E-M1 vs. A7II Thoughts

bluevellet wrote:

Helen wrote:

MatsP wrote:

My conclusion from your comparison is that the EM-1 is superior from most aspects except for resolution and high ISO performance. That's an amazingly good result, remembering that you compare a 16 MP and a 42 MP camera. The only advantages of the A7II are directly related to the sensor resolution and size and not much else. The negative things you list seems to me being mostly related to only a short experience of the EM-1 which of course is very understandable. It takes some time to learn how to set and use an Olympus camera. What many refer to as a complicated menu reflects that the possibilities to individual settings are enormous and it's easy to get wrong if you don't take your time diving into it. Have fun!

To be fair, the OP seems to be referring to the A7II, a 24 MP camera, rather than the A7RII.

He is indeed. But there can still be quite a difference between the 16MP and 24MP, especially with the right glass. Something like a Sigma ART 35mm at optimal aperture delivers a level of sharpness at 24MP you just can't match with 16MP M43.

Conversely, if you stick to some Nikon G lenses wide open at 24MP, it seems all fuzzy and wasted MP compared to good, sharp m43 glass like the Zuiko 75mm at 16MP.

That's my experience anyway.

Good point, DXO seems to reflect this in a fairly accurate manner and it often matches my experience. Even my favorite lens (the Sony Zeiss 24mm f1.8) supposedly only resolves 13mp (out of 24) on my A6000. But 13 can be plenty for most applications