This rather lukewarm review mirrors the other early reviews. What I find interesting is the lack of an appreciable difference in either dynamic range, or quality of high ISO images when compared to m 4/3,
For years we have heard that the conventional 4/3 system was inferior to the APS-C cameras primarily because of the smaller sensor (other aspects like CPU, and the width of the internal pipeline are also different). It seems, that perhaps some of the earlier observations of the deficiencies of the 4/3 system were based on parts of the system other than pixel size??
However. now with direct comparisons to APS-C sensor (Sony NEX5, and Samsung NX-10) to m 4/3, there appears to be a lack of real difference. How did the m 4/3 get to be so good, or the APS_C bodies to be so "bad" to minimize the aforementioned benefits of the larger sensor???
What do you think???