Awesome chart!! In fairness to the 4/3 lenses, the 14-35 and 35-100 are f2, as opposed to f2.8 in the m4/3 counterparts. And the 14-35 and 35-100 are ridiculously awesome lenses (other than looking ridiculously large when mounted on a EM5). Likewise the PL25/1.4 in 4/3 is optically a better lens than its m4/3 counterpart.
That all being said, I like the smaller combos better! I'd have preferred a m4/3 version of the 12-60/2.8-4 instead of 12-40/2.8.
Updated 18 September: Now that ACR 8.2 has support for the E-M1′s raw files, I’ve gone back through the archive, reprocessed a few and had another look at the overall file quality. Fundamentally, the good news is that none of the observations really change: underlying sensor quality remains excellent, and a small but distinct step up on the E-M5′s sensor. There is a definite gain in edge acuity and ability to resolve fine detail; the high ISO noise improvement is not as pronounced as with the JPEGs, but the red channel especially shows clear signs of improvement in luminance noise, color accuracy and tonal separation. I would estimate the advantage of the newer sensor to be about half a stop up to ISO 1600, and XX beyond that. At lower ISOs, the reality is that the photographer’s exposure accuracy and shot discipline will make more of a tangible difference in image quality for most users. At higher ISOs, the E-M1 shows noticeable reduction in blue channel noise over the older sensor, though I think the overall difference still remains about half a stop; perhaps a little more if you also take into consideration the file’s increased ability to handle noise reduction and still deliver the same output acuity due to the lack of an AA filter.
I also looked hard for evidence of missing pixel interpolation (due to loss of some image-making photosites to the PDAF array) but wasn’t able to see it; perhaps it might be more visible with certain high-frequency repeating patterns, but unfortunately the camera has now gone back to Olympus, so further testing will have to wait until my own cameras arrive. However, we can safely conclude with a few observations: firstly, the new sensor is an improvement. Secondly, there’s a lot more latitude to work with in than with the JPEGs (as good as they are) at the extreme ends of the tonal range; the additional acuity from the removal of the AA filter is noticeable, and finally, the Olympus RAW files are an excellent starting point for B&W conversions – as was the case with the E-M5.
Agreed. Also, lenses are still way smaller than FF.
I went to an event yesterday and was able to try out the E-M1, I also handled the GX7 on another store afterwards. It was a nice day haha...
Look at the size of the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens that is to be released in 2014 relative to the skeleton of the E-M1. You make one of those for FF and it's gonna be pretty huge
43 lenses are more optically corrected lenses compared to m43. We'll see how the Oly 12-40mm will be.
MT updated his full review:
And the 14-35 and 35-100 are ridiculously awesome lenses (other than looking ridiculously large when mounted on a EM5).
This is such an awesome picture. I don't think that I've tried to get my E-M5 quite THIS wet!