#1 KJ

Holy crap…those chomatic abberations are terrible!

2:02 am - Tuesday, March 6, 2012

#2 lance

noisy images. inaccurate color.

4:36 am - Tuesday, March 6, 2012

#3 NC

Assuming they’re taken with the 17mm lens… that’s no surprise, since that lens is kind of weak…

7:44 am - Tuesday, March 6, 2012

#4 Johnny Good

These pretty much demonstrate the inherent problem of Micro Four Thirds: Image quality and depth of field of a good compact camera at DSLR price.

If I want pro image quality and equipment I might as well buy into a real DSLR system. If I want compactness I would just get a good compact and save a lot of money compared to MFT.

12:29 pm - Tuesday, March 6, 2012

#5 Juan perez

Terrible your test.
Or you are terrible photographer
or 17mm 2.8 is terrible Lens.
E-M5 not bad as this photos.

12:44 pm - Tuesday, March 6, 2012

#6 M.

It’s not reasonable to expect this camera to work well at high ISO, so the image quality at up to ISO 800 is acceptable, even very good by micro 4/3 standards. The level of chromatic aberrations, however, is overbearing. I read elsewhere that Olympus is working on a new version of the 17mm/f2.8. Let’s hope they can correct this, and also the barrel distortion and unsharpness that affect the current version. (I have one, so the results look all too familiar.)

1:52 pm - Tuesday, March 6, 2012

#7 aj

17mm lens lens is weak. not impressed. however wouldnt say no if a freebie arises.

5:04 pm - Tuesday, March 6, 2012

#8 cg

Whoa, those 1600 ISO pics are definitely not as good as picture samples I’ve seen on other sites. Hopefully, this is just a glitch of that particular camera you were using there.

4:58 am - Wednesday, March 7, 2012

#9 ronnbot

Pretty weak samples here but I wouldn’t fault the camera as I’ve seen some impressive samples elsewhere.

6:56 am - Wednesday, March 7, 2012

#10 The Real Stig

Forget about this non-review, it is a cack-handed very poorly executed amateurish effort.  It conveys next to nothing of the true capabilities of this camera.  Check out Robin Wong’s blog review before dismissing this camera:

http://robinwong.blogspot.com/

10:50 am - Wednesday, March 7, 2012

#11 frelwa

I agree with “The Real Stig” about the excellent photos on Robin Wong’s Blog, but the rest of what he says is snotty “I’m better than anybody” crap.

Get a life, Real Pig

4:59 pm - Wednesday, March 7, 2012

#12 Lawrence

Chromatic aberration tells me nothing about the camera, and I don’t know what lens was used. Without knowing the in camera constrast and sharpening settings and the lens use, the images don’t give me much information. Given what I’ve seen elsewhere of what this camera can do, I’ll be the sharpening setting was up. Since I don’t use in camera sharpening higher than the minimum—EVER—I’m left not knowing what the camera will do for me. I get better jpegs out of my E-P2 than some here, with good prime lenses, so I have to wonder.

5:11 am - Tuesday, March 13, 2012

#13 Dan

I hope Photographyblog’s tests will be done with a lens other than the 17mm or the 12-50mm, which are respectively the worst prime lens and zoom lens you can get out of all M43 lenses in terms of image quality although they have other values.

7:10 am - Monday, March 26, 2012