Now firstly don't get me wrong, I do love my Olympus system (OMD-EM1 and EM1 MK II), but was recently browsing the DXO website, and decided to plug in the models of 3 of the 4 cameras I own to see the results (they don't have results for the Fuji X Trans sensor of my X-T2 yet). These are the results. Now according to this, both my MK1 MK II and my D500 share almost identical low light ISO scores (1312 for the EM1 vs 1324 for the D500), with the GX8 trailing nearly a stop behind at 806. Trouble is though, I'm finding that my D500 wipes the floor with the MK II when it comes to high ISO performance. My cap for the EM1 II when shooting birds to retain maximum feather details is typically ISO3200 (preferably ISO1600), whereas on my D500, I've had great results at ISO6400 and even a cracking set of Jay images at ISO12,800. Obviously NR is applied to both, but I find the D500 cleans up much nicer whist retaining much more detail which is smeared out with the EM1 II (even with in camera NR set to Low). I always shoot Raw in both cases and develop in Lightroom CC (now Lightroom CC Classic). Furthermore, I don't really find the GX8 nearly a stop behind the EM1 II, with their noise patterns looking quite similar (maybe a slight nod to the Olympus). Now I expect the D500 with it's bigger sensor to do better and it does, but that's not what DXO Mark says ? TBH, whilst everyone raves on about how good the Fuji X-T2 is, whilst it's a great camera, I'd say it's high ISO noise levels appear not much better (if at all) than the EM1 MK II, and certainly behind the D500. Now I'm not saying I'm disappointing, as that's what smaller sensor technology gets you, and the size and weight of the M4/3 system over my APS-C Nikon system counter acts nicely the slightly lower ISO performance, but was just really surprised that DXO ranked them about the same ? Any one else think the high ISO performance of the EM1 II matches the best of APS-C (which arguably the D500 is) ?