DxOmark (Click here) published the full E-M1 sensor test. And according to their rating system the E-M1 has the best MFT sensor so far although it beats the E-P5 by one point only:
In the lab the E-M1 achieved one of the best scores for a MFT format camera with a DxOMark Sensor score of 73 points. As you might expect from the overall score, the E-M1 achieved one of the highest Portrait scores from this size sensor with color depth of 23-bits, and a similarly impressive Landscape score (DR) score of 12.7 Evs.
The Low-Light result was a little lower than expected (at 757 ISO) but it’s not too far away from the best APS-C cameras.
So far the 16Mp sensor from the OMD-PEN series has proven to be on par with most APS- C sensors. If you are waiting for a quantum leap forward in sensor tech than you have to wait 12-16 months until the first Panasonic organic sensor will make it into a mass production camera.
That said the E-M1 is still not in Stock in major US stores. To be very correct it is in Stock via third party resellers at Amazon US (Click here). But you have to pay quite extra $$$ to get it!
—
E-M1 Preorder Links:
Olympus E-M1 body at Amazon, Adorama and BHphoto, Amazon DE (via DL), Amazon UK (via DL), Amazon ES (via DL), WexUK, Topshot FI, CameraWorldUK.
Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO Lens at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, AmazonDE (viaDL), Amazon ES (via DL).
Olympus E-M1 with 12-40mm Lens kit at Amazon DE (via DL), WexUK and CameraWorldUK, Amazon UK (via DL), Amazon ES (via DL).
Olympus E-M1 with 12-50mm Lens kit at Amazon DE (via DL), WexUK, CameraWorldUK, Amazon UK (via DL), Amazon ES (via DL).
Olympus EP-13 Eyecup for E-M1 at Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus HLD-7 Battery Grip for E-M1 at Amazon, Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus LC-62D Metal Front Lens Cap for 12-40mm at Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus LH-66 Lens Hood for 12-40mm at Adorama and BHphoto.
90 Responses
i have my E-M1 already ,its been a weeks,..and i will get my 12-40 /f2.8 PRO tomorrow,.yes,.tomorrow,
.I always get the olympus stuff earlier than other people ,..what privilege,.
does it actually matter that you get it earlier then others?
apparently it’s a privilege.
+100
yep,.its 17 street photo,.NYC,.they, always get the Olympus stuff 2 weeks or a month ahead than B&H or adorama,.,.actually ,.H and B @46st they had E-M1 in stock about three weeks ago,.
even so i always put my Pre -Order at B&H or adorama, but those stores [17street & H and B] always get the stuff earlier,
now i have to cancel my pre-order 12-40 at B&H
that is kind of sad to see. I hope for mft that the next sensor will be significantly better.
It will be better, and so will the larger sensors, too.
You can already get APS-C sensors are much better (yet they will become EVEN better of course)! See the Nikon 5200 – at a price only 1/3 of that of the E-M1 you get a significantly better sensor.
Of course it is not only the sensor that matters to us – but it does matter a lot.
Those global scores are not important. The most important measure they do is the Dynamic Range curve, which is what really tells how much noise at high ISO there is. And if you compare that curve to the previous generation you’ll see a definitive improvement (about 2/3 of an f-stop).
These results are in line with reviews, putting this sensor at the level of the best APS-C at high ISO. Only that those global scores are misleading.
“These results are in line with reviews, putting this sensor at the level of the best APS-C at high ISO. Only that those global scores are misleading.”
The only attempt at misleading is by you Olympus does not even match the last gen APS sensors let alone current
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/909|0/%28brand%29/Olympus/%28appareil2%29/865|0/%28brand2%29/Nikon/%28appareil3%29/676|0/%28brand3%29/Pentax
Dont be a muppet, it is as far ahead of the 70D as it is behind the D7100. That is squarely in the middle of the pack of the most newly released APSC sensors.
Throw a fast m43rds lens on the OMD… Such as one of the VL and you have better ISO and DoF performance. Throw on an f2 zoom from Olympus and you have better DoF and noise performance… Throw on the Olympus 12-40 f2.8 and you are middle of the pack with a significant size savings and a lot of technology under your cameras hood.
Honestly. There are a few companies producing APSC cameras, and a whole bunch of them are neck and neck with the m43rds sensors to the point of it not mattering one iota.
lol there are fast lenses in all formats,the F2 zooms are gigantic for the format why would anyone with even half a brain consider carrying as much weight as FF with none of the advantages.Or an expensive over-sized manual focus lens lol clutching at straws there Kermit.
