Originally posted by pingflood Do you understand that quoting LPMM measurements for different formats doesn't actually make much sense?
That was the point I was trying to make about the meaningless comparison between the Panasonic and Pentax lenses by reproducing the graphs from Photozone.
@nickthetasmaniac No, I'm not taking the piss. On
average, IQ from m4/3 is somewhat worse than the IQ from APS-C. Given that the
average ability of contributors to both threads is likely to be the same, they give you an idea of what you can expect to achieve yourself. It shows that, all else being equal, you're making a tradeoff between compact size and image quality. Of course, APS-C is on average worse than full frame which is, in turn, on average worse than medium format. But then you're talking cost differences of thousands.
@suoersta M4/3 is a good system, but the E-PM1 is not a particularly good camera. Diving into menus to do something as fundamental as changing aperture is
not fun. I've been there. The E-PL2 is a good compromise between low cost and decent handling (at least it has a dial). The E-PL3 does not bring additional advantages, IMO. I'd say that Olympus bodies are preferable to Panasonic, just because of built-in stablization.
When I wanted to move up, I thought about the features I was looking for: eye-level viewfinder (believe me, it's better than live-view), AF assist lamp, high-res screen, dedicated controls for changing shooting parameters, decent low-light performance. As an Olympus user, I
wanted an EP-3 with the VF-2. But my research showed me that I could get a Pentax K-r which gave me something a little bit better for a lot less than half the cost.
Reasonable cost comparison:
EPL-2 + Panasonic 20mm F1.7 + VF-2: £600+
Pentax K-r + 35mm F2.4: £450-
Just a thought: I've not tried one, but the NX system has a very nice 30mm F2 pancake so it might give you the best of both worlds.