Conclusion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Conclusion

There are enough similarities between these cameras that it's reasonable to choose one over the other based on a spec that stand out to you. Either camera will get you good image quality, industry-leading image stabilization, strong autofocus, and excellent customizability.

For our money, the E-M1 II feels like the better buy for the stills shooter, and the G9 better for someone who wants a stills camera with an excellent video feature set. We felt the E-M1 II's AF wasn't as strong for fast moving subjects, but performed admirably in a host of casual shooting situations. It's also the smaller of the two, so anyone looking for a light, always-at-your-side everyday camera would be pleased with the E-M1 II.

The existence of the G9 can only mean good news for Micro Four Thirds shooters
in either camp

The G9 is just a little bigger and bulkier, which some shooters will prefer, and in our testing we thought it did a bit better keeping up with fast moving targets if you can deal with the DFD system's inherent wobble. That lovely big EVF will be a revelation to some users who thought they'd never love an EVF.

Really though, we're splitting hairs. There's very little to separate the two, and if you already have either brand's lenses, you'd do just fine to stick with that brand's stills flagship camera.

And the truth is, the existence of the G9 can only mean good news for Micro Four Thirds shooters in either camp. More competition means better products in the future, and that's a win in our book.