Plus the FT glass only works reasonably well on the E-M1
One lens for APS the Sigma 18-35 F1.8 covers much of the fast lens range for mFT while giving the same DOF as an F1.2 lens on mFT.Luckily you are amongst friends and you can post all the BS you want there will be a flock of sheep along to agree with you ,its so sad that reality never plays along enjoy yourself in your little Oly bubble just don’t let anyone in lol
Because you can use small lenses when you want to go small and when you want a fast lens you can use the F2 zooms.
With FF you only have the choice of large if you want to use a zoom.
MMMh… No, you also have small zooms on FF. And they cost less than many M43 zooms. Sorry, just pointing out the obvious.
Small quibble: If you want to do the DOF-equivalent thing (which is of dubious value to me) the crop factor between APS and µ43 is 1.33x, not 1.5x. So, the f/1.8 on APS has DOF closer to f/1.4 (1.35) on µ43.
Of course, the fastest zoom for µ43 is f/2.8, so APS does have an advantage there, but that’s just Sigma being the hardest-working lens manufacturer in the world. Voigtländer’s f/0.95 lenses (APS 1.26) are unmatched in the APS mirrorless world. So, it’s not the intrinsic limitations of the format, but lens availability that matters.
Are any of the “small” lenses for APS-C sized sensors weather-sealed?
🙂 So you have a lens that starts at 28mm and finishes at 55mm… And that is supposed to cover as much as a lens that either starts at 12mm and goes to 80mm at f2.8, or a lens that starts at 12mm and goes to 70mm at 2.8 or starts and 28 and goes to 70 at f2…
So you have that lens which could pretty much be covered by 2 primes 🙂
Now aside from that lens, please continue and point out all those fast high quality prime lenses for APSC cameras… I mean they are all over the place… Right? The choices are just amazing and getting better… 🙂 or not.
On the size front, we have a choice, APSC users dont… But you know what I love about your reply, it ignores the fact it completely refutes your blanket statement… And like so many who argue from your position you just keep shifting the goalposts 😀
There are fast lenses in all formats. No, the EM-1 does not mach best APS-C. It doesn’t match the K-5 sensor from 2 years ago. But it doesn’t matter, it’s pretty darn good. That’s what people should just do- accept the constraints of each format and deal instead of trying to say the format matches something it doesn’t.
Raist, where did I say it beat the “best” APSC sensors? That is a straw man argument. The fact remains that compared to Sony’s SLT technology and Canon’s lagging sensor technology it does perform with APSC cameras. It doesnt have to beat the “best” APSC camera for my statement to be true.
Having said that, the lens selection for m43rds is one of the most interesting on the market now, and bodies? Well you can go from professional video applications in a number of body styles and manufacturers to a range of still bodies with different ergonomic, and size configurations.
Flexibility, quality and choice. Not a bad tradeoff for a bit of sensor noise.
Not a straw man argument- looks like I just misinterpreted a bit what you said. But no, it doesn’t sit in the middle of the pack of the newer APS-C sensors. It sure seems to beat Canon, and Canon just seems to have fallen behind everything using Sony. That’s at least 3 brands of APS-C’s that do better.
As for bodies and lens selections, there are many options on the other sides. If you go agains the DSLR’s like Nikon or Pentax they have a vast array of lenses at their disposal they are compatible with. And a lot of the m4/3rd lenses have been dups or re-releases of the same lenses of type of lenses- ditto for the camera bodies. I am not saying there aren’t options, but they aren’t as key in the comparison as it may seem due to that.
As for “a little more noise”- it’s more than that. You also trade more color sensitivity, a bit more DR (I wouldn’t call 1.3 EV more on K-5 “a little” but…). Point is, sure, there are pros and there are cons. It’s not APS-C. That doesn’t mean bad. It’s just the way it is.
There’s no need to try to pretend it’s just as APS-C. Its certainly more than good enough for a wide range of applications- whether a photographer will do the trade of the little more noise/dr/color/gradation is up to them, but they do not perform the same.
“And a lot of the m4/3rd lenses have been dups or re-releases of the same lenses of type of lenses- ditto for the camera bodies. I am not saying there aren’t options, but they aren’t as key in the comparison as it may seem due to that.”
Lets see:
Just counting the AF primes, we have 12, 14, 17(/1.8), 17(/2.8), 19, 20, 25, 30, 45, 45 (macro), 60 and 75mm ‘native’ primes, and then a whole bunch of manual focus ‘native’ primes.
