darrellcraig

I've had LX100, GM1/5, X100T, RX100 over the years and decided I wanted a truly pocketable stills camera so went with the GRII. Incredible stills, malleable RAW files, top notch fixed 28mm equivalent lens, APS-C sensor so decent low light and dynamic range is excellent, out of camera black and white JPEGs are some of the best I've seen.
Ergonomically it is incredible - you can operate with one hand, which makes more of a difference than I expected for the kind of casual or experimental off the cuff shooting you'd do with a smartphone. The level of customization and your "workflow" with the camera is great, it just gets out of the way - other camera manufacturers could learn a lot from this camera. It was clearly designed by photographers and has been refined over the years.
The LX100 is a great hybrid camera, but I was never happy with the stills quality. But really great camera. The RX100 packs a lot in, but was ergonomically a mess - got used to it, but no enjoyment, always fighting the camera. GM1/5 are great, excellent stills image quality (I thought much better than LX100 when paired with good glass like the 20/1.7 or 15/1.7 or 45/1.8). X100T is great, but that's getting kind of big, and I'd rather shoot with my A7s/FE 35 2.8.

Matthew, on GH5 vs. A7RIII image...
For stills: the A7RIII is vastly superior to me. But A7RIII does weird white balance stuff (same problem with A7/A7II/A7RII) - inconsistent and often wrong. GH5 stills quality is vastly improved over the GH4 and the ghastly GH3/2. The jpeg engine on the GH5 is really good and I often don't bother messing with RAW. And I found DR is much better on GH5 over GH4, files are much more malleable, especially on highlight retention. But shadows are cleaner too. But A7RIII stills just have a lot more latitude and I actually prefer Sony color (feels more natural, accurate) when white balance is right. I shot with Fuji X-Pro 2 and X-T2 and X100T for a while and those cameras are awesome at auto white balance. Colors are really pleasing, if not accurate.
For video:  I haven't shot the A7RIII much, just got it and I've had a bunch of opportunities to shoot stills but not video, so far. So nothing meaningful to add on video image quality. But clearly IBIS is not in the same league, that is immediately clear. 
The main reason I bailed on the A7RII was usability as a hybrid cam rather than stills or video image quality. The A7RIII is much, much better as a hybrid camera. Not as seamless as the GH5 in switching between roles as stills and video camera, but much closer to the GH5 than the A7RII. The other reason I prefer Sony is the access to a wonderful range of glass, especially the ability to use wider angle legacy and manual focus glass without crop factor. I recently picked up the Voigtlander 40/1.2 and am really enjoying that lens. I think the Oly 25/1.2 Pro is one of the best 50mm equiv lenses I've ever used, for any platform (it really is all about the glass), but that is still like a 50/2.4 from DoF perspective, so somewhat limited in what you can do.

Matthew, on GH5 vs. A7RIII image...
For stills: the A7RIII is vastly superior to me. But A7RIII does weird white balance stuff (same problem with A7/A7II/A7RII) - inconsistent and often wrong. GH5 stills quality is vastly improved over the GH4 and the ghastly GH3/2. The jpeg engine on the GH5 is really good and I often don't bother messing with RAW. And I found DR is much better on GH5 over GH4, files are much more malleable, especially on highlight retention. But shadows are cleaner too. But A7RIII stills just have a lot more latitude and I actually prefer Sony color (feels more natural, accurate) when white balance is right. I shot with Fuji X-Pro 2 and X-T2 and X100T for a while and those cameras are awesome at auto white balance. Colors are really pleasing, if not accurate.
For video:  I haven't shot the A7RIII much, just got it and I've had a bunch of opportunities to shoot stills but not video, so far. So nothing meaningful to add on video image quality. But clearly IBIS is not in the same league, that is immediately clear. 
The main reason I bailed on the A7RII was usability as a hybrid cam rather than stills or video image quality. The A7RIII is much, much better as a hybrid camera. Not as seamless as the GH5 in switching between roles as stills and video camera, but much closer to the GH5 than the A7RII. The other reason I prefer Sony is the access to a wonderful range of glass, especially the ability to use wider angle legacy and manual focus glass without crop factor. I recently picked up the Voigtlander 40/1.2 and am really enjoying that lens. I think the Oly 25/1.2 Pro is one of the best 50mm equiv lenses I've ever used, for any platform (it really is all about the glass), but that is still like a 50/2.4 from DoF perspective, so somewhat limited in what you can do.

Thanks for pointing to this Jon... maybe Sony will listen to him. Totally agree on the 5 video criticisms. Esp. the file numbering convention - it is idiotic and creates confusion and adds a bunch of extra work.
I'm running both a GH5 and A7R3 and evaluating the later as I want to switch to a single system solution, but stupid things like this that could easily be dealt with in firmware make me want to stick with the GH5, which I find a pleasure to use. Trying to decide which set of tradeoffs I want to make... pretty sure I'll just deal with the A7R3 as I do 80% stills, it is way better than the A7R2 for video (with ability to customize buttons for stills or video, and a bunch more parameters in the custom settings banks). Crazily, I'm doing an a/b with lenses and the good glass isn't really that much bigger on Sony side under 100mm where I do 99% of my stills & video shooting.

I like Amos Chapple (http://www.amoschapplephoto.com/) because (1) he shoots cheap, small m4/3 equipment (smaller bodies, some of the consumer glass) and  still seems to have great results, (2) his stories are very, very interesting and unusual, (3) he goes places I'd never go, (4) his images seem fresh, much of it is content I've never seen before.

