skip to Main Content

Full E-M1 review at Camera-Reviews. Last episode of LL E-M1 review.


Image courtesy: (Click here) published the full Olympus E-M1 review. They write:

The OM-D E-M1 is bar-none the best stills-shooting experience within the Micro Four Thirds system, with image quality good enough for the working photographer. This camera is a loud and clear statement of intent from Olympus—Micro Four Thirds can be for pros, too.

They have scored it a 9.8 out of 10 and awarded it with the Editor’s Choice. compared with the Panasonic GX7, which also earned a 9.8, though the E-M1 outpoints it the our dynamic range, high ISO, speed, and resolution tests thanks to the excellent 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro lens. The GX7 is a better performer in white balance and video, however.

Luminous Landscape (Click here) concluded their E-M1 four part review with a final trip in Paris:

At the end of my week shooting with the E-M1 during my vacation in Paris I can summarize my experience as being almost 100% positive. The camera is small a light enough to be carried anywhere, for hours at a time and with a small / light shoulder bag full of lenses from 14mm – 600mm equivalent. That’s the real benefit of the MFT format – lens size.

And the following LL sentence is made for the 43rumors trolls that love to remark the Full Frame or APS-C vs FT sensor size difference:

The MFT advantage used to be smaller cameras and smaller and lighter lenses. Now the body size advantage has been challenged, but the lens size advantage remains, and always will, MFT used to mean some compromises when it came to image quality, but those days are past. Only the most neurotic pixel peeper will find anyhting to kvetch about with files from the Oluympus E-M1 and its contemporaries.

Gotcha trolls? ;)

More E-M1 news:
The Olympus EM-1 first published thoughts on its focus capabilities (Damianmcgillicuddy).
Olympus Try and Touch event in Finland (Henrysnote).

Preorder Links:
Dedicated page at Amazon.
Olympus E-M1 body at Amazon, Adorama and BHphotoAmazon 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.

  • Thanks for sharing the LL review. How lucky he was to have visited Paris with the E-M1! Hope he posts some more pictures soon.

  • “The MFT advantage used to be smaller cameras and smaller and lighter lenses. Now the body size advantage has been challenged, but the lens size advantage remains, and always will, MFT used to mean some compromises when it came to image quality, but those days are past. Only the most neurotic pixel peeper will find anyhting to kvetch about with files from the Oluympus E-M1 and its contemporaries.”

    If this tekst is from LL than they becoming a joke. Today i went for some shooting with a d700, XE1 and EM5. Even a kid which is 12 years old saw the huge quality difference in pictures with EM5 not that bad but way at the bottom of those three. LL lost it.

    • Anonymous

      Shankie….I think I heard your mother calling you…..

      • Consider the source. One of the most respected photo professionals, or “Shenkie”.

        • horatio

          I think that “kid which is 12 years old” is shenkie

          • FAUST

            Truth is, any camera made in the last 5 years is amazing. Just pick the one you like. Done. All this tech BS is such a waste of time. It has NOTHING to do with image making.

            • Olle


            • jim


              we now have low end cameras that are wet dreams above anything avalible in 2000!

            • You are so right.

    • JY

      First of all, the LL comment is about E-M1. Secondly, you have never even touched a EM5.

    • TZ

      Pics or it didn’t happen.


    • Ross

      “Only the most neurotic pixel peeper will find anything to kvetch about”

      Yep, they’re right!

    • @Shenkie

      Where is your portfolio? i wonder if all those complaints is from an actual artist/pro photographer or else?

      by the way, i use an Oly and Nikon, but i only critics the result, not the equipment.

    • Fish

      You carried all three of those cameras around today? It sounds like you were ready for some real comparison shooting – where have you posted the results? What lenses were used?

    • C. C.

      Shenkie the Troll, you are no photographer. Thus, no credibility. But keep posting because we love to ridicule you.

      You also took the bait from Admin, and responded. hahahahahahahaha…

  • I love that “Gotcha trolls? ;)” statement.

    We don’t hear Admin (Ale) weigh in on the issue. He must feel frustrated that his website, his first baby, has on occasions been hijacked by dpreview-type trolls. Perhaps the best way would be for Admin to publish a statement on the best way we can, as a community of readers and contributors, deal with the trolls. With the first and most effective way of dealing with them to NOT FEED THEM!

    Hopefully he has not provoked them by mentioning them in this post.

    Keep up the good work Admin, I have been enjoying the coverage.

    • Macintosh Sauce

      Personally, I can’t stand the 35mm FF trolls at DPReview. :-|

      • Anonymousse

        Forgive the FF trolls, they’re too cheap and too wimpy to use MF.

        • ckmaui

          EXACTLY !

        • JimD

          Just refer to them as 35mm trolls they are not FF trolls there is no such thing as FF in reality.

          • jim

            I think you would have to define FULL FRAME as a sensor or film the size of the universe! :) – now thats full frame!

            Anything else is just a compromise – so 35mm is more like 1/99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 of a frame.

            We all know m43 is the future – thats why we are hear and buying m43 stuff – we see it… the FF guys are just holding onto what was…

            I think you could probably find advantages of woodern ships over steel – but in reality steel was the right for the job… and now wood is used for the sake of it not for any real advantage. the same is happening with imaging equipment. I remember having similar convos when digital was new and people were like digital will NEVER get the quality of film! – don’t hear much from those guys now days – probably because they now rant on about sensor size :)

            • JimD

              I have no issues with things moving on. It happens everywhere. I just complain that the move on is just a small group saying theirs is best so they define it as the true size and call it Full with the implication that anything else is inferior.

              Its like yards, metres, miles and nautical miles. Yards and miles actually make no sense. Metres do make sense being based on a system that links with weight as well as distance. Nautical miles are the best measurement, they fit with 360 degrees in the earth’s circumference and time. Miles are a real nonsense. Then there are furlongs, perches, rods and many more, now thankfully gone.
              One thing I can never work out is if a foot is measure of a foot (as opposed to 12 thumb digits “inches” (12?)) and today most people have feet well short of a foot. Bods of the past must have been very very tall, so why were the old houses doors and ceilings so low?

              As I said I have no problem with the 35mm being the yard stick for comparative measurement. That’s fine. But define it as ‘full frame’ that’s as bad as saying an over square 1 litre 4 cylinder engine is the ‘true engine’. Full frame No. ‘standard frame’ OK “base standard’ is best, as BS describes many apsc users who claim all the properties of 35mm.

    • Des

      Olympus’ E-M1 and 12-40 f2.8 are building more insecurity in trolls and haters :)

      • jim

        “When niggers be hating on you – you know you doing somthing right…” looks like Oly is doing a lot of things right :)

    • Raist

      What is truly hilarious about your statement is that it was Olympus “fanboys” who attacked the admin and 43rd rumors first for months. While “Trolls” like me – who simply try to voice an objective opinion defended it at the Oly DSLR at dpreview (you can look at the threads, they are all there).

      Of course there are real trolls too and it’s fair game to refer to those, but I think admin was simply joking. AFAIK he runs FujiRumors too and the all out enthusiasm is poured in that system over there including incitements to switch taking advantage of lens saving offers :-)

  • Phred..

    Thanks for reporting all of the thing I do not understand is why everyone keeps comparing the M1 to the GX7.
    The cameras are in two completely different places?

    • NPrincen

      Yes, it is much more appropriate to compare the E-M1 to the GH3. At the E-M1 scores 9.8, which is VERY good, but the GH3 scores 9.9. So, while all the Oly fans are congratulating themselves, they should know that the GH3 is still the better overall camera. Very close for stills and far superior for video. If you only shoot stills, then get the E-M1, but for those of us that shoot both, the GH3 is better. The GH3 even scores equal to the Canon 1D X, which is a 35mm sensor camera.