Zooms… 7-14, 9-18, 12-32, 12-35, 12-40, 14-42 (kit in many variations), 35-100, 40-150 (soon 2 wildly different ones), 75-300, 100-300, and a few ‘inbetween’ tele zooms from Panasonic.
I’d say that this has most of the required focal lengths covered, and additionally that for most focal lengths you can pick various price/quality/brightness compromises.
With regards to duplication, how many 18-55s do you think Canon made so far? (just to name one example, Nikon isn’t any better in this) How many 70-200s have existed for the various systems over time? Do all of those really overlap, or are they at times different compromises? (faster or lighter, better quality or more affordable etc), so I find your comment about this duplication a bit silly really. The amount of duplication is actually totally irrelevant, the amount of options is what counts, and as demonstrated above, m4/3 does give you quite a lot of options.
Given the number of options (and still growing) I’d rather argue that this is quite as ‘key’ as it seems.
Bodies?
From the tiny GM1 (without hotshoe and EVF) to the small E-PM2 (with hotshoe and optional EVF) to various ‘rangefinder style’ cameras with or without builtin EVF and covering a wide price range to a number of ‘DSLR styled’ cameras ranging from relatively low-end (G6) to very high-end (GH3, E-M1) with the E-M5 inbetween.
Yes, there is also needless duplication in there, but again, don’t get blinded by that but look at what variation exists, and you get a somewhat different picture.
You saved me a lot of time there, and I appreciate it 🙂
And Raist, as for the Sony SLT tech, no the APSC bodies have no advantage over m43rds. SO that leaves Nikon, Pentax and Fuji, and Fuji’s new sensor has its own issues that have been created with RAW. But there is also the Foveon APSC.. right? And while that has stunning resolution it also doesnt have trumps over the m43rds options.
Pentax has a limited lens selection and it is moving very slowly compared to m43rds. So you are left with Nikon… Now where is the 35mm eq prime? the APSC lenses have been languishing from Nikon… if it were not for Sigma and Tamron there would be very few APSC lenses to use and one would be buying nothing but FF lenses to make do.
To add to what yaa was mentioning, we also have black magic bodies in two variations including the popular Pocket Cinema Cam.
APSC can keep the slight noise advantage and the DR advantage (mostly in Nikon and Pentax bodies) I will continue to explore the myriad of options having so much choice in one mount… I can even use all my 43rds glass reasonably well now should I choose to do so.
It really is an excellent format, and people shouldn’t rate noise and marginal DR gains so highly.
In other words, more or less the same as any current Olympus camera and differences not visible to the naked eye.
OK, great. I will stick with my OMD and save a heck load of money on a new camera I wouldn’t need in the first place.
The E-M1 is also part of the “OM-D” series…
You guys still don’t get it. The E-M1 is a pro camera and has the features to go with it. If you don’t use those, then stick with your E-M5. The E-M1, unlike the E-M5, can also handle the 43 lenses and provide fast AF comparable to the E-5. There will be an E-M6 (or E-M7) eventually that is the next step upgrade step for the E-M5. Now do you understand?
Also, the E-M1 has no AA filter and better sharpness, which is something that DXO is not evaluating.
I agree. There is as much IQ difference between those as there is IQ difference between D3200/D5200/D7100 (or pretty much all 18MP Canon). You go up a model for additional features, higher performance (like faster AF/burst, bigger buffer), better build/ergonomics, etc. but not necessarily better IQ.
News from DPReview
“The E-M1 provides the excellent image quality that you’d expect from a camera of its semi-pro level. Its Four Thirds sensor is smaller than the APS-C imagers of its Nikon D7100 and Canon EOS 70D peers, but we think the difference it makes in real world shooting is hard to spot. You need to put the E-M1 up against a full frame camera to really see a significant difference in image quality. And thankfully, the image shake issue that has plagued some Olympus cameras does not appear to be a problem in the E-M1 as compared to the E-P5….
Choosing a Micro Four Thirds camera over an APS-C DSLR usually means sacrificing a bit of low light image quality for a gain in portability. The E-M1’s size might be cause for concern to someone considering the camera. In order to get the handling and controls it provides, is it still portable enough to make the trade-off worthwhile? We think it is. We didn’t see a drastic drop in image quality in low light as compared to APS-C DSLR and, for all of its additional controls and size, the E-M1 and a couple of lenses are still easily packed into a small bag.”
