Yes, I also put a short version of this post to the "full frame myth" section because I think it belongs to both. Well, the author of the article forgot to mention one but crutial thing: The depth of field possibility. Yes, I can see that it is not a hot topic for a landscape shooter but for the experienced eye of the experienced street / portrait / people shooter the full frame abilitites in this respect are not a "myth" at all. With m4/3 or even APS/C, one cannot reach the same field of view with the same level of the shallow DoF. There are no equivalents for 21/1.4, 24/1.4, 35/1.4 or 50/0.95 or 85/1.4 lenses. No need to say in this forum that IT IS the lenses what greatly contributes to the final perception, atmosphere, "pop" and concept of the final images. Of course I can see Mr.Reichmannīs style of shooting doesnīt work with the very thin DoF which I accept - that is his style and I have a respect for it. But honestly, the pictures of photographers who can (masterfully) benefit from the fast full frame lenses have much deeper impact on me. So while in the high-iso department I think we can live up with the offerings from APS-C or m4/3 sensors, the real benefit of the above mentioned facts shouldnīt be forgotten. The size still matters, Iīm afraid.
Otherwise I consider the OMD E-M1 an unbelievably thought-out and made camera. Unfortunately, one important unpleasant thing here too: When playing with it shortly in low-light I couldnīt have noticed that the tracking AF system and the overall AF reliability does seem to me (significantly - albeit the meaning of this adverb is relative, I admit) worse than my 5D mark III. Please note that Iīm not talking about super-fast tracking of a flying pigeon in a dim hall... And that was with the high-grade pro 2.0 lens which can hide a lot in the greater depth of field. I would really like to see the amount of keepers if the equvalents of the fast full frame lenses existed.... ;-)
No, I donīt want to neither bash Olympus for producing a really great camera nor M.Reichmann for the really very interesting article. I just cannot share the enthusiasm mainly because 1) The m4/3 sensor cannot give you the same low-light / high megapixel quality and shallow DoF control 2) The AF system in low light leaves something to be desired 3) The m4/3 format is dead.... Sorry guys, Iīm totally persuaded about that for the future.