To those with both EM5-II and EM1

AdamT wrote:

I meant the sensor as built into the camera, which is the only thing the test/review sites can measure/show.

they measure the whol output from a RAW

As they should.

- though if you`re talking DXO-Mark anything can happen, often with little connection to reality

The DxO sensor test results are as a rule very well in line with "reality". Furthermore, you can do similar tests yourself, e.g., for DR, and the results for the E-M5.2 based on such tests that I have seen are entirely in line with those reported by DxO.

(the GX7 fiasco highlighted this) I believe very little of what they publish..

I prefer to consider this on a case-by-case basis. What you call the "GX7 fiasco" concerns one specific aspect of DxO lens (not sensor) tests (sharpness) for one specific camera model. I certainly do not infer from this single incident that everything DxO says about anything is questionable.

I`m not saying the 5-II is definitely better than the EM1 or 10 but it seemed marginally better to me from that test run

You'd have to test them side by side to tell anything at all about their relative performance. At high ISO, I personally rate the E-M1 slightly above other current Olys due to its slightly better high-ISO DR (implying slightly less shadow noise).

Here, by the way, is what you get if you look at directly comparable test shots from the E-M5.2, the E-M10 (presumably more or less the same Sony-designed sensor), and the E-M1 (Panasonic sensor). Comments?

-- hide signature --

to be honest, I`m happy it`s not worse ;0

I certainly don't want to make you unhappy. But I think happiness need not rest on wishful thinking.