Bottom line: if you want to feel like you’re shooting with a DSLR, but still want the size and agility of a mirrorless camera, you’d be hard-pressed to find a better option than the E-M1.”
It’s not a pro camera because it’s MISSING the features to go with that.
How should the em1 iso performance be Lower than em5?
All the reviews are talking about half stop/1 stop advantage of the em1, here the score is lower…? Come on…
+1 I don’t understand as every curve alone is better or equal at high iso for E-M1 than E-M5
Maybe the on-sensor phase detect affects low ISO a bit. Though I doubt there’s a huge difference in real life shots.
In that case DXO would report that nikon 1 does not take pix when there is any cloud in the sky.
> How should the em1 iso performance be Lower than em5?
I guess you should simply read how DXO determines that value (it’s explained on their website). The Low-light ISO score is the highest value where SNR, DR, and Color Depth all stays above a pre-defined level. If a camera has low Color Depth at, say, ISO 400 and the Color Depth is already below the pre-defined level, its Low-light ISO score will be bad, even if it has a very good SNR. The latter doesn’t matter than any longer.
The ISO may seem surprising to some but recently on mu-43.com, a thread was posted about the EM-1 and a very odd finding of very poor noise performance and its gone completely unanswered as to why the EM-1 is struggling with NOISE.
Its very real so the DXO result is well inline with what real world use and not Paid for Reviewers and sites who are worried about revealing an issue and Olympus penalizing them for future reviewers etc.
That doesn’t mean its not a reason to get the camera as it still performs amazingly well but for people who ISO noise is a real concern and key driving factor in the decision making.. the EM-1 is a concern.
Could you post a link to the mu-43 thread?
Maybe he meant this one?
http://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=53621
Yes, that’s the thead and discussion. Interesting that DXO found an ISO aberration even if they were kind in how they worded it. The Original Poster of in that thread tried reaching out to Olympus and nothing, and no other reviewer has stepped or willing to discuss his findings. He demonstrating that its not a camera setting so its a real result. Unfortunately, no one with an EM-1 has tried to reproduce his findings to confirm it but now with DXO kindly worded ISO result it seems to be something more then just a one off..
I don’t understand why manufacturers are completely abandoning their user base.
When someone has a problem, and reaches out for the manufacturer, there should be a two-way communication. Especially since the issue seems to be reproducible.
Is this how much manufacturers really care about us? Just buy the camera and shut up… very disappointing.
When I got my first E-M5, it turned out to have a pretty subtle sensor defect. Most people would probably never notice, but in a few specific pictures I noticed what looked like a slight discoleration (yellowish) at iso 200, and a too high number of dead pixels for pixel-mapping to fix.
Contacted Olympus digital imaging support by email, they wanted 3 unedited pictures demonstrating the problem, and once they got those, I got a reply within hours that they considered it a DOA issue, and would replace the camera. Because this was days after initial availability of the E-M5, it took them a little longer then desired to replace it, and to ‘make up’ for that, I got that leather hand strap for free. Also they gave me the option to replace it with a different colored one if I so desired.
Don’t know, but to me that seemed like pretty good support, little fuzz, and a satisfactory result. Maybe I was just lucky, but I somewhat doubt that.
Thats what happens when you are dumb enough to think shills will be honest lol no legitimate source or anyone who has actually looked at the RAW files would claim a 1 stop difference. It is easy download Olympus viewer download raw files observe bye bye 1 stop
The low light result of the E-PM2 is about 20% better. Shouldn’t make a noticeable difference in practice, but since it’s a new sensor, i’m wondering if that’ due to the hybrid autofocus design or if they optimised base iso at the cost of low light abilities.
The sensor matches most APS-C? How does it compare against NEX?
A used D5100 ($300) has a better sensor according to DxO.
Sigh!
I guess that all depends on what you are comparing it to.
Because you can compare the same D5100 with newer, more expensive, larger sensor cameras too and come up with the same result. Nikons have a really good sensor.
Where are the people who claimed a 1-stop high-ISO improvement compared to the E-M1???
See my comment above.
You have to check the Dynamic Range curve to get a good idea of real world performance at high ISO. That curve basically measures the noise in the darkest areas (that’s why they call this measurement DR, because it tells you how much detail you can recover from the shadows before it’s destroyed by noise), so this gives the best measurement for high ISO noise performance.
The E-M1’s sensor is exceptionally good, as expected after seeing studio comparison shots.
