Panasonix gx1 vs entry level dslr

First of all , I only ever shoot RAW.

But what do skills of the photographer have to do with measured performance? In no measurement on any of the testing sites, does a GX1, with it's extremely weak DR and color depth reach the levels of any of the above cameras. At high ISO, the GX1 is still behind a old DSLR like the D5000. You can parse DxOMark testing numbers anyway you like, you won't find the GX1 leading in any IQ category vs the above APS-C DSLRs.

And without the add-on EVF, the GX1's LCD for composing images, and for good handholding technique, simply cannot compete with a DSLR.

Talk is cheap. Show us where the EM-5 exceeds the D5100, the K-30, or the D3200.

Again, you can parse the graphs anyway you like. You can choose Print or Screen. At no point do the EM-5 match or exceed the performance of a camera like the D5100. And for ISO, the only reason the EM-5 is anywhere near the D5100 at all, is because Olympus dramatically overrates their ISO ratings vs the measured value. That is a fact.

I never said the EM-5 isn't a good camera, but Sony wasn't able to defy the laws of physics with their m43 sensor in the EM-5 by getting it to perform better than their APS-C 16mp Exmor. Parse the test numbers anyway you like, if the EM-5 sensor performed as well or better than the above cameras as you claim it does, then it would be ahead of them in the sensor ratings. It's not.

Choose Print or Screen, the D5100 is consistently outperforming the EM-5 in the lab. Look at a current APS-C DSLR like the D5200, and the performance advantage for the DSLR will be even more dramatic as now you have a resolution advantage, and the same or better high ISO, color depth and DR advantage that the D5100 had.

The only one who is misleading people here is you.