amblepath

I'll agree. I just listened again with my volume cranked. The Fuji, Nikon, Olympus, Canon all sounded very good through my stereo. I think he got the rankings spot on. The Panasonic sounded the richest and fullest of them all through my equipment. The Sony was bad just plain bad.

I think that this review is asking a bit much of Olympus. Yes this camera is playing catch up with other manufacturers but remember that they've just moved a factory.
I still would take it over the fuji for the IBIS.
It would feel better if it was a bit cheaper as right now the argument of picking up an em1-ii is pretty valid. Unfortunately, I think that issue will be resolved when the em1-ii replacement arrives. As far as I can see this camera delivers pretty much all that could have been reasonably expected. Did it blow the competition away? No. You do though. get what you pay for. A small system with a marginally smaller sensor than apsc. Great lens selection. Top of the line stabalization. Best weather sealing available.
I also think that the focusing upgrade is a huge improvement.
My biggest gripe is not with Olympus but with the fact that as the camera market (non cell phone) shrinks owning any somewhat enthusiast camera is getting much much more expensive.

The difference between 4/3 and apsc seems way over exaggerated in this article. Between both of them and full frame yes. Is there a difference, yes a small one but the article makes it sound like if light levels drop 4/3 becomes so much inferior when in reality it is only a very little bit inferior.

One of the most limiting factors of this camera as a one solution camera is it's lack of IBIS. In the Canon EOS R review the significance of the lack of IBIS is described this way "No in-body stabilization further limits usefulness as a video camera"
The XT 3's Video capabilities certainly seem impressive in many ways but it's lack of IBIS is a hugely limiting factor for the average user. Competing cameras IBIS systems are almost uncanny in there ability to stabilize the sensor a without the need to carry extra cumbersome gear that would be needed to stabilize this camera.

Just looking at the dates for the reviews of these cameras.

Nikon D500 - January 2016
Olympus em1-2 November 2016

Panasonic G9 - January 2018
Fuji X-T3 - October 2018

There ranking in this video corresponds to there release date which I guess makes sense.

The Fuji looks like an excellent camera and Fuji users have a great option available. Still it is newly released so it makes sense that it would surpass some of the other cameras that are nearing the end of their product cycle.

OK I think I get it. Didn't even know these grid pattern AF illuminators even existed.

Excuse my ignorance because I must be getting confused. I pulled out my omd em5II and put my fl50 on it. I turned off the lights in the room half pushed the shutter and the autofocus illuminator turned on focus locked and it took the picture perfectly focused. What am I missing here

I seriously do not know how the omd-em5II ended up in this group. It has not been over $1000 Canadian for over a year. That is like $700 US.
It goes on sale regularly for $800. That's less than $600 Us

The viewfinder on my omd em5ii is a huge improvement over my last evf. I find it a pleasure to use. Add in magnification for manual focus and it's EVF all the way for me.

I get your point Richard. Sometimes I forget how clean high ISO adds another dimension to exposure.

I fall into the more depth of field is an advantage most of the time camp. I know it's hard to accept for some that less depth of field to many is a con and yet it truly is. With m4/3 for instance you get to keep the quick shutter speed of the widest aperture and still keep vital areas in focus. Software also is getting better and better for blurring backgrounds if you need more. This leaves high ISO noise as the only con for me from smaller sensors like m4/3 and APS-C. So if the best in high ISO is your need then it's full frame for you. Otherwise remember more depth of field for your average photographer is often, possibly even mostly a pro not a con.

Have the test scenes been updated yet from the pre finalized raw converter that was originally used? It doesn't seem to indicate that they have been. I hate the arguments about IQ that mean nothing until a proper raw converter is used.

Nikon D500 seems like a great camera. DSLR's are not dead yet and may not be for a long time. For me I'm biased because I now would never go back to the mirror. The future for anything seems pretty uncertain these days so lets see what the next few years brings.

If you're in Canada Olympus Omd Em5II is in this price range as well. Under 700 us dollars.

well I can get it now for$680 us dollars so that makes it pretty appealing

"Controls can be overwhelming" At Em1-II price the lack of controls would be the con. It's not aimed at beginners. "Sorry mister pro or semipro. This camera is too complicated for you."

I have an Olympus and I must be used to it because I keep wondering, 'what's wrong with the menus.'

If you want super small with great quality get the em5II. Or wait for the em3 :)

Default jpegs on a camera at this level mean nothing to me. Adjust them to what you want after you get the camera. Fuji looks like it has much more default sharpening for instance.
When I look at the raw conversions(Olympus not finalized I understand) I find myself squinting at the details looking at the minor differences. Then I look at how small a portion of the picture I'm looking at and laugh. I laugh because these cameras are all so good that no one that I'm going to show my pictures to (coffee table photo book) would ever be able to tell which of these cameras took the picture. Only exception being full frame at extremely high ISO.
I like the Olympus for its toughness, speed, video with crazy stabilization, and excellent lenses. Also high res is intriguing. These minor differences in IQ really are overblown in my opinion.