There is zero difference in the RAW files you Olympus fanboys really shouldn’t swallow the load that Olympus shills fire at you
I think there is a difference in the raw files. But it is noticeable in the dark areas at high ISOs. You can compare here the E-M1 and the E-P5 (both have the same exposure for each ISO value):
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/9
If you put the low light scene (the icon with the bulb) and look at the raw files at ISO 3200-6400 in dark areas (for example, the lower part of that 20 schilling bill), you will see a difference, both in raw (less noise) and jpeg (more detail).
That difference is exactly what DxO is measuring in its Dynamic Range curve. Instead of Dynamic Range they should have written: Amount of details vs. noise in dark areas. Which is what matters in the real world when taking high ISO pictures most of the times.
(I don’t have any Olympus camera, I have a Panasonic one).
at those ISO settings they are both shitty if you think one is slightly less shitty so be it
Yes, they might be shitty. But compare with the NEX-6 that has an APS-C sensor and you’ll see it’s shittier.
Maybe in your hands but not in the hands of someone who knows how to shoot and process Raw files correctly. Like it or not the E-M1 copes better with blue noise at high ISO in dark areas and that increases the DR.
I don’t know why people even look at their website. The numbers mean nothing and the score is calculated some dumbass way.
No, it’s just that most people are to dumb to understand the numbers…
The only thing that matters is what the image looks like.
Yep to the Olympus blind faithful it is many stops better,its a damn shame when reality gets in the way that is why Olympus fanboys are a laughing stock.
Why.. because it is one of the ONLY imperical not subjective (whatever criteria they choose) as a baseline when comparing different cameras. If you’re looking for a data driven, unbias comparative result they are not many if any other options.. it removes personal bias, removes subjectivity and allows for a baseline to use.
It’s just one tool to use, studio shots being another but that doesnt make it any less useful just because the results are not within your expectations.
Negative numbers on Oly cameras: “Oh, DXO is meaningless and totally wrong. they are not experts and don’t use scientific methods. They are testing it all wrong. They need to test it so Oly comes out on top.”
Positive results for Oly cameras: “DXO is the best eveaaaa!”
Haha. Yup 🙂
Lower low-light score – that is what you get for throwing out every 16th pixel.
+1
That’s the price for putting PDAF on sensor. Interestingly, E-PM2 remains m4/3 low light champion :).
Actually, those pixels used for AF are not used in the final image, which results in (minimal) loss of detail, but it doesn’t really have any influence in noise.
DxO’s measurements show a clear improvement in high ISO noise (visible in dark areas), as seen on the DR curve. Which is in line with what real shots have shown.
Less information used = higher noise than it could have been.
Well, lets do a very naive approach on this…
1 out of 16 pixels is used for PDAF, so that is 1/16 of the pixels, or 6.25%
Now, if that would directly result in a 6.25% increase in noise we are still at levels that do not make a visible difference.
Technically what you say is quite correct, but you are talking about a pretty significant number of pixels before it starts making a real difference.
The phase detection part is basically an additional layer on top of the sensor. It has negative impart on the sensor performance. See canon 700d vs. 600d as an example. The fact that EM1 sensor performs on a par with the older one is already quite impressive. Not to mention that the DR has been improved quite a bit.
Where have you read its an additional layer.. just curious as I never read that anywhere. I was under the impression it was simply some pixels data were allocated to PDAF (even though they are still color filtered with a standard Bayer CFA). If you have a link, please share as I’m sure many would like to read up on it.
Canon’s implementation is different from the Sony/Olympus implementation anyway.
The results are good: better than the 70D. Considering Zuiko lenses are better than the EF-S ones the combo is great (few 70D users will use L lenses). The Nikon D7100 is better but considering the size advantage of the E-M1 (and better weather sealing and freezeproof) they are head to head overall. Again Zuiko lenses are better than their DX counterparts.
Agree, quality of lenses is too often forgotten.
Even if that was true, which it isn’t, pixel-peeping would tell you more than those charts. Going out and taking pictures is too much, I agree, it’s an impossible ordeal. Cameras are only there for geeks to measurbate.
Again, show me a beautiful photo taken with a camera and lens combo, and I’ll see what that combo can do in the right hands. Numbers? No thanks, not so exciting to me.
Yet you jump into every thread to defend your chosen toys lol
And yet, unlike you, Marco has a lot of good pictures to show for.
You only have an uninformed, loud-mouthed excuse for an opinion to show for.