      • I am a stills-only shooter…I never wanted and do not need video in my camera…bravo to Olympus for not caring! :-)…I also do not want to pay for a video camera in my camera. They are two completely different disciplines. (I know many people do not feel that way…but it’s a fact.)

      • BLI

        I don’t care about video — I enjoy the work of those who do care, but personally, I don’t have the time to edit video sequences into a good final film. An Olympus representative stated in an interview a few days ago that for them, stills photo was their main concern, and that if video is very important, there are other, better tools.

        Regarding grading: normally, price and intended use is weighted into the total score. It doesn’t make much sense to compare cameras in different price segments.

    • Anonymous

      In a contrary , i believe that s pretty obvious when two direct company being compete each other, and is quite different between nikon and canon war which is not share the same mount and system, both Oly and Pany has been sharing and compete since they establish 43 sytem and now also with M43 .

      I still remember when GF1has to compete with E-P1, and so on until the released of E-P5 and panny answer with GX7 and claimed the title of being the best of M43 . And now with the upcoming E-M1 the same website (LL) who gave the title of GX7 as the best at that time , have to correct themselves with their own statement. As long as the technology improving they will always be the best product at the moment,. And the best previous has always be come obsolete

    • jim

      because in reality they are the best 2 cams from both makers… you can argue the GH3 but realy the GX7 adds IBIS and gives as good if not better everthing else in a smaller package… so alot of poeple will be looking do i go gx7 or EM1…

  • noPhoto

    I am confused and don’t know what I will need to upgrade to from G3, I have waited until now and will probably wait until Sony announces its FF-NEX. I really wanted GX7 to remain the same size as GX1 or even get smaller but it’s the opposite.

    • Anonymous

      I guess , you have to first understand the need of your photography, these days they are many excellent camera and they mostly can be use in almost for everything with different situation , if you need just for street photography GX7 is already perfect to fill the requirement , if you need for wild life or sport , you must wait for E-M1 or else , just get DSLRcamera

    • kiki

      keep your g3 it’s a good cam and buy great lens.

    • carpandean

      NEX-FF will be an even bigger body with even bigger lenses, and it will cost more than double.

  • Yun

    That is because both packed with latest sensors respectively . Image quality is important when come to pick up / upgrade a new cam .

  • I still think that the GX7 is closer to the m4/3 gestalt, although the E-M1 IQ might be unimpeacheable.

    But do we still need to be reminded that without the dSLR form factor there is no salvation? Perhaps newcomers from other systems… Sunset Boulevard geezers with their rusty big dicks…

    Anyway I can save money for another 6 months, waiting for an E-P6 WITH EVF, Oly. If not, a GX8, without that rubber thing in the EVF that gets stuck everywhere.

    No more thick condoms, Panny :)

    • Anonymous

      WOW…and this comment is when you ARE using your medication.

      • Anonymous

        Sadly he is a shame for this site.

    • Fish

      A “big dicks” and “thick condoms” reference in the same post? Sounds like you are fixated with male genetalia amalric.

      • Anonymous

        Yeah, definitely some insecurities and feelings of inadequacies there – psychology 101. Probably drives a big car/truck, too.

        • Fish

          I don’t know… If I had to put money on it, I would say that he drives a tiny little car. He doesn’t seem like the type to try and compensate for his insecurities – I think he revels in them. If you read his posts or look at his profile photo, it seems like he is trying to beat himself up, not portray himself in a positive light.

      • No, I am just baiting your ordinary phallic troll, even a 3 years’ old by now knows the Freudian analogy, in which those gentlemen delight…

        Asking their trollops if their next zoom pleases them, and if the hump has enough cojones :)

        • Fish

          shenkie says that a 12 year old can tell the difference in his imaginary photo shoot. amalric says a 3 three year old knows Freudian analogies. I wonder why these types of posters are always bringing kids into the discussion?

          • You have a filthy mind, and you are probably illiterate enough to ignore the meaning of a hyperbole.

            OTH even in Charlie Brown, Lucy has a shrink shop, so that goes to tell how far Freud has gone.

            I am not surprised by your nick’s choice: in my native language ‘Fish’ is a metaphor both of dick and of dickhead.

            • Fish

              More genetalia references from amalric… How unexpected. And I can’t express how interested I am in your native language.
              It seems I struck a nerve. Small car, right?

            • pike

              Keep going Almaric!

              I always look foward to your posts

      • Ivo

        Naaaah I do not think so he advocates m43 not ff

        Soooo probably no need to compensate anything with a really big lens duh

    • Macintosh Sauce

      Are you talking about your fantasies again? :)

    • Got it. What is the message? Whatever is the most oppositional at any given moment. Is there another any other point?

  • Daemonius

    “Size matters” – it was always like this and always will be unless someone manage to rewrite some physical laws.

    m4/3 is compromise in order to achieve smaller form factor and less weight, which in case of GX7 (or even old GX1) seems to be pretty much achieved. E-M1 is bit further from that. But Olympus was already “further” from that since they started 4/3s (E-3 + 14-35/2 .. nowhere small or light). So no suprise.

    In some aspects its maybe better compromise than APS-C, which is somewhere “in between” but pretty much doesnt manage anything else than compromised sensor size and image quality.

    But as I wrote it, its compromise. If you want it to be small, it will be, for a price. Image quality of m4/3s isnt comparable by any stretch with decent full-frame. Thats not about pixel peeping, it simply doesnt work that way.

    You can go back into history and its always the same, bigger format is better. At least as far as image quality goes (cause sport shooting with 8×10 inch camera isnt exactly main point of it).

    Best advice for m4/3s is simply “dont compare”. Take it as it is. Seems to be very hard for most..

    • n0b0dy

      Daemonius, I guess you’re still walking around with a Motorola DynaTAC, because as you said: “Size matters”.

      • Daemonius

        Nokia 3510i, cause it still does work, cause it does what I want it to do (phone, SMS, wake me up sometimes and yea it does have even callendar). Yea and it works on battery for two-weeks. How long can your smartphone last on battery? :)

        Planning to buy something newer and tougher tho, preferably with at least same or more “alive time” on battery.

        Smartphones are compromise too, in almost every aspect.

    • OD

      Exactly. Just like going to FF from medium format is a compromise in some way. Photography is all about compromises from the moment you balance shutter, aperture, ISO. Within that, creative expression is how you use that compromise.

      All that said, I’ve been looking through the Imaging-Resource sample shots and I am startled by how close the quality is getting. Put that with the easier size and the philosophy of “we’ll give you a ton under the hood because we’re a smaller brand” and that makes the compromise easier.

      • Anonymous

        they’ll give you a ton under the hood but will omit the hood. don’t overestimate the generosity of olympus

    • Dave

      Size difference, except for the EM hump, is negligible.,482

      • Fish

        I’m going to buy the e-m1 (next year) but look at the right-side view of both cameras. If you have to cut off the grip and the hump to call the size difference negligible – it’s not negligible; it’s significant.

      • true homer

        Check out this even more negligible difference,482

        Or is it too painful for some?

        • Im not quite sure what the problem is here, but we can revisit some specs to illustrate some points that may be profound for some minds. Basically the small SLRs we see around now can be drawn within a box of 130x100x90, and mirrorless within 130x90x70, give or take a quarter inch here and there. But it is worth recounting some aligned aspects

          It has been found that SL1 like M5 like GH2 are really too small to operate their control set with any proficiency, whereas adding some additional meat in the way both GH3 and M1 have restores the controllability to a fuller access. It is also complicated by providing a large viewer and an adjustable LCD, both of which M1 has aboard.

