Originally posted by Aku Ankka Well, DPR is DPR...
DxOMark on the other hand paints somewhat more believable picture.
The absolute dynamic range at the base ISO is indeed better on the LX5 than on Pen EPL2 (reading the DR diagram from right to left indicates that the Olympus seems to waste some of the sensor's potential), though outside of the very deepest shadows the bigger sensor camera is much better at just about everything.
On the other hand, many more consumers do read DPR than DxO...
Thanks for the cross check.
I agree that DxO draws a more complete picture.
An LX5 or S95 seems to be 2 stops behind an EPL2 (or any µFT) and 3 stops behind a K-5. But the LX5/S95 built-in lenses are f/2.0 and the appropriate peer (14-42) is f/3.5 only which looses another stop. The K-5 kit lens is f/3.5 too. And at least the Leica lens for the LX5 is sharp at f/2.
So, including the bult-in lens (or standard zoom lens) into the picture, the µFT offers are only 1 stop better than enthusiast compacts and 2 stops worse than a K-5. Add to it the missing DR for µFT, and you see why I said enthusiast compacts are the competitors for the Pentax Q.
And against S95/LX5, the price tag of a Pentax Q is a problem ...