Originally posted by Elliot I have a Panasonic G85 with Panasonic Leica 100-400mm lens and in good light, it is superb. When light is not so good, the higher ISO leads to smearing in photos of birds at our feeder, for example. I cannot have a fast enough shutter speed without pushing the ISO too much. I thought the Olympus E-M1.2 -- with a 1300 low-light ISO rating from DxO that is twice as high as the Panasonic -- might solve that issue. The alternative is the KP, in which the larger sensor might allow more cropping from a telephoto with less reach, and if the low-light performance was better than the E-M1.
when you do some math,
you quickly realise, that there is not so much difference between apsc - and m43 sensors ( talking about most recent )
WHY?
Well, in APSC you must raise higher values for same result, because the body of APSC is heavier, image stabilisation is slower, and you must raise your shutter speed, but then again, that requires higher ISO values.
Let's say you taking a photos on concert, and with apperture with 5.6, 6.7, you may be good, but for sure results - I would recomend f 8.
Now,
let's do equal setting on m43 - you can take photos with f 4, and with f 5.6 you will be sharp as a knife.... That way you can take photos with higher shutter speed, to get things perfectly sharp.
And you still have the quite more space to get even better results, with lower shutter speeds, because image stabilisation is so damn good in Oly's bodies, that you may be good even at 1/15 - and motions , like hands on guitar, would have intersted motion blur, while the rest will be tack sharp.
I cannot allow myself to go that deep in low shutter speed with my K-3, because everything below 1/30 is just a spoiled shoot - most of the time, and specially in concert crowd...
---
so the math told you - m43 - is maybe ( or for sure ) more capable then APSC.
KP is still behind the posibilities, of the OLY, but it's pretty close...