          One hand we have an order of cameras in small SLRs that wouldnt have existed if it werent for mirrorless, and on the other hand mirrorless cameras that have grown to fulfil ergonomic function, ‘at the top of their range’. This doesnt address the reality that nothing has occurred in SLRs to compensate the size of the individual lens options in the range, indeed it still somewhat depends upon FF lenses to broaden its utility. Or that the more proficient SLRs are quite a lot larger. As seen from the dimensional spec mirrorless do very small to small, and SLRs small to humongous (comparatively speaking).

          So, while we can give up very large optical accessories like outsized viewfinders, tilt LCDs and ergonomic rigour for size in mirrorless, SLRs only begin at that point. In reality theres nothing wrong with either, just that some sense of losing bulk is for the moment more popular.

    • Can you imagine the hand wringing a hundred years ago about the terrible awful image quality that results from switching from a 4×5 view camera to a twin lens reflex? Real pros would never consider using such a small toy. Historically, it was the same angst when 35mm came on the scene to dethrone medium format.

      When you switch to a smaller strip of film, it’s an absolute fact that image quality suffers. But that’s not the case anymore when comparing m43, APS-C, and FF sensors.

      • JimD

        There is no such thing as FF if you mean 35mm then say so.

        • Robert Mark

          Thank you for your kind and helpful suggestion.

          • true homer

            Kind and helpful? Youre in the wrong place for that

    • >Size matters

      well apparently not so much
      APSC is falling over slowly,its always been dedicated lens deficient, now its plain that neither C or N are going to make it better. APSC is a placeholder for cheap FF,while ‘pro APSC has been discarded. Yet C&N bread and butter is the neglected APSC market

      >Image quality of m4/3s isnt comparable by any stretch with decent full-frame.

      So I guess lower res D3 and D700 are among the many that dont cut the ‘decent’ batch, and Canon FF which hasnt been competitive in DR for years is likewise indecent.

      Since you seem to miss the boat here, the only places to be are FF or m43rds. While FF stratifies with cheap FF it isnt taking as well as they hoped.

      m43rds offers a compelling array of bodies from super light to professional video without compromise. Year by year the system just gets stronger by its diversity. C&N OTOH seem to be pushing people to cheap undernourished FF at the expense of good APSC.

      • mirrorsnomore

        >Size matters

        >well apparently not so much
        “APSC is falling over slowly,its always been dedicated lens deficient, now its plain that neither C or N are going to make it better. APSC is a placeholder for cheap FF,while ‘pro APSC has been discarded. Yet C&N bread and butter is the neglected APSC market”

        Nah ,their bread and butter are all those low end APS models that they spit out every other week that sell by the bucketful.At least Nikon has decent sensors for the life of me I cant see how Canon get away with it.When was the last time Canon APS had an honest upgrade in sensor ?

        >Image quality of m4/3s isnt comparable by any stretch with decent full-frame.

        “So I guess lower res D3 and D700 are among the many that dont cut the ‘decent’ batch, and Canon FF which hasnt been competitive in DR for years is likewise indecent.”

        It is all about current tech the D3 is 4 years old compared to the ole 12mp Pany sensor it was way ahead.Canon once led the pack in sensor tech maybe they got complacent or because they still sell either way they lost the plot.The D3 was a one trick pony it was a good trick though it still has a 2 stop high ISO gain on even the best mFT.

        Since you seem to miss the boat here, the only places to be are FF or m43rds. While FF stratifies with cheap FF it isn’t taking as well as they hoped.

        “m43rds offers a compelling array of bodies from super light to professional video without compromise. Year by year the system just gets stronger by its diversity. C&N OTOH seem to be pushing people to cheap undernourished FF at the expense of good APSC.”

        I read the review of the D600 recently apart from the weeping sensors :-)it has a pretty high end feature set for a “low end model”excellent image quality, Solid builds quality and good ergonomics. Weather-sealing, Dual SD card slots, 100% OVF, good metering, very good video output, fast, responsive camera when adjusting settings

        If or when Sony gets its FF Nex to market it will be interesting to see where that goes.Anyhow I have my kidney for sale on Craigslist NY no time waters please :-) there is an E-M1 with a 12-40 and soon a 50-150 with my name on it.Who needs two kidneys :-)

        • gigen

          Regarding the introduction of Sony FF mirrorless: my thoughts exactly. It will hit CaNikon offering like a nail (well, if it’s good and competitive of course), not M43 at least not directly or permanently. But let’s see how it goes. Me, I am confidently investing heavily in M43 glass as my only system, and there are no worries here, at least for the next 3-5 years.

    • BLI

      “Size matters” — precisely! That is exactly why I switched to m43 — I don’t have the energy to carry several kilograms of equipment when I can get almost as good results with a m43 camera with lenses well below a kg.

      Oh — you meant the opposite? So surely you use MF cameras? Or is a 24×36 mm sensor your optimal choice of quality vs portability?

    • Robbie

      I think some people just forgot the fact that there’s still a PEN line. EM1 is not everything Olympus stood for, it has a targeted audience. If you want small, go for the PEN line.

  • mma173

    Unfortunately, as stated in one of the reviews, the focus tracking is still not in par with the traditional DSLRs.

    • OD

      Gosh, I wonder how we did it before AF. And with access to an array of MF lenses from all makes and sizes because of the short flange distance, I’ve gained in MF focusing ease over an SLR. Some might now but I can live with that.

    • BLI

      How bad is the C-AF on the E-M1? One contributor here claimed that e.g the 75/1.8 had a way too narrow DOF for C-AF to work.

      I find it interesting that both Pekka Potka and Damian McGC claim it works well — with the 75/1.8 — and other lenses. It seems that if you set up the camera correctly for C-AF, there is a better chance of success. I would listen more to pro photographers than to magazine reviewers.

      • mma173

        I read the following on ‘’ few days ago:
        “The E-M1 has continuous tracking autofocus, but regrettably it has no idea of what it should be focusing on. Frankly, each time I tried to use it, it decided to go off its merry way focusing on something completely irrelevant”

        But later on, I read Damian McGC’s review few hours after posting my comment. I would say I’m convinced. The new PDAF/CAF system works!

      • Anonymous

        You mean “how good” is it?
        It’s proven pretty good all over the board, from lots of different reviewers now.

        It was a French magazine though (Chasseur D’images) that tested C-AF w/ 75/1.8, and said it could not keep up at distances closer than 17m, when the subject came towards them at 50 km/h. But it turned out they didn’t even use CAF, but were shooting at 10 FPS (they measured 11,5 FPS), a setting where C-AF is disabled, and the S-AF focus is kept from the 1st picture in the burst! C-AF in the E-M1 works at 6.5 FPS, and S-AF at 10 FPS. The magazine didn’t know what they were doing, and they actually did exactly the same error when testing the E-M5 as well! :(

        Here’s a thread from DPR about it:

        • mFTmaybe

          “The magazine didn’t know what they were doing, and they actually did exactly the same error when testing the E-M5 as well! :( ”

          The thing is the E-M5 C-AF was just as shit as every other mFT camera.Though the same old shills said it was the dogs bollocks makes you think doesn’t it

  • MarioZ

    That is to be expected, that camera is legendary, it is the perfect compination of form and function and will surely go down in the history of photography as one of the greatest cameras ever made.

  • Hubertus Bigend

    “Trolls that love to remark the Full Frame or APS-C vs FT sensor size difference”?

    Reichmann talks about APS-C when he says MFT wasn’t really behind it anymore, not FF. That’s why he says, what you didn’t quote, “I’m not kicking my Nikon D800e out of bed”, and that “the E-M1 has earned a place at the table” – “for travel and street shooting”. You didn’t really think he’d be using the E-M1 for serious studio or landscape work now, did you?

