Ad B: Hi,nice comparison, but...If you make a comparison in August 2012, please don't use cameras from Januari 2011 and July 2011.I understand you have those two cams, but you had to do this in 2011.Now it was better to compare the OM-D with ??.
Very few P&S upgraders will go straight to an OM-D. The DSLR downsizers, yes...
Yes, they are the cams I had and yes I should have done last year, though I only got the E-PM1 a bit earlier this year and only got a kit lens last month. (I use the Pany 14-45 on mine. My wife has the 14-42 kit lens on the one we just bought her).
However, the comparison is still valid today. The XZ-1 is still one of the top P&S cameras and the E-PM1 is a common m4/3 upgrade and very similar to the GF3 (which a friend has).
MrScorpio: No offense, but what a strange and, in my view, irrelevant article.The whole point with an interchangeable lens system is just that. The lenses!This is like comparing a motorbike and a bicycle without considering that one of them has an engine...Someone who will not change lenses and does not have the ambition to understand even the basics of photography is of course better off with a point and shoot.To me this article was more or less useless. But again... No offense, I was just very surprised.
You'd be surprised how often it comes up on the forums if someone should get a m4/3 or a good P&S.
Also, outside of these forums there are lots and lots of people who only have the kit lens and never go any farther. They'll pay $400 or so for a camera, but balk at another $300+ for a better lens.
My wife was even skeptical of the lenses, until she started seeing the limitations of the 45-200. We got the 100-300 for $500 and she now knows it's worth paying for a good lens. She likes the m4/3 so much that we bought her a 2nd E-PM1 and now my XZ-1 is up for sale. But until then the XZ-1 was plenty for her.
logbi77: Low light test:"Here it's fairly close. The XZ-1 lens is much much faster. The E-PM1 can push ISO higher safely (1600 vs 400). The 2 advantages basically cancel each other out. "
The bike photo of the XZ-1 according to the EXIF data is at ISO 200, which is why I think it is darker than the E-PM1, not the intended ISO 400 that was written in the article.
Fixed. Looks like I posted the ISO200 shot when I thought I had posted the 100 shot!
The bike photo on the XZ-1 is ISO 100 (I added that annotation to the picture). In the statement above I was stating how much you could safely push the ISO before you have to worry about the picture quality falling apart. Above ISO 400 on the XZ-1 it is hit and miss. You might get lucky or you might have a noisy photo.
joe6pack: Thanks for the comprehensive review!
One thing about the XZ-1 that really bothers me which you have shown in your bicycle example is that XZ-1 in-door photos are consistently darker. I wasn't at the scene so I don't know which one's metering is more accurate but it appears XZ-1 is "cheating" by using a shorter shutter speed to give an impression that its lens is fast. e.g. instead of 1/20 it should have used, it uses 1/40.
Ironically the XZ-1 pictures are more true to life. It is really dark in that corner. But you can just bump up the exposure compensation a little to brighten it up a bit.
No, it should adjust the aperture even in Pano mode. Here in AZ I can't take pictures wide open very often!