I will admit I feel rather awkward about all the current threads comparing the E-M1 (mainly) against the latest Sony cameras. Please allow me to elaborate. Most people base their comparisons in either IQ, weight/size and price to value; frankly, mainly the latter. In other words "can I get better IQ, at approx. the same weight/size and comparable cost, by choosing the Sony?" My opinion is, at this point, these comparisons are erroneous, for the following reasons: At least for now, the Sony FE-mount cameras are hardly in the same category as the E-M1, if we base the comparison on features. It's something like comparing a D800 or D600 (Sony) with a D300 (Oly) or similar. This leads to a number of misconceptions. For example, a Sony with the same level of construction (whole body alloy vs some parts), same FPS, large RAW buffer, etc, would be (a) larger although probably not heavier and (b) MUCH more expensive. And I'm not even going into in body IS. The critical question is: does one need these E-M1 features? Because a lot of people will buy the Olympus as an upgrade simply because it is the latest and best overall of :43: cameras, but they might not fully use its really useful features. So perhaps we shouldn't compare the Sonys with the E-M1 but rather a camera like the GX7? The cameras are definitely not at the same price range, not even close. In European prices, I estimated (rather roughly, I have to say) the cost of the A7R + 24-70 f/4 lens + 55mm f/1.8 + 35mm f/2.8 + vertical grip at about 5,500€. The cost of a comparably featured E-M1 kit with 12-40 f/2.8 kit lens + Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 + Oly 17mm f/1.8 + vertical grip comes at about 3,400€. You can save about 1100 on the Sonys by substituting the A7R and f/4 zoom with the A7 + slower kit zoom. And, yes, the bold typeface on the apertures above are to show that the Olympus at least has a fighting chance at matching equivalence. And I'm not even going into in body IS. Sure, a number of people will argue using Sony adapters for Alpha lenses (which make the whole deal a lot heavier/bulkier), or even adapters for manual lenses (which makes the system a specialized Leica replacement digital back). My whole argument is: the E-M1 is much cheaper, as a system. At least for now. And, even if cost was closer between the two systems: how much do you think a future Nikon D400 will cost? My bet is closer to the D800 than the D610. We are not buying a camera we are buying (into) a system. A :43: is not limited to the E-M1 or whatever the latest :43: body is. The same (dozens) of lenses can be used on a smaller body or a body with a different set of prefered features. If one tries to compare whole systems (of course, Sony FE is hardly a "system" now, but it will be sooner or later), again it makes no sense. There is no way we can have a FF equivalent of the Panasonic GM1, or a E-PL5. Not to mention it will take several years, for Sony to match :43: lens selection. My whole point is, there is no meaningful comparison between these cameras and, indeed, systems. For some people the Sonys may be an alternative to :43:. This means, IMHO, that :43: was too much of a compromise in the first place. For others they can be a complementary system, and that's very cool. But, IMO, a direct comparison makes no sense overall.