    • Vlad

      What is “serious work”?

    • That’s his problem, and you are probably none suited to tell. Only an insecure, talentless photog. would equate Image Quality, with Quality of Image, that is talent and art, creative content.

      For that m4/3 offers ‘good enough’, more than enough IQ and incredible flexibility. It is no surprise that the E-M5 has become a favourite among journalists and fashion photogs.

      Landscape is still debatable, but that’s also the last refuge of the American Imitation Scoundrel, the Audubon’s trollop, who needs a view camera big as a hut to express himself with a sunset :)

      • MaruSartoriPhoto

        M43 is really good even for landscapes, given the bigger depth of field. So you can use wider apertures in dimmer light and still have a “full” landscape to admire, not just blurry details on the foreground. And it’s more portable than a FF beast.

        • Anonymous

          For high quality landscape shooting you will be using a tripod IS of any description isn’t the same .Once you are prepared to use a tripod or whatever support. You are free to shoot any combination of ISO/shutter-speed/F-stop that does the job.In low light with the best FF vs the best mFT you have better shadow noise, better high ISO so your claim is as a stretch


      The author is correct in saying its a compromise.. I don’t agree with hum on the body size. My vision of M43 is small bodies, small lenses. Even though the GH3 is larger and I wouldn’t buy one, I know why Panasonic made it.

      But back to the topic, M43 should be small. It’s always going to be a secondary option to Pro DSLR users, UNLESS the get bigger like the E-M1. If that’s the case, I see M43 failing and more pros resorting to the Fuji’s and Nex’s.

      And dont forget the trickle down effect… Whatever the pros use gets talked about and persuades potential camera buyers. So it’s important for M43 to not fall between the cracks.


      • Anonymous

        You just don’t get it do you.
        It doesn’t matter if FF is better as the quality from the smaller formats (including 1″ sensor which is not far behind) is now so good that unless you are doing specialised work it is irrelevant.
        That’s why all you FF guys aren’t shooting MF or 5″x4″.
        Because it is heavier, more expensive and less convenient to use.
        40 years ago people were making the same comments about how rubbish 35mm was and how they’d never use it for anything serious and even in the 1990s many wedding photographers refused to use it.
        As the quality increases the differences become unimportant.
        In 20 years people like you will be making the same comments about the 2/3″ sensors and proclaiming the superiority of the 1″ sensor.

        • Daemonius

          Reason why more photographers dont use medium format or large format is rather simple.

          1) good medium format back is really expensive (especially these covering 645 fully)
          2) for true medium format you need to shoot film (6×6 and more)
          3) large format is film only

          Im sure quite a lot of people would like shooting medium format, even that smaller 645 variant, but medium format digital is stuck in previous decade. Everything is CCD (which isnt bad) and most of cameras are quite lacking in most aspects. Sure Leica S is usable, perfectly, just it isnt exactly medium format, rather FF on steroids. Same goes to Pentax 645D which is reasonably expensive “bigger than FF” camera. :)

          Canon is for some time playing with medium format CMOS, Sony too. Maybe we will see something in not-so-distant future. As you cant increase resolution without consequences, only way to increase image quality is simply to make bigger sensor. Yea and Phas One is trying to make CMOS back too.

          Unlike film era, medium format simply isnt viable option today.

          • Anonymous

            So you think most of the FF photographers would switch to MF if they had modern sensor tech. I think that’s very unlikely because of the weight of the cameras and lenses, the extra cost that would still be involved and simply because they don’t need it.
            It’s the same with m43. Most of us (and I suspect most FF users) simply don’t require > ISO 3200 or don’t produce massive prints or display our photos that way.
            And with m43 offering around 11-12 stops of DR, most of us don’t need any extra.
            So why carry around the extra weight and size or have the extra cost.
            I never needed to in the film days with a small and light OM system and now I don’t need to with m43.

            • Daemonius

              And some of us dont like smaller than FF look. :)

              Issue with medium format isnt size or weight, issue is that compared to lets say Canon 1D X they are like from different century.

              Sure image quality is still very nice (thanks to sensor size and being CCD), but most people prefer cameras that can auto-focus in some reliable manner and work outside base ISO. Which most of medium format backs cant. Combine that with price of used or new car and thats exactly why most photographers dont use it (its nice for landscapes and portraits, pretty much everything which can be shot on base ISO and doesnt move :D).

              If lets say Canon made digital medium format camera with AF like 1D X and same performance of sensor, priced in some reasonable way, then yea Im very positive a lot of people would buy it.

              It will most likely happen at certain point, but probably not so soon. I guess they develop something right now, just we wont see it sooner than in few years.

              • true homer

                Some of you dont like the smaller than ff look and yet, you cant seem to stay away from a 43s site…. doesnt that amaze anyone? Are you here to teach us? Convert us? Do you preach at aps c sites?


          To me, Micro Four Thirds is a system that is a Compromise between Image Quality and Size. That’s the way I always seen it.

          If M43 is your Primary camera, good for you, I’m not knocking it, just simply stating that if the bodies go larger, then in my opinion, M43 will die.

          I went from a GF2, to GX1, and soon to a GX7. I shoot only with primes, even though I wouldn’t mind the 12-35/35-100mm combo, but I prefer my 25mm P/L prime over anything.

          My point is, if M43 goes Big, then what is the purpose? I would rather go to my 6D or forget M43 altogether, and go the Fuji route. I was getting ready to do that, until the GX7 announcement.

          • Dave-3

            M43rds won’t go bigger then the em1. Oly won’t make the same mistakes again……

          • Anonymous

            I personally wouldn’t go any larger than a GH-3 size camera which is about the same size as the smallest dSLRs. But the main weight savings are in the lenses and you will get a much bigger viewfinder and weather sealing and better features in the m43 camera.
            When they can produce a small dSLR with 7D or D300 features let me know.

          • Robert Mark

            Compact body size is a nice benefit of m43, but for me compact lenses are more important. Compare the size and price of the Olympus 150mm f 2.0 to the Canon 300mm f 2.8. Same reach, similar quality, but no comparison in size, weight. Bonus – the Zuiko gathers twice as much light.

      • Nobody asked ALLCAPS

        ..nope Master Caps. Once again Admin has produced a verbatim quote and you are the one that is spinning by referencing a false claim you made in the past… why am I even bothering to point this out… got to fill the camera-less time between now and October.

    • The Real Stig

      Did professional photographers ever use 35mm film for ‘studio’ work? Was all the studio output prior to the D800 unacceptable?

      Maybe the technical image quality isn’t as important a factor as a lot of people like to make out. Shocking thought, that.

      • BLI

        Shocking thought indeed: could it mean that equipment is not the most important, but rather talent and hard work?? Woe me :-)

    • Boogeyman

      AFAIK (like most), his “serious” work is writing “reviews” with unimaginative pictures and huge amount of typos with links to vendors. Seriously, are any of these guys real photographers?

  • Henrik

    Said “trolls” with luxuriate in the attention you awarded them with this blog post – and will continue to troll.

    You shouldn’t even ignore them, i say.

  • André

    In case you wonder what to bring on holiday with ya.

    except the E-M1, i have the other 3, i used comparable lenses, same angle of view.
    Not even talking about weight differences. D800 with grip plus that 14-24 let you feel muscles you didn’t even know you had them.
    In other words, i use the E-M5 plus GX1 for holidays and hiking. The D800 for all other assignments

    • Baba Ganoush

      Couldn’t agree more with you, Andre. I just returned home from a 1 month vacation in Europe. On this trip I left my D800 + 24-120mm & 16-35mm at home. Instead I took my GX1 + 7-14mm plus my G3 + 14-140mm. Less weight, less fuss, not to mention less insecurity over whether a thief might choose to target my gear. True, the MFT IQ is not close to what I get with the D800, but it’s good enough for casual vacation photos that will likely not go much beyond Flickr or small prints.


