colours and overprocessed look.
More voigtlander nokton images
Olympus images that I love
Model photos from Olympus cameras
Some random photos from Leica cameras
If I can get fuji colours and texture out of GH5, my problem is solved - I'm buying the GH5. Just let me know how to do it.

First, in a blind test I'm confident that no one can successfully pick out "Fuji colours" as opposed to other colours. I'll leave you to consider the implications of that.

So then buy the GH5. Next build and apply custom camera input profiles and take control of the camera colours -- you can have whatever you want. What you see as "colours" from any digital camera is primarily a function of the camera profiles. Using the profiles supplied by the manufacturer gives you their "colours" -- you can make your own.

The primary thing that is kind of holding me back from this camera, is "APPARENTLY it's colour and texture". This is perhaps the only reason why I have even considered the above two cameras in the first place. But I did so because a lot of the images I have seen from panasonics have had me questioning. I use the word apparently because I have not much clue if the camera is limited in this area, like having less dynamic range to work with,etc.. or just that I didn't see the right images.

You didn't see the right images.

I have no clue whether it is just one of it's colour profiles that I dislike or is it just the way the camera captures images, whether I can shoot in raw and make it look the way I want.

I could shoot in raw and make it look the way I want. If you can't now you can learn. Otherwise you get what the automated camera software produces and you give up control. If you're going to give up control then there's little point in complaining.

Is it that the sensor in the fujis (or olympuses) actually capture better texture and subtleties


or is it just their JPEG engine that can be emulated in post?

NOW BELOW ARE THE IMAGES WHERE I REALLY REALLY DISLIKE PANASONIC COLOURS. The first image, skin tones are very off and unnatural, so are the lipsticks. There is no texture and is lacking in subtle colour transition details. The next image, I really love the composition, but the hilights feel way overblown and I feel a lack of texture here as well. The third image.. comparing this to fuji images, not even a competition. The brown skin tones on fuji were on another level. The hair rendered by panasonic looks like a paint of black. There is no proper transition from hair to skin tones. The 4th and 5th images are okay, but everything is too poppy (and yet somewhat dull imo), and clothes are lacking texture. The colour spoils what chould have been otherwise awesome images. The sixth image is actually really nice with great 3 dimensionality, but I just dont like the skintones and lipstick tones on the image. It also looks a little too flashy. The seventh image, also awesome resolution, but too flashy for my tastes, and wish for better lipstick rendition. I love the hair detailing though. The 8th 9th and 10th images, I dont like the pink cast on faces. Also in the 10th image and 11th image, there is no texture in the cloths, just a thick pink all over. The 12th image lacks subtleties in brown texture. Once again, a possibly great image capped by lacking colour texture. The last image looks overly punchy.

Look At That
Camryn Clarke
Ekaterina Moré - Portraits of the Painter
sweet fashion
Tokyo Fish Market
// self portrait (1) //
// you will always be the best object to my pics //
Sabrina at Half Moon Bay beach , California
Sabrina with all her cousins

All of the problems that you think you're seeing are not hardware problems. They are either photographer problems which are correctable or software problems which are avoidable. The hardware then properly used would not exhibit any of these problems.

Oh my....the LONGEST first post ever!!!

I dunno..too long, did not read, sounds like you are caught in Paralysis Via Over-analysis.

I think you ought to do more research, and then select between only TWO camera models. Any more than two models means there's no true direction, no true "north".
Last edited:
If your primary interest is video, then the GH5 ... if your primary interest are stills then the XT2.

The Oly is a compromise between the two.

I shoot Fuji. I absolutely love Fuji, absolutely wonderful lenses, old fashion build quality with a straight forward, manual dial settings. I evolved from FF (1Ds) to MFT (Oly EM1's) and now to APS-C (XP2/XT2).

I don't shoot video.

The purest is never satisfied with compromise.
Last edited:
You've done an amazing amount of thought. Getting a camera is marrying into a system.
1. Shoot in RAW
2. Use a colour checker and understand colour management.
3. Sony A7 II or Nikon D750 would fit your needs and budget
Wow, best bet for you is to rent one of each for several days to a week to get familiar with each then purchase the camera that best fits your needs. Do the same with lenses after your camera purchase. This method is infinitely better than getting others opinions because everyone has different tastes. Good luck!

Too much, too long.
My advice

I had a MFT sensor camera (Panasonic G7) and found the low light performance was poor, was forced to use mostly the prime lens I had and even then I simply wasn't imporved if the camera was shooting in under average lighting conditions.
APS-C is the minimum sensor size I would recommend.

