I have to say that I'm rather puzzled at the response of certain posters who have expressed difficulty in understanding the points I've raised here, in relation to Kevin's article.
I assure you I am not criticizing the qualities of the E-M1 in any way, or Kevin's interest and enjoyment in taking pictures with a variety of different cameras.
My point was entirely about the misleading comparison Kevin made in the article, describing a D800E with 150-600 Tamron lens attached as being equivalent to the EM-1 with 100-300 lens attached, in relation to the type of images, or more specifically, the range of FoVs that each systems would enable one to capture.
The D800E with Tamron 150-600 weighs about 3 kgs. The E-M1 with Panasonic 100-300 zoom weighs only 1 kg. That's a huge reduction in weight, and a reduction in bulk also. If those two systems are
really equivalent, for someone who considers a 16mp file sufficient, then that would be a huge advantage for the E-M1 with a 100-300 lens attached.
The point I've been making is that this concept, that these two camera systems are equivalent, is very misleading for anyone who is not familiar with the general concepts of lens equivalence, FoV and the significance of cropping.
For example, it might be the case that some people reading this article have already bought a D800E and are considering what telephoto lens to buy. They may be attracted to the Tamron 150-600 because of its long reach and because they are interested in birds and wildlife, but are very undecided because of the heavy weight of 3 Kgs, when the lens is attached to the camera, and the general awkwardness of carrying around such a heavy and bulky system.
They read Kevin's article, see the visual comparison between the E-M1 and the Tamoron 150-600 on the D800E, and think,
"Wow! I don't need to buy this Tamron 150-600. I'll spend a bit more money and get an E-M1 with Panasonic 100-300 zoom. According to Kevin, It'll produce similar results."Now, all I'm trying to do here is to apply a little bit of rational thought to such a comparison, in order to help people avoid making the wrong decision in relation to their equipment requirements. I could have kept quiet, and perhaps Kevin would have preferred that, but I'm not that sort of person. I enjoy robust converstaions and the application of rational thought to the process of making equipment purchasing decisions.
If Kevin had shown an image of the D800E attached to a lighter and less bulky Nikkor 80-400 zoom, I would probably not have raised the issue, although I still might have because of the significant wide-angle advantages of a full-frame 80mm focal length compared with the widest 200mm focal length equivalent of the E-M1. However, at the long end, the 80-400 is a closer match to the Panasonic 100-300 on the E-M1.
As I'm sure Kevin is aware, the D800E has a DX mode. In that mode, the Nikkor 80-400 at the long end produces a 16mp image with an effective focal length of 600mm. I doubt that such a 16mp image in DX mode would be inferior in any way to the 300mm shot from the E-M1. In fact, according to DXOMark, the D800E, pixel for pixel, has a full stop greater DR at base ISO, than the E-M1, and 5dB better SNR at 18% grey. 5dB is equivalent to more than 1 stop better, only 1 dB shy of 2 stops better.
However, to be objective, as I always try to be, except when I'm being funny
, such differences are greatly diminished above ISO 400, just as they are with Canon cameras.