    I wonder how much Olympus paid them for this nonsense review of an massively OVERPRICED, under-specked, TINY sensored RUBBISH!!!

  • Ginny

    I think the admin should the Troll comments which more and more these days

    • Ginny

      should ban

  • “trolls” are common in every system, but what i really consider a sad thing is that there are alot of olympus and panasonic promotors, who cant stand when their fav brand is exposed in a bad manner by another. In general its silly that in many posts people dont seem to be able to talk in a normal polite way. I admit that I sometimet get myself caught too in such way.

  • Boogeyman

    “And the following LL sentence is made for the 43rumors trolls that love to remark the Full Frame or APS-C vs FT sensor size difference:

    The MFT advantage used to be smaller cameras and smaller and lighter lenses. Now the body size advantage has been challenged, but the lens size advantage remains, and always will, MFT used to mean some compromises when it came to image quality, but those days are past. Only the most neurotic pixel peeper will find anyhting to kvetch about with files from the Oluympus E-M1 and its contemporaries.

    Gotcha trolls? ;) ”

    A question and a comment:

    1. Are you a troll by running more than this rumor site? :)

    2. Let us see what LL say when they review an APS-C sensored or FF sensored mirrorless camera. LOL.

    mFt cameras may be best in their class. We see half a dozen variations every year. They keep bettering themselves. Next month, there will be even better camera. LOL.

    BTW, the Panasonic GF cams (I can’t keep up with the model numbers, sorry) are being practically given away for ~100 Euros each. :)

    • Daemonius

      Point and shoot users dont want to upgrade and for “serious” photographers isnt GF line enough. GX1 was ridiculously cheap too (still is). Tho unlike GF line, it is a bit undeserved. Panasonic lacks that “wow” factor and well, marketing which Olympus has. Quite ironic as Panasonic cameras are usually better (yea I see torches and pitchforks from here).

      But Panasonic doesnt pack it in hipster friendly package so they dont get that much of a market..

  • So much heat and noise

    The real issue seems to be the E-P5. It was a dud. Spoke to a camera store guy, said they sold a few gx7 on the first day and no ep5 since it arrived.

    Also said the 4K GH cam will be here by April.

  • Dan Smith

    The author is smoking something, and it probably costs a lot:

    “Even though the E-M1 is priced right up against Panasonic’s now-legendary GH3…”

    Are you kidding me? Now-legendary GH3? In what alternate universe is the GH3 legendary?

    Maybe the author meant to put a “t” instead of a “w”

    • Daemonius

      Between video makers? Otherwise, GH3 is very nice camera, but.. thats all. Legendary, not yet. Or ever who knows..

  • It’s funny how the younger readership doesn’t realize how the rest of us come through a FF 135 experience through film.

    One of the defining moments in my new digital experience came in 2007, when I decided to scan my old 35mm slides by duplicating them with a 4/3 10 Mpx camera. By pixelpeeping and comparing I realized that digital had already more resolution of film. And so a half frame had more resolution than a full frame.

    Some of this was due to the AF improvement, but much to the emulsion/lens limits: In fact due to these limits I realized I had shot at LESS resolution for almost half a century!

    Had I shot less interesting stuff? Of course not! But with 4/3 I had MORE resolution for the same camera size. So even in 2007 I lost interest for the Canon 5D, which was the alternative. Why get a camera twice the size my Praktica BC-1, if I already had more than enough with 4/3?

    Keep in mind that on the average there has been almost a doubling of per pixel sharpness every two years, and the last conquest, DR similar to film, has been achieved more recently in the 4/3 realm.

    Therefore we have had with m4/3 more IQ than ANY photog. in a century of photography. Did we use it well? That is totally a different story.

    My take is that people are so submerged by gear, the material aspect, that they can’t appreciate what they have – which is for PHOTOGRAPHY. And that they are losing the grammar and the language of photography because they are losing a precious time in panicking about what they already have in spades.

    GAS and greed destroy photography.That is why come noble souls go back to film.

    • Boogeyman

      I was reading with interest and was with you until I saw Praktica BC-1. So, you used a crappy camera (and a lens that is worthy of that), may be expired cheap film as well to make this comparison?

      “GAS and greed destroy photography.”

      Yup! Olympus should not have ventured into digital at all!

      “That is why come noble souls go back to film.”

      Gotta love this! I keep fondling my OM and pen F bodies from time to time and it makes me nobler than the Pope. LOL

      • Praktica was far from crappy. It was the last attempt from the German industry to fight the Japanese one with even lower prices.

        Some of their lenses, like the 135/2.8 were pure Meyer Orestegon beauties, that is the original Zeisses.

        Of course Americans could never accept that Soviet countries had kept up the flame of Zeiss, by moving the Zeiss factories East, but until recently there were Praktica clubs in Europe, even in England.

        And my 50/1.8 Zeiss Jena is still sharper than some Zuikos.

        • Daemonius

          Actually 35mm film could be considered “defeated” right now, with 16 mpix m4/3s (APS-C did that some time ago). 16 mpix is limit of fine grained (Velvia RVP 50) film. But you never get same look in m4/3 pics as with FF.

          Practica wasnt somehow amazing, but CZJ lens are from bad. Mostly they used copied regular Carl Zeiss designs so even when they were more sloppy with QC, used less quality materials, they still produced pretty good lens. Bit like Samyang today..

          • Daemonius

            Typo: “Practica wasnt somehow amazing, but CZJ lens are *far from bad.”

        • amalric is nuts

          The Praktica was East German garbage.

          • You are probably just another yankee unwashed…

            Among other things it was the first camera to have an electronic controlled shutter, which made possible long exposures, and among the first TTL.

            It also had an impressive raster of Zeiss lenses, and shared production with the Contax:


            Besides I sold quite a few slides made with it to newspapers…

    • Robert Mark


    • JimD

      135 or 35mm OK, FF no. It is a nonsensical expression that can in reality be applied to all yet none. Only an addled brain could call 35mm full frame. The expression was not even around when half frame 35mm was a common format. A totally gormless expression devised by a gormless ‘bigger is better’ group who don’t even have or use the fullest frame available.
      Then on top, many of these gormless bodies endow their canon APSC sensors with the properties of 35mm sensors.
      35mm = FF? No. 35mm being a standard for reference? That’s no problem but its 35mm not FF. If you must call it some thing call it BS. No, that means Base Standard, though it may well apply to those that call it FF.

      • Elysian Forest

        Dude, we hear you… but terminology changes and it’s just not a big deal… Language is mutable. We don’t talk like Chaucer. It’s okay…

      • Hmm. You may be onto something, but I’d recommend a slight amendment.

        Since 35mm motion picture frame size was 18x24mm, that was the original authentic “full frame” 35mm film format.

        However, in the 1920’s, film resolution was not so good, thus the first Leica cameras were built to expose two frames (for 24x36mm images) to get acceptable image quality.

        Later on, single frame was called “half-frame”, but was really “full frame”. Confusingly, double-frame exposures were incorrectly termed “full-frame”. Unfortunately, the misapplied terminology has been used frequently enough to render the phrase “full-frame” essentially meaningless.

        So the proper term for 24x36mm format media is “double-frame”. An 18x24mm format is “single-frame”. (While “full-frame” would be technically correct, it’s obviously ambiguous, so I wouldn’t use “full-frame” for 18x24mm.)

        OK, now it should be clear as a bell.

