I think this is pretty common. The EP3 has both less megapixels and less sensor size. From your 50d point of view, the EP3 file is "already cropped" (as in, you already get a longer focal lenght because of the smaller sensor). Cropping again (15MPix APS vs 12MPix M43) would get the 50d an easy win in image quality.
Maybe the EP3 shot was with the lens aperture too small. Past f/5.6 - 6.3 you should get some little degrading in image quality due to diffraction. Maybe cropping + diffraction damaged the image.
If you take your landscapes shot at f8 - 11 with your canon, you should use f5.6 - 8 with your olympus camera. You get the same depht of field, gain a stop of light and don't dwell too much in the diffraction zone.

Anyway, eager to see the comparison images


This
shot
is
AWESOME!

__________________
I speak a good Italian and a bad English.
Olympus: E-M5, E-PL2, Oly E-PL1 with IR conversion, 45mm f1.8 + macro adapter, 12-50mm. Keeping an eye on the 75mm f1.8...
Panasonic: 20mm f1.7, 14-45mm, 100-300mm, 12mm 3D.
Fujifilm: X100 and I would like to buy a X20.
Nikon: F4, Nikkor 35mm PC, Nikkor E 50mm f1.8.

I think a big part of the problem here is that we don't know what you mean by "flat." I doesn't seem you mean depth, or 3-dimensionality. Do you mean lacking in contrast?

It would really help if you posted an example or two of images that you think are flat, and explain what you don't like about them.

__________________
I'm not lazy. I'm energy efficient.

I think that shot could easily be used by Chevy for an ad. Incredible job.

__________________
http://500px.com/kevitra

+1. Super.

`[QUOTE=littleMT;282898]Maybe I don't understand what you mean by flat and a lack of a 3d look..


These are shot with my E-PL1, using both the 45mm prime and a 20mm prime, I don't see them as flat, and I believe they have a certian 3d pop to them, that same day, my Sony A65 was also used and just couldn't replicate these results.

My comments start here...I just didn't want to repeat the photos again.
I think what he means is taking the 2 generation old NM plate (USA anyone) and putting it on that fine fine automobile. Though the Zia is fine. I still have my Go Lobos! plate in case I move back to Albuquerque. Nice pics btw :).

So did they actually pave the road (one side or both?) to Chaco? That looks too green to be Chaco though....

this isn't Chaco, I have yet to image there, and I will.

This is a Spanish Mission Church, Quari.

Quari is located eight miles north of Mountainair near the village of Punta de Aqua on N.M. 55.

That's a badass car LittleMT.

Anyway back to topic, FLATTER as in what? The colour? The depth of field? I can't really understand what you meant by flat until you define it.

If you meant FLATTER in depth of field where the seperation between the subject and background is not as pronounced as the 50D with the same lens, then yes, it is. Due to smaller sensor size the DOF increases as well. You'd need a glass that's 1.5x faster and larger in aperture to create roughly the same DOF. e.g, you'd use a 35/1.8 on a 50D and you use a 25/1.4 on an m4/3.

If you meant FLATTER in colours, I guess you just have to play with the settings. I prefer them to not pop out so much during picture taking and then I can adjust them later to my liking.

__________________
www.photopurple.blogspot.com

Thanks, she has come a long ways, she made 616rwhp with a built engine and a whipple blower.