I downloaded the DPR test scene (raw) and I was happy with what I found. Some kind folks here also donated their raws and I had a play with those too, and I liked what I found.
For me, the OM-D E-M5 crossed a 'good enough, enough of the time' boundary. I realise that's personal and subjective, so even if we all have this boundary we can argue about where that boundary lies, and it's pointless because the only thing that matters is what we decide for ourselves.
For me, it was the ability to put the files through my workflow and get a file of suitable quality from it.
My previous venture was GH2 and for me this fell short, it was more 'good enough, some of the time, but not close to enough of the time'.
So if true, I guess the different sensor answers a question about why the E-M5 was able to cross this boundary. It has felt strange wondering why Oly were able to get noticeably better performance from the same quality of sensor, but it's a question I put to one side simply because I was happy with the results.
I find it equally strange that all these DxO and other scores have been getting bandied around so much, surely a more important role for our eyes is viewing our images critically and being honest about what we see, not reading charts and graphs?
My decision to buy an E-M5 over a NEX 7, K-01, X-Pro 1 or NX20 came down to:
- Weather sealing
- IBIS
- Native Lens availability
- Size
- EVF
But the only reason it made it into the short list for consideration is because it had passed that 'good enough' IQ boundary, and that's where eyes came in very handy.
-Najinsky