        • JimD

          The format was also 4/3 and became 3/2 when used as a double frame in the 35mm camera in a horizontal feed. As you point out quality was not the best and was designed to use left over or easily available film in a “small easy to handle” camera. (This all sounds a familiar as history repeats itself, yet again). But it does not detract from the point that 35mm sensors are not full frame in anyone’s mind except some one who wishes to belittle anything smaller. And again most are APSC users who claim the magic of a 35mm sensor when they come here to visit. Lets face it a canon APSC sensor is only 1.8mm taller than a m43, but it has some magical quality bestowed on it by the users.

        • Robert Mark

          Helpful history lesson. Thx.

  • Matthew

    Admin says that the review claims that the EM1 has superior dynamic range to the GX7… The review states:

    “At base ISO, we measured roughly 10.5 stops, which is darn close to what we saw out of Panasonic’s GX7.”

    Unless I’m misreading, it sounds to me that the reviewers found greater dynamic range in the GX7 than the EM1.

    • Daemonius

      It will most likely have same as GH3 or GX7 (GX7 is bit noisier than GH3, so even tho DR might be same, it wont be exaclty that usable).

      In both cases limit is 12 eV (somewhere around 11.9 eV is max usually), since ADCs are still 12-bit.

      • Matthew

        Where did you find that the GX7 is noisier than the GH3? Is that not the point of the larger photodiodes of the GX7’s new sensor?

        • Daemonius

          Um.. from files from GX7? RAW ones? :)

          Its now regulary supported in LR5.2 (and SilkyPix as usually).

          Yea they just kinda “forgot” to mention that larger photodiodes isnt only thing that can improve or degrade noise. Thing is, that you need to have that electronical part on same level too. And that electronical part is better in GH3 (probably cause they had simply more space and bigger budget).

          You can have amazing sensor, but if you fail somewhere in that chain before data is written on your memory card, it wont help.

          If you want really simple explanation, its cause GX7 is smaller than GH3. My bet is little bit cheaper electronics, or simply bit more interference between “all that electronical stuff” inside.

          That difference in favor of GH3 is very small (like really small).

          • Matthew

            Do you have side by side comparisons of raw files of the same image between the GH3 and GX7?

            There has not been one single piece of material, both from Panasonic or any third party reviewer, besides what I am hearing from you now, to suggest that the GX7 is noisier than the GH3, no matter how small the difference may be. And your “electronical” explanation does not have any backing. Where is your data to suggest that just because it is smaller, the parts are of lower quality or interfere more? Show me the data that shows that Panasonic did not account for this if it is indeed a problem at all. Or the evidence that their new processor is of lower grade than the GH3 or is somehow not good enough to compensate for the “electronical” issues.

            Furthermore, use real words. “Electronical” tells me nothing about the actual issues that you are trying to refer to. Sensor, processor, something else, if so what?

            I have no loyalty to either camera as I do not own either one but unless you can put up evidence I can’t trust what you say. I’m happy to have the discussion if you can.

          • Desperate looser

            DAEMONIUS , obsessed with something you don”t like = VERY STRANGE get a life twat

      • Bit noisier than the gh3 wow that’s terrible

      • MAFAv8r

        The same happened with the release of the EM-5 people saying it had poor DR. It wasn’t until later it was found that it was 12.3. This unbelief was probably the main reason for the very extended delays. Some others have stated they think the EM-1 is between 13 and 14. It is very unlikely that the new EM 1 will have dropped 2 full units.

        • Bob4

          There is no need to “think “or “guess” or “someone else said” there are RAW files available now supported in a Oly viewer , LR etc and there is no difference in DR between the E-M5 and E-M1. What you do get is a tiny bit extra detail at low ISO { no AA filter} and ISO settings above 3200 look slightly less bad though they certainly don’t look good. All in a wonderful new body with all the bells and whistles you could hope for.

      • In theory yes, but in practice more can be achieved.
        Using lossless compressed RAW formats, more DR can be squeezed into 12-bit, carrying over more than 12 EV. That’s why the 12-bit E-P5 yields 12.4 EV, and the 14-bit D800 has 14.4 EV.

  • adaptor-or-die

    The two newest mFT bodies are the best of the bunch so far, brand aside. This should clue in anyone that the proposed limitations of the system’s “small” sensor is holding it back, it’s obviously not. It simply shows that the ceilings and limitations are in the mindsets of people refusing to acknowledge change and progress.

    The Other Guys

    APS-C and it’s ilk was designed crippled and was created to give “CROP SENSOR” a name as bad as it’s designation. It couldn’t be allowed to compete with it’s FF top end. Nothing like investing in a dead end system. It’s not that it can’t be better, it’s simply a fact of the marketing approach of it’s manufacturers. Another definition, Propaganda. Every time the system improves, you can feel the Brand’s choke-chain yanking them back. Similar in their lens design. Big, heavy, retrograde. Useless/crippled in a format upgrade. This is the thanks you get from your fav brand[s] marketing approach.

    Even going mirrorless 135 sized sensors are still a cost; in size [factor in lenses to this], weight, heat & power requirements and of course the biggest cost that affects everyone … price. Balance that to improved performance.

    Band of Brothers?

    Marketing and technical design are always at odds, even at the best of times … Larger mFT bodies are a market share demand. These choices should be able to live in a viable system family. Just as expensive and cheap choices can live side-by-side. There should be high-end bodies and bargain ones. Priceless lenses and priced-right. Along with that you can use all of them how you wish, no brand boundaries. The mFT brands, due to the open system, don’t PING you for starting cheap and moving up.

    Weasels Rip my Flesh

    This open freedom approach steps on toes. The status conscious, social climbers, elitist consumers are threatened by such practicality. Your online consumer troll is living in the pit of such insecurity. Listen to their arguments, does it have a basis in productive photography? No. It is more apt to defend their insecurities, these are my favourites:

    The Frightened Egomaniac: My camera choice is best, other inferior options I relegate to the wife and kids, the dog, or worst yet, my household staff. And I despise all of you, nothing more than a faceless mob out to steal all that is mine! They are all less superior to me and thus don’t deserve what I possess … really they should be tending my every need. They are so insolent.

    The Brand Whore/Acolyte: XYZ brand is better than any other, those that can’t see the truth shall suffer the wrath of the one true Brand, my brand. Do not buy into the False Brand! You will suffer not only now, but in the next market release. Repent!

    The Stooge/Shill: Old as a bottle of snake-oil sold out of the back of a wagon. Plant some bozo in the crowd to pad the pitch. This is the worst troll in that they lack any imagination. Their rants are always the same. Jingoist, slogan-derived.

    The trouble in trying to codify a troll, is they all end up sounding the same. And the truth is I have no “favourites”. That is the problem of any forum troll they bring nothing to the dialogue. Their input is purely negative emotional venom. There is no logic, no real debate. Nothing will ever change in their world, possibly the reason for all the bad karma spewing out of their text?


    im lonley

  • maker

    with the new nex FF prepare to sink oly


      what if i have not got £3500 to take a FF NEX snap i guess im F*******

  • “MFT used to mean some compromises when it came to image quality, but those days are past.”

    OK, sensor performance is now (almost) on par with APS-C, but lens choice is still weaker. Where’s our F2.8 wide zoom? Where’s our F1.8 normal zoom? To name just a couple… This year has been especially bad lens wise with only three completely new lenses announced and only one of those available at the moment (Nokton 42mm).

    BTW, I still can’t see the difference between E-M1 and E-M5 jpegs in ISO1600 or 3200. Not in dpreview studio scene nor anywhere else. Can anyone show me a review that demonstrates E-M1 is better?