Want best performance then get a full frame camera.
From your price range you can easily get the Nikon D750, add few high quality primes either Nikon or Sigma and you got yourself an EXTREMLY powerful set up

If you want to save on cash get the Nikon D610 which is also an extremely capable full frame camera.
Last edited:
Go for the Olympus :icon_thumright:
Hey, thanks to all who replied. I know this is an inexcusably long post, but I just wanted to be sure of certain things. I often pull up too much references just to give a proper perspective. And thanks a lot to the mods. I was fearing my post would get deleted.

@Ysarex Thanks a lot. I think I'd pick up the GH5. But unfortunately my mind is now swinging between the GH5 and D750 because of later comments. I'll try to figure it out myself. I would probably need some help trying to learn editing and lightroom after a while.

@Derrel Haha. Yes I do tend to overanalyse things - both in things that I intend to buy and things that I just intend to learn about. Two reasons. First, I have been burned more than once falling into marketing hype without analysing anything, most importantly not analysing what I might use and what I might not. Second, It kind of helps me in my studies in some manner. I'm a Electronics student and started learning a bit of machine learning as well - the electronics behind sensors, adcs, all these autofocus algorithms, demosacing algorithms and all. Have to learn about more in the algorithms. Who knows, someday I might be working on one of those projects.

@chuasam Thank you for the kind words and the advice. And thanks for mentioning the D750, I have not seen many mention Nikon in most places for video. It looks like an excellent hybrid. I'm not interested in the A7 II but I am seriously considering the D750, possibly a used one since the camera is kind of old and might see an update sometime soon. It has got pretty much all I asked for. Awesome stills - and a 28mm lens that I desire. 60Fps video without Rolling shutter, moire and other artefacts. Sorry for posting a link again, but this video is awesome (but looks a bit like 720p though)

4K is missing, things are a little soft. I can spot sharpness difference easily in my display.
Edit: I think it is sharp enough. I had been looking at low res videos that made me feel it a little too soft. This video below is not soft. (but has a shutter angle of around 25% it seems so annoys me a little, but it is not a fault of the hardware). Good news, seems that I can actually record 60Fps in low light.

But it has nice colours, which I value more. For video I would have less headroom for post and would have to nail the exposure, but it's a responsibility that I am willing to take. D750 is sophisticated enough a tool. And most lens are quite inexpensive as well, never really thought that was the case. I'm still confused between the D750 and GH5, but I think I'll be swinging to the D750 + 28mm 1.8 + 85mm 1.8.! Any 50mm cine like lens with clickless aperture and less focus breathing available for Nikon F mount? If that is available I would wish to get that and some 105mm lens instead of 85mm (Nikon is the only company that I know of that produces 105mm glass).

One issue though is that it doesn't have focus peaking. Is there anything else that I can use to aid manual focus scenarios?

@tecboy I understand your frustrations, but no one spends a week collecting and analysing things - right or wrong, just to post a spam. I understand that I am an amateur/noob, that's why I am asking for the experts. I don't have hands on experience with these equipments but I know atleast something about photography.

@Tim Javor Thank you for the advice. This is a popular opinion and for a good reason. But I don't think I can get a camera rented here in India since none of these cameras are that much popular here.

@goodguy Thanks for the advice. Yeah, now I'm looking at the D750. It is super tempting since it blends well with my requirements. I do love the full frame look. 4K is the only thing that I would wish for, but most cameras only do 4k 30fps so not that big of a deal anyway. Excellent rolling shutter results and almost no moire issues. Not sure about how low light scenario problems of mft would affect me since I had been contended with much smaller sensors till now. Maybe I have never explored such things. I am thinking of 28mm 1.8 + 85mm 1.8 combo for lens. It is fairly inexpensive and seems to produce awesome results. But I wish to know if there are any reputable cine like lens for F mount in around 50mm, in which case I'd pick a 105mm instead of 85mm.

EDIT : Thanks a lot to everyone. Especially to @Ysarex @chuasam and @goodguy. I'm convinced at the D750, possibly picking up a used one. It definitely seems to be capable of taking great enough videos for me. Is it worthy to get an external recorder for the D750, thinking of that also, since anyway I would need one for XLR mics.

One thing I found though was that all the slow motion videos I have seen off the D750 felt a little choppy. I'm not sure if it is because of bad conforming from 60fps to 24 fps or because of 1/120 shutter speed. And does it suffer from lower sharpness when moving from 30 fps to 60 fps in 1080p? Lots of cameras tend to get significantly low ressy as the framerate goes up.
Last edited:

Most reactions

New Topics