@bob, do you really think Panasonic/Olympus need to be defended by me?! LOL. Read again my comment: I wrote that I’m not interested in numbers: they are good for a friendly talk on a evening with friends, but I prefer to look at pictures, since they can be a pleasure and (to me) they speak more than numbers, when taken by a good photographer.
The one ranting around is you, I’d suggest you to go take some photos and enjoy your gear: you will feel better, I do it every day.
from what I understand, it is basically the same sensor as the one from the E-M5, but without an AA filter, and with the PDAF sensor.
I’s also lsigtly different size
So basically it is a different sensor.
E-M1 is not about a new sensor, it’s about PDAF on the sensor any many many other features, as well as a professional body. That was clear all the time, even before the official announcement.
what this test does not tell you is how much the AF sucks….. this is no competition to a DSLR.
Take that with a grain of salt (and lemon)…
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/20
That is fair enough despite the negligible sensor differences the E-M1 is a superb bit of kit, with plenty significant steps forward not least the ability to utilise the hefty but wonderful Ft lenses
Pretty nice: the DR vs ISO curve is above the NEX6 for all values from ISO 200. The only lead of NEX is at ISO 100 (measured 75) which is not present at Oly…
The Nex has a last gen sensor so no surprises
The point is that for all but ISO 100 E-M1 is above NEX in DR – impressive.
-Half to 2/3 stop extra DR and improved colour are useful, if minor
-Extra DR means the increase in base ISO does not really matter
-DXO do a good job but must be put in context – improved CAF is much more important for me
– this camera won’t make me a better photographer
So, that confirms that it uses the current generation Sony sensor technology, which means the a7 probably does, too.
> So far the 16Mp sensor from the OMD-PEN series has proven to be on par with most APS- C sensors
That is, with APS-C sensors that do not use Sony sensors. I wonder if Sony will be able to keep their lead, or if someone else will leap forward.
For me, sensor performance has already reached “good enough” at µ43 dimensions. If it improves any further, Pentax Q may become the small-sensor darling! 🙂
I tried to buy the big truck. You know. The one that will let you take controlled environment shots outside when on walkabout, the one with all the calibrated gear to let perfect photos be taken wherever one is. You know, the mobile test site I can setup around myself that allows perfect light and all the other vital ingredients for the perfect shot. But I could not find one. Admin please provide details. I want to take perfect calibrated studio shots when I go to the city or the bush. Or should I just download DOX charts and hang them on the wall instead?
Evaluate a camera only looking at the sensor misses half the picture.
One has to look at the whole ecosystem of accessories, lenses and how the camera handles.
The real strength of Olympus has to be it’s lenses. The breath and quality still unmatched compared to other formats.
The 12mm, 45mm and 75mm are amazing and in my opinion still unmatched by any other.
One weakness of Olympus is that it’s cameras becoming too expensive and not price competitive with (DLSR’s) and other camera manufacturers.
I’m saying this as a NEX shooter and would to change immediately once Olympus figures out that PAL region exists when designing it’s video capabilities. Until then it’s cameras are useless to me.
No, it hasn’t proven to be on par with most APS-C sensors admin, only those from Canon at the moment 🙂
What I have to give kudos to Olympus is taken what is the OMD EM-1 sensor and still distill an extra 1/3rd ev DR along with a notch more color sensitivity. That usually was also often the difference between E-5/E-3 class and E-30/E620 class in four thirds.
– Ricardo
More than a month after announcement and no availability problems post?
I’m not sure how a camera can be so controversial. I bought into the m43 system so I can have a camera that is light and does not attract too much attention on the streets. When I had the EM-5, it was almost perfect. Great image quality and handling. And I love the selection of primes. I can go about the city incognito! Did not miss the DSLR days at all, too much of a hassle and not as enjoyable to use. (Besides, we have still two D800Es at the office so that’s how I see FF cameras now… work.) Now that the EM1 is out, I believe it is the perfect camera for me. Why? The improved EVF. Based on reviews… best on the market to date! If this is even half true then I will have no complaints since the viewfinder is a very high priority for me. Who cares about sensor size and tests? Anything that makes you want to go outside and take pictures is a great camera! Everyone has different needs. Just pick the one that’s right for you and stop being a d-bag about it. I know mine will be here this Wednesday and I know I will fall in love it with it after that first shutter click.
Cheers!
+1
The most important aspect of a camera to me is if it makes me want to pick it up and take pictures.
Yes, all the technical details also matter, but if that one thing isn’t there, the best technology in the world isn’t going to make up for it.