    • MAFAv8r

      I have looked at most reviews, I don’t think there has been much improvement in noise, maybe half a stop, but the loss of detail is much improved, probably a little more than a stop. But these are not the reasons why I am upgrading, as I don’t need more high ISO performance.

    • NikonShooter

      Why should anyone bother to show anything to someone as clueless as you?


      • ewtewt

        Shill “reviews” are only for the fanboy brigade I trust him about as much as I trust Ken Rockwell or Robin Wong

        • JimD

          Shill? what’s that in English?

    • Robert Mark

      No lenses? Show me a list of dedicated APSC lenses for Canon or Nikon. (Hint: it’s a very short list). The lack of APSC optimized lenses is precisely what is fueling the “FF” mania (sorry Jim). APSC buyers end up with a few lenses that were designed for 35mm and then learn that they’re not using the full potential of their lenses. It creates a natural “FF” envy that doesn’t exist in the m4/3 world.

  • Anonymousse

    True, FF generally has better image quality. In other words, it lets people take better-quality bad photos.

  • I’m really glad I grew up as a hunter. All the campfire arguments about rifle calibre are the same old bullshit that gets trotted out here about sensor size.
    Aim straight (frame well), squeeze the trigger (shutter button) at the right time, know your target (subject)….
    Still, gotta have something to fill the time between I guess.

  • I wonder how many loud mouths here actually put their paws on a recent model. I have an E-M5 and actually I can *feel* the added DR. One behaves differently in composition knowing that some details will be there, compared to an earlier model.

    Conversely one will also consider contrast and saturation in a different way. Knowing also that per pixel resolution has reached the ultimate level, one will stop to mind sharpness, and perhaps consider atmospheric perspective in addition to linear perspective – some beautiful haze effects can be achieved.

    I welcome the technical improvements, but they must be digested in a frame of reference, which is that of how they allow to solve *photographic* problems on the field. That is why the E-M5 is still an impressive machine, and the FF whining completely irrelevant.

    Imagine: 12.5 stops of DR. One must be really a dog not to do something pretty with it.

    • MAFAv8r

      Stop exaggerating its ONLY 12.3. How did we ever get on with photos 5 years ago ;)

      • Well, it depends. Sometimes I miss my E-410, because even if it had some 10 stops EV, it gave balanced images thanks to Oly’s magic dust and colours. One can work with high contrast images, and even make use of blown highlights.

        What is not possible with such a camera is to get additional DR when one needs it. More DR however reduces contrast. Everybody should be familiar with what mess HDR can be. If one has more native DR, it also means that one has less base ISO noise.

        As for the E-M1 the verdict is still open: funny that DR, the paramount data, is still uncertain. Perhaps because it is no different than the E-M5? Same goes for the GX7. Reviewers gorge us with unnecessary detail, and forget the basics.

        However cameras are so good today, that unless there’s a massive blunder, comparisons are bland. We are entering a *subjective* era where one can tailor one’s picture. So one can use the Color Master, or the Tone Control to make more unique images.

    • Anitbiotics

      woof woof

    • MAFAv8r

      I agree absolutely about ‘feeling’ the extra DR. It produces so much confidence.

    • Anonymous

      You may have the theory but you miss practice young padawan…

    • Nobody asked amalric

      …I am enjoying your recent posts. Please keep mining this new seam of form you have found. Have you even warmed a little to the EM-1?

      Handling is very important you are correct. I have held the EM-5 in my LCS many a time but ergonomics did not suit me. Pure and simple it is the size of my hands. The EM-1 feels just right in a way the the EM-5 (even with a grip) does not. It also makes sense that you liked your 410 – not just for the DR but I bet the ergo suited you too. Whereas I always prefer my 520 to my 420 size wise.

      The image generating machine inside the EM-5 was something I wanted to upgrade to but it is a tool and it needs to fit. Now it is inside a body that suits my hands and can focus my old glass too what’s not to like!

      I get an EM-1 my wife gets a E-PM2 and our photography is sweet for at least 4 years!

      • I forgot the conclusion. If you have the same per pixel sharpness, and DR of 135mm, why would you get the larger camera and the larger lenses?

  • Raist

    “Gotcha trolls? ” LOL. Don’t you run very enthusiastically FujiRumors tempting people to “now is the time to switch?” Come on Patrick! :-)

    It’s always good to examine things for yourself. The EM1 IQ is great, and the Fuji/APSC is still greater. But that shouldn’t mean it’s not a valid option. This is what I call the “4/3rds, m4/3rds complex.”

    – Raist

  • Benny

    Awesome! 4/3 is equal to FF. now my nikon v1 is the equivalent of 4/3 such that it has a small sensor that will never be good enough!

  • Swallow D0F

    Wow is that gh3 30% thicker !

  • Fab

    Comments like “MFT used to mean some compromises when it came to image quality, but those days are past.” by LL are simply wrong.

    E.g. D800 + 12-24 gives MUCH better image quality than any m43 System.

    Of course for many applications this doesn’t matter, m43 is ‘good enough’. But that’s logically a completely different statement than saying “image quality is almost the same”.

    • So what? To me there is the same proportion between the D800 and the OM-D, that there was between a Hasselblad and a Nikon F in film days. Did I ever see a Pro bringing the Hassy out of the Studio? So what good did it do outdoors?

      Even, in terms of pixel sharpness, and DR there might be even less.Those two define the playing field of creativity. Photography has never been just the plain transcription of reality that you posit by comparing engineering figures: Why didn’t HCB and Magnums use Hassies? Because they were unpractical, and not needed in their work.

      But certainly their work was not limited by their gear, and the same is happening to a growing number of pros in m4/3. It is up to you to stimulate your creative spirits with what is technically enough. If you cannot you are a dog.

      Can one even imagine himself saying: ‘the day I’ll have a FF I’ll shoot good pictures, but not before’?

      Just excuses and commonplaces. Let’s remember Alex Majoli who shot the Biafra War with Olys C8080 compacts. But he had the genius of composition, he had the daring, and you don’t.

      You blabber about 14 bit processing, as if it could save some obscure work of yours, but one can see through it: the less you can walk, the more heavy crutches you need. So it’s just another round of pretense.

      • Fab

        I don’t ‘blabber’, I just

        1.) state a simple fact: FF is superior concerning IQ by simple physics and

        2.) mention a simple logical flaw of argumantation:

        From the statement “m43 is good enough for most users and applications” does not follow the statement “m43 is as good as FF”.

        I regard this as pretty obvious and think it’s a bit sad that even opinion building review sites on the internet confuse those things.

        Do you disagree with 1. or 2. above? BTW, I didn’t draw any conclusions from this.

        PS I didn’t mention 14 bit.

        PPS Please either stop insulting me or stop replying to my posts altogether, thx :)

        • ever hopeful

          “1.) state a simple fact: FF is superior concerning IQ by simple physics”

          If you look at an image as a 5x2cm thumnail, is the D800 superior to the MFT? Nope.
          Print at 12×18 – is the D800 superior to the MFT. I very much doubt it.
          Print at 30×20 – is the D800 superior to the MFT? Absolutely
          So if someone asked for the best camera to use for posting pictures to Facebook, would you suggestthe D800 or a compact?
          In all cases, the D800 is technologically superior, but whether it is better in a specific circumstance depends on its use.

          Many would say that a Lambourghini is a better car than a Range Rover. Until you want to do the Paris to Dakkar rally or carry 5 kids.

          • Fab

            You don’t seem to get me ;) You reply to my point 1 (FF IQ is – on an absolute scale – better) with the “m43 is good enough” argument.

            Yes, m43 might be good enough. But still FF has higher absolute IQ. Simple.

            I emphasize (and have to repeat myself continuously unfortunately), as a newby reading this forum/thread could get the idea, that IQ of FF and m43 is the same – on a absolute scale. Which is simply false. Period.

