When the GX7 was launched, I was impressed and somewhat surprised. Panasonic seemed to have gotten most things right on this camera, and I was tempted.
When the E-M1 was launched, it was the obvious choice. It can replace all of my Nikon gear except the D700 with some primes, and in the real world, with some extra investments, maybe that one too. But whatever way I look at it, it will cost money. So I started looking at what each camera offers and what my real needs are. Here it is:
- Better AF
- Will AF with my PanaLeica 14-50mm
- Weather sealed
- Superior IBIS
- Better ergonomics
- Vertical grip option
- Deeper buffer
- Faster frame rate
- Looks more "professional"
- Better image quality (slightly)
- Smaller size, not so much, but enough to make it fit in a cargo or coat pocket.
- Better video
- Built-in flash
- Tiltable EVF
- Shares battery and charger with my GH2
- Looks less "professional"
- Lower price
Objectively speaking, I'm sure the Olympus is the better camera, and it should be. It's 40% more expensive. But the advantages of the Olympus are typically features that I would value when doing action and event photography, which I don't do much of these days. For travel and general photography, the GX7 is at least as well suited, often better.
And: The Zuiko 40-150 mm isn't out yet, making a Zuiko 50-200 4/3 a necessity. For paid work, I would need an Olympus backup body also.
It's tempting to buy a GX7 and use the Nikon gear till it starts dying, but maybe I'm just too scared to jump
The jury will be working hard on this