I know it's a bit of an apples and potatoes comparison, but I'm curious if anybody uses these two regularly (or moved to one after the other), and has any thoughts as to how they compare in terms of image quality and handling. The main thing I remember when I switched fully from the Nikon D700 to the E-M5 was that the base ISO performance actually improved (better highlight recovery, better per-pixel sharpness). I'm wondering if that's still the case. The main reason I'm eying the Df is that I miss the immediacy of the SLR's OVF - the EVF is in many respects more useful but it doesn't give me quite the same feeling of seeing the world as it is (plus I look at a screen all day at work!). I'm also thinking of giving manual focus another try - I have some older Nikon AI-S and K lenses - and I dislike the 2x focal length multiplier that turns my nice wide and normal lenses into other things on the OM-D. I'd still keep the OM-D (it's got a big size advantage, and given the current market, not worth selling), but as a secondary camera for when the Df was too big and awkward. I'm doubtful I can find a good standard zoom to replace my 12-40/2.8 as a walk-around lens, but I figure the 24-85/3.5-4.5VR might be at least adequate, if I stop it down enough. Of course this is all moot if the Df's image quality doesn't match the good parts of the OM-D (per-pixel sharpness, highlight recovery) and improve significantly on the bad (ISO 1600+ noise). Thoughts?