To those with both EM5-II and EM1

AdamT wrote:

That's interesting. Your description of your visual impressions can of course be contrasted with objective measurements. The conclusion is that, unlike most people, you see less noisiness the more of it there actually is.

you believe whatever you want to .......

All of us have that privilege but only some of us choose to believe what a critical examination of the facts actually tell us.

Objective measurements on your hollowed DXO site state that the EM5-II is better at high ISOs than the EM1

Yes. And they are wrong about that (and consequently not so "hollowed") based on my perceptions as well as those of most others as shown by this poll. The DxO "low-light score" is in practice primarily a measure of SNR 18%, i.e., SNR in the midtones. What primarily bothers most people, however, is SNR in the shadows, where the SNR is always weakest and noisiness therefore most apparent. That's why I choose to link to a dark section of the DPR studio scene and single out shadow noise in my earlier reply to you here.

Now SNR in the shadows is better indexed by DR than by the DxO "low-light score". And if you look at the DxO DR curve (not the DR score, which is for base ISO only), you will see that the E-M1 is slightly ahead at low and high ISOs alike.

..... I actually see a difference but not as big as DXOs figures suggest

As already evidenced, you saw more noisiness where there is actually less. A simple case of deviant perception, presumably due to wishful thinking/confirmation bias, nothing else.