[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Their review includes comparisons with scores of other popular MILCs:

DxOMark - Olympus OM-D E-M5: The best of the micro 4:3 cameras

The advantages of using Sony sensor technology is pretty obvious.

[twitch]

Very interesting to see it performs almost identically to the Pentax K-x (baked in RAW noise reduction aside)

[einstrigger]

Kudos to the Olympus considering the size of the sensor. Hmm...makes me even more impressed with the Sony RX100 as well. Now I really want to see how the Fuji X-Pro performs... Or hey, what do you know, they're all Sony manufactured sensors.

[Winder]

It performs as almost as well as the Canon 5D on the graphs. Not bad at all.

Since Sony is making the 4/3 sensor for the EM-5 that means they are making wafers that would give you almost a 32MP APS-C or a little less than 64MP FF sensor. It is also odd that Panasonic is giving the "no comment" when asked who makes the GH-3 sensor. You would think they would put their stamp on it if they made it.

Definitely wonder what is keeping DxO from finishing their Fuji XP-1 test. They have had the camera for months.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Definitely wonder what is keeping DxO from finishing their Fuji XP-1 test. They have had the camera for months.

Must have scored really well too.

[twitch]

Must have scored really well too.

Maybe it's the non bayer layout?

[Winder]

Maybe it's the non bayer layout?

Fujifilm Fujinon XF 35 mm f/1.4 R - lens review - Lenstip.com

Lenstip tested the 35mm F/1.4 on the XP-1 and center resolution blows away the K-5 w/31mm Ltd. The 31mm is a pretty sharp lens.

[rawr]

Lenstip tested the 35mm F/1.4 on the XP-1 and center resolution blows away the K-5 w/31mm Ltd. The 31mm is a pretty sharp lens.

Remember valid direct comparisons across systems with different pixel densities, AA filters etc aren't always possible.

As Lenstip say about the Fujinon35:

That company decided to use a matrix with a specific color filter array (6x6 blocks) – it counteracts the moire effect so you don’t need to use an AA filter. The lack of such filter makes the MTF50 values (so also the resolution), reached by the Fujifim X-Pro1 much higher than those you get with classic 15-16 Mpix sensors [like the K-5].

If we went with simple resolution numbers from Lenstip or others, we'd be all using micro4/3 lenses...

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Remember valid direct comparisons across systems with different pixel densities, AA filters etc aren't always possible.

The XPro1 sensor and that of the K-5 have the same physical size and the same resolution (16.3MP), so lenstip results are directly comparable. The AA filter removal was meant to improve sensor resolution, so why are you surprised that tests reflect that?

If we went with simple resolution numbers from Lenstip or others, we'd be all using micro4/3 lenses...

Lenstip does not make any statement about the results being invalidated. They just say that the lack of the AA filter leads to better sharpness, which is what the removal of the AA filter was meant to produce.

As for "others", by which I assume you are referring to dxomark, they are scaling their resolution results to the sensor size specifically to allow comparisons cross-format. But then perhaps dxomark are morons as everyone was in agreement here before they published their K-5 test results.

[Unsinkable II]

The advantages of using Sony sensor technology is pretty obvious.

So it performs almost as well as my 3 year old K-x?

I'd say the advantages of going one stop up in sensor size is what's most obvious.

I am pleased for Olympus though. It's a neat little camera.

[Winder]

Remember valid direct comparisons across systems with different pixel densities, AA filters etc aren't always possible.

As Lenstip say about the Fujinon35:


If we went with simple resolution numbers from Lenstip or others, we'd be all using micro4/3 lenses...

It is directly comparable since they use the same 16MP sensor with the same pixel density.

You realize that the resolution numbers posted by all of the review websites use MTF50 LPMM charts which measure resolution in relation to sensor height? Some simple math and you can roughly convert the numbers for different sensor sizes. Pixel density is a different issue, but the 12MP 4/3, 15MP Canon APS-C and 16MP K-5 sensors all have very similar densities, so you can take resolution tests from one and calculate performance for the other with decent accuracy with simple math.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I'd say the advantages of going one stop up in sensor size is what's most obvious.

What is obvious from these results is that APS-C is a rather pointless format. Theoretically, based on sensor size, it should offer a 2/3 stop advantage over MFT. But now we see that APS-C does not offer more than 1/2 stop advantage. Meanwhile, it drags more than 1 stop behind FF.

So if you want a one stop performance gain over MFT, you need to skip APS-C and go FF.

[Unsinkable II]

What is obvious from these results is that APS-C is a rather pointless format. Theoretically, based on sensor size, it should offer a 2/3 stop advantage over MFT. But now we see that APS-C does not offer more than 1/2 stop advantage. Meanwhile, it drags more than 1 stop behind FF.

So if you want a one stop performance gain over MFT, you need to skip APS-C and go FF.

By your logic M4/3 is also a pointless format, as it doesn't offer a 1 stop advantage over the sensor in the Sony RX100.

That also fits in neatly with my future camera ownership wishes... "my" (actually wife's) existing RX100 (and whatever comes after it) and a K-5-sized FF. Everything in-between can be forgotten about.

Edit: "Everything in-between can be forgotten about by me." I wouldn't presume to say that everything in-between is without merit, it is just superfluous to my particular wants.

[Jonathan Mac]

APS-C is the ideal format for most as it is currently the largest format that allows what most people consider a reasonably-sized and reasonably-priced DSLR or mirrorless camera. The size and price jumps from APS-C to FF are enormous, while there is no real price difference between 4/3 and APS-C. It also provides better wide-angle capability than 4/3, better IQ (even if it is only half a stop, which I'm not sure about), decent control over DoF, and fields of view with legacy lenses that make them still practical (though obviously FF is the ideal for this). Not to mention lenses that are far (FAR) more reasonably priced.

[twitch]

APSC will be around for a long time, just less and less in a DSLR body.