Entropius

I really can't see why someone would buy one of these over an E-M5, which is a sure-enough awesome device.

Distortion and longitudinal chromatic aberration are two aberrations that are pretty easy to fix without much degradation.

On MFT, are there any lenses that vignette that much?

Noise reduction *is* an intractable problem. There is a thing called quantum shot noise which is always going to be present and (in many situations) is the dominant contributor to image noise --...

Isn't this just deconvolution, and doesn't this have the drawback that it greatly increases image noise?

One thing that's really been true since the beginning of Four Thirds (not Micro, the old SLR system), and really back to the OM days: when Olympus sets out to make a truly exceptional lens, they...

What sort of animals are you mostly shooting? If it's insects, you want the Olympus 60mm macro. If it's birds, shy mammals, etc., you want the Panasonic 100-300mm -- maybe also lizards and such.

Differences in sensor-based image quality are pretty trivial these days. In the Smithsonian there's a gallery full of wildlife shots printed six feet tall, with full EXIF. A bunch of them were...

The sensor size between APS-C and FX makes remarkably little difference. I shoot with Nikon APS-C now. I used to shoot with Olympus 4/3. (I switched because Nikon made the lens I wanted and Olympus...

It's not actually a f/5.6 lens; you are still getting the brightness of a f/2.8 lens shining on the sensor. But you'll get the depth of field of a f/5.6 lens. m4/3, because of the crop factor,...

Is this much better than the E-M5? I rented one for a weekend and found it to be basically this good. (This is no insult to the E-M1, but a compliment to the E-M5.)

How does the size compare to the 50-200? You can get one of those for 40% of the price these days, and other than the wonky bokeh it's a great piece of glass.

Why would that make him more credible? He's testing cameras, not lenses. Besides, one of the big deals about the EM1 is that it can autofocus 4/3 lenses well, so why not use one of them?

For wildlife, if you get the E-M1 you have the option of all of the (very nice) Four Thirds lenses. There is a 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 zoom which is awfully good, and a 150 f/2 prime which is just stunning.

I was there, but took relatively few pictures as it was my first DragonCon, and I was there to enjoy myself. I did see an E-M5 at one of the concourse concerts (of Crystal Bright, who was...

I've never used mine with a tripod. For bird photography at least, the VR is good enough that subject motion becomes a problem before uncompensated camera shake. For very still birds (owls, say) or...

I find DxO's lens reviews to be very suspect. They're generally pretty good with sensors, but their lens reviews? They say the Zuiko 35/3.5 is garbage, when it's stunningly sharp ... *even with a...

@BJL: Compact superzoom/EVF cameras have looked like SLR's for a long while, and for reasonable reasons: a lens at the front, a viewfinder at the back, a grip to hold it by, etc. It's not a vanity...

Panasonic has done that from the beginning. The G1, the very first m4/3 camera, looked like a DSLR and tried its best to act like one. Nothing wrong with that.

The difference will depend far more on the f/numbers of the lenses used than on the formats. f/1.8 on Micro Four Thirds will look roughly the same as f/1.8 on APS-C -- there's a little difference...

If Olympus made a decent telephoto (not the overpriced slow 75-300 that sacrifices everything for size), it's not a bad idea, although 16MP on Four Thirds is almost the same density as 24MP on DX....