I like Amos Chapple (http://www.amoschapplephoto.com/) because (1) he shoots cheap, small m4/3 equipment (smaller bodies, some of the consumer glass) and  still seems to have great results, (2) his stories are very, very interesting and unusual, (3) he goes places I'd never go, (4) his images seem fresh, much of it is content I've never seen before.

5 years ago i made a photo of the ISS with my GH3. I made it in photo mode with a old russian 1.000mm catadioptric lens. It was incredibly difficult to find the tiny point in the viewfinder and mantain the hight speed across the sky. I made a few dozens shots and one was sharp. It was pure luck at 1/125s. This is a 100% pixels crop.

If you zoom in 500% you’ll see its not a real horse, but tiny dots.

Huge thread over on FredMiranda with a highly detailed FAQ developed over time by the users, and detailed info on performance with various lenses. All from a stills perspective of course. I had one and used on an A7RII (sold a while ago) with a variety of glass (you can get adapters to convert to M mount, e.g. C/Y>M, OM>M, F>M, FD>M, etc.). AF is highly variable based on lens and aperture selected. There were also some long term reliability issues. It makes a great helicoid adapter to bring the generally long minimum focus distance (MFD) of rangefinder glass in to more useful range.

I've had LX100, GM1/5, X100T, RX100 over the years and decided I wanted a truly pocketable stills camera so went with the GRII. Incredible stills, malleable RAW files, top notch fixed 28mm equivalent lens, APS-C sensor so decent low light and dynamic range is excellent, out of camera black and white JPEGs are some of the best I've seen.
Ergonomically it is incredible - you can operate with one hand, which makes more of a difference than I expected for the kind of casual or experimental off the cuff shooting you'd do with a smartphone. The level of customization and your "workflow" with the camera is great, it just gets out of the way - other camera manufacturers could learn a lot from this camera. It was clearly designed by photographers and has been refined over the years.
The LX100 is a great hybrid camera, but I was never happy with the stills quality. But really great camera. The RX100 packs a lot in, but was ergonomically a mess - got used to it, but no enjoyment, always fighting the camera. GM1/5 are great, excellent stills image quality (I thought much better than LX100 when paired with good glass like the 20/1.7 or 15/1.7 or 45/1.8). X100T is great, but that's getting kind of big, and I'd rather shoot with my A7s/FE 35 2.8.

I've had LX100, GM1/5, X100T, RX100 over the years and decided I wanted a truly pocketable stills camera so went with the GRII. Incredible stills, malleable RAW files, top notch fixed 28mm equivalent lens, APS-C sensor so decent low light and dynamic range is excellent, out of camera black and white JPEGs are some of the best I've seen.
Ergonomically it is incredible - you can operate with one hand, which makes more of a difference than I expected for the kind of casual or experimental off the cuff shooting you'd do with a smartphone. The level of customization and your "workflow" with the camera is great, it just gets out of the way - other camera manufacturers could learn a lot from this camera. It was clearly designed by photographers and has been refined over the years.
The LX100 is a great hybrid camera, but I was never happy with the stills quality. But really great camera. The RX100 packs a lot in, but was ergonomically a mess - got used to it, but no enjoyment, always fighting the camera. GM1/5 are great, excellent stills image quality (I thought much better than LX100 when paired with good glass like the 20/1.7 or 15/1.7 or 45/1.8). X100T is great, but that's getting kind of big, and I'd rather shoot with my A7s/FE 35 2.8.

Michael1,
 
Canon 50/1.8II is only $125 compared to the Nikon 50/1.8G.
 
Leica 50/2 APO just got a $1000 price increase to north of $8K.
 
Sigma 50/1.4 ART is about $1000.
 
Zeiss Otus 50/1.4 is about $4000.
 
Lots of choices for consumers, with many tradeoffs across those choices.
 
The Otus is four times the price of the FE 55 or Sigma Art 50.
 
Some consider the FE 55 and Sigma Art 50 among the greatest bargains in lenses.

I'm an experienced photographer just trying to get serious about video, primarily of my 1 and 4 year old children and capturing short video clips to accompany stills while traveling (I travel quite a bit for work). I have OM-D EM5 and same lenses as you (but 17 and 25 instead of the 20/1.7 which I used to have).
 
I ended up buying a GH3 during the recent sale and have shot stills and video with it last two weeks or so. From a complete novice perspective, my observations are:
 
GH3 is better at motion - even I can see how the OM-D breaks down with a quick pan or a fast running 4 year old. But for most of the things I video, OM-D is fine GH3 does 1080p60, allowing for slow motion at 24fps in camera or in post (I'm trying to learn Adobe Premiere CC). This is pretty neat. Not sure if or how you can do effective slo-mo with the OM-D. IBIS on OM-D is amazing. It really makes video clips look a lot better, and works for all lenses. The OIS on the 12-35 is obviously not as effective as OM-D IBIS for handheld video. It seems to jump erratically from time to time, and just isn't as effective, as consistently. I think AF tracking is better on the GH3 than the OM-D. Manual focus is obviously the way to go, but I'm getting decent results with the AF tracking on the GH3 with the 12-35. In retrospect, I should have skipped the GH3 and just used the OM-D until I felt like I was hitting limitations.
 
You can do manual exposure control with the OM-D. If you hit record with the mode dial in 'M', you're in control.