So, I've read these two blog entries at lensrentals.com. The first part: LensRentals.com - Roger Buys a Camera System: Screening for Candidates The 2nd part: LensRentals.com - Roger Buys a Camera System: So What’s This Going to Cost? The writer, Roger Cicala, currently has an E-M5 and is convinced he needs a better system. Why? Well, you can read all about it yourself. Anyways, I just finished reading the second part of the article and it made me think about the E-M5 vs the other cameras. IMO, the article is great and it can be used to promote the m4/3 format. How? Well, Roger chooses three similar camera sets from 2 different classes (APS-C and FF) plus the E-M5. What this articles says is that the E-M5 is the cheapest of them all. This doesn't prove anything yet but when you think about the specs of these sets it gets pretty clear... The E-M5 is the cheapest, lightest and smallest system of them all. Sure, the FF cameras outperform E-M5 but when considering the size difference and price (~$6800 vs ~$12000), is it REALLY worth it? IMO, no. Not at all. My g/f has a 5Dmk2 and I've compared our pictures many times and I can honestly say that E-M5 produces better pics more often. Sure, 5DII wins in some situations hands down, but I'd say the ratio is around 1:15 to 1:20. She has only one L-lens so she's not using the full potential but then again... I don't have the stellar Oly 12mm or 75mm lenses either. In general I'd say that E-M5 is in the same IQ league as the APS-C cameras so the difference comes with specs (form, size, weight, price). And the funny thing is that when you take out some of the zooms and replace them with primes (e.g. 12mm/14mm/20mm/45mm) the differences between the systems grow (in favour of E-M5). And in addition to this, there's other m4/3 cameras (E-PL5 and E-PM2) that can produce identical IQ to the E-M5 but comes in an even smaller size and price! What do you guys think, am I on to something?