        • Eosphoros

          So what if FF is better “because of physics” ? What about MF, it is, for the same reason, even better than FF, so why the focus on FF ? A sensor the size of my house would be even better, should I push for it and dismiss all other formats because they simply can’t offer the same theoretical max quality ?

          Of course, all other things being equal, FF will always be better than 4/3, so what ? A Ferrari will always be faster than a van, yet it will be less convenient when I need to kidnap a little girl.

          Joke aside, the value of something is not determined only by the maximal theoretical value of one of its component but by the practical value of the sum of its component when applied to a specific task and a particular set of requirements.
          4/3 and µ4/3 apparently is good enough and ticks the right boxes for a lot of people for whom FF simply doesn’t offer as much despite its evident theoretical superiority, live with it.
          The problem is that both sides are “right”, except you are talking about maximum potential results, while the others are talking about mean/median typical results.
          While your point of view is of course, technically valid, it doesn’t matter at all for the large majority of photographers, not because they are incompetent, but because their subjects, methods and shooting conditions make it impossible to obtain a perfect result anyway.

          It reminds me of the endless debates about boardgames between those favouring games with mathematically perfect rules and those favouring games that are, you know, actually fun to play, however dumb their rules appear to others.

          • Fab

            You say “So what if FF is better “because of physics” ? What about MF, it is, for the same reason, even better than FF, so why the focus on FF”

            You didn’t get the point unfortunately. I’m concentrating on a very simple basic thing without drawing conclusions, without mentioning MF or the question which system should be used by photographers or which systems photographers “need”.

            I was simple comparing two systems: m43 and FF (and I think it is fair to compare these two based on the comments in this forum/thread? ;) ).

            And concerning absolute IQ FF is significantly better than m43. That’s all. Simple fact. Period. It’s physics.

            Of course an OLD FF sensor might be worse than a MODERN m43 sensor – but that’s obviously not a good line of argumentation in favor of m43 format, is it? ;) )

            And of course m43 might be good enough for many (most!) applications; I’m myself emphasizing this all the time…

            • Eosphoros

              You’re still not getting it… Theoretical superiority is useless if it doesn’t translate into superiority in practice for common cases.

              Yes, a Ferrari is superior to a Trabant, yet if you are stuck in traffic, that superiority is irrelevant.

              For photographers, “traffic” is the limit of their own technique, their mastery of their camera, the lens they use, the lighting and atmospheric conditions, other people around, the ability, or not, to take test shots or reshoot, even before we start looking at the technical merits of the camera, the photographer AND the scene have added enough limitations to negate a great part of the theoretical superiority of FF.
              Then once you have taken your picture, even if you managed to truly benefit from your camera’s superiority, it won’t matter unless you do some serious cropping, pixel-peeping or large print, for the rest, it won’t make a difference…

              Yes, for shooting resolution charts in the studio in optimal conditions, FF is undeniably superior, in practice, it’s true for very few photographers and pictures.

    • Beautemps

      Photography is more than use of a sensor. It is a whole system that counts in specific situations. Sometimes E-M5 as a Fotosystem might bring some improvements over D800.
      This thread refers to the main factors:

  • Robert Lombardi

    When it comes to electronics, we are continually finding ways to shrink things. I work in hardware engineering, dealing with millions of tiny transistors. Sure, one might say bigger transistors are better because they are more robust, but the benefit of smaller transistors drives us to find ways to resolve the issues presented by the smaller geometries. And so the engineers put their minds to it and find ways to make it work.

    I see something similar happening with the mu-43 direction. Engineers are finding ways to resolve issues and make the smaller format work. Some people make it sound like FF or 35mm is a physical law that cannot be violated, or you suffer the consequences. Technological innovations regularly go through growing pains and iterations of improvements. I’ve been a full frame user for a while, and the progress with mu-43 has progressed far enough that it has answered my concerns (IQ, glass, AF speed, big and fast viewfinder). And the software side has also progressed to meet the gap with the lens corrections.

    Now I am willing to jump in and gives this Olympus OM-D EM-1 a go. I’m no fan boy at the moment, but I can certainly respect the progress they’ve made and am willing to part with my cash to give it a whirl. I’m certainly looking forward to being able to carry smaller glass around. I have a massive Billingham bag that I use to carry all my FF lenses and I will gladly take that off my shoulder if I can be happy with a smaller format.

    • Fab

      FF is superior by simple basic physics. This has nothing to do with transistor robustness.

      Of course technology advances and m43 get’s better.

      But so does FF. Cutting edge FF will always have better image quality compared to cutting edge m43.

      The only argument for m43 can be “good enough”. But never “equal to FF”.

      • ever hopeful

        Define ‘better’.
        It is not as easy as you may think.

        • Fab

          Maybe it’s not easy from your point of view? From mine it is ;) Sorry for the OT ^^

  • Thanks to studies on noise by the U of Chicago, and by Adobe it was seen yrs, ago that resolution of small pixel sensors could be increased with the megapixel count. DxO published a paper:”There is more resolution than noise [in high density sensors]” That was the manifesto of the small sensors manufacturers. Because thanks to good denoisers it allowed them to reach levels of resolution unheard before.

    So ‘good enough’ has a precise meaning. what you are getting, with highly resolving lenses, is the same resolution of larger cameras. As we saw with the E-M5 we could also get more or less the same Dynamic Range. It is this small revolution that suddenly made the big sensors plethoric. Yes you got a bigger image, but you didn’t get a better image.

    Creating artificial entry barriers has always been the reaction of those who fear to lose their jobs.

    Instead m4/3 is progressing v. well, thank you. Jumping from task to task with easiness and displacing FF 135 in many applications.

    This site is documenting the process daily, therefore the moaning and the gnashing of teeth those mediocre photogs. who fear their shining armour is being is made obsolete. They should at least try “to keep in their shut breasts their petty misery”, and avoid loss of face. Nobody is forcing them, after all :)

    As I mentioned the same had happened between the Hassies and the 35mm in film. You chose the Hassy for the studio and the 35mm elsewhere. No tears.

    To stay in topic, this is exacly the point of the E-M1:to cover all those pro applications where a bigger size is just an embarassment. They are probably many, since the the switching to m4/3 by pros had already started with the E-M5.

    • Beautemps

      Formfactor of E-M1 had to catch the E-5 users. Just a good working tool.

      • I advise people to look at Steve Huff’s ‘Strange Comparisons’ between Leicas and m4/3, lately he even deleted captions, to see if you could tell differences. Seeing is believing.

        In fact due to the higher density of pixels it might well be that the 16 Mpx m4/3 resolves MORE than some 135mm cameras.

        However, as an ordinary user, I have stopped to worry. I don’t want to share the Madhouse with sickos. Photography is a much better therapy :)

  • Robot

    I have made several ISO comparisions between 5D mk 3, E-M1, GX-7 and 70D.
    (compared to E-M1)
    High ISO performance on 5Dmk3 is between 0,6 to 1,6 stops better (in range of 800 to 25600. Highest difference is on ISO 6400 (1,6 stops), but coming down again on 25600 to only 0,6 stops.

    70D is performing 0,3-0,5 stops worse than E-M1 (peak is at ISO 6400).

    GX-7 has very little difference until ISO 3200 when it is starting to drop from E-M1, but peak difference is only about 0,4 stop.

    5D mk3 is really in its own class, but 1,6 stops is not very big. With E-M1 shooting at 4500 is roughly same than ISO12800 on 5Dmk3.

Back To Top

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website,, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps:
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: Addthis cookies:
Disqus cookies:
Vimeo cookies:
Youtube cookies:

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.