kitsios_spyros: Hi DCR and DPreview,thanks for the review but it puzzles me why there is no comparison with K-01. Just why. Feature wise, it looks like the most direct compatitor (on board flash, not the smallest of ILCs, no EVF etc).Please place K-01 in the comparison pictures and comparison graphs too and you will see why I ask. That would be only fair. AF speed should be also compared. Also the influence of shake reduction in regards to body or lens weight and volume of the whole imaging device (stabilized camera+lens).Thanks again for the review.
Well, the OM-D has a way smaller sensor. So that leaves more room for in body IS. If I am not mistaken, smallers dimensions are the reason why NEX bodies do not have in body IS.
Simon97: The grip on the NEX series makes them feel good in the hand. The trouble for me is, the lenses are so large it takes the advantage of the compactness away. This is why the 4/3rds makes more sense. The Nikon 1 system is even smaller when you want to use the telephoto lens.
No, Sony make camera's more compact than DSLR's while holding on to uncompromised image quality. Olympus and others make camera's even more compact to the extent that IQ becomes significantly worse.
justmeMN: A Con from the DigitalCameraInfo review was "noise reduction is overly aggressive at most ISO speeds", resulting in a loss of fine detail.
They must have been looking at JPEG images only (after all, the amount of noise reduction is set manually in RAW). I think the term 'review' is giving these wannabes too much credit.