Michael Reichmann of The Luminous Landscape, had this to say in a recent Fuji X-T1 review: I've only heard it put better than that once, and that by was the same person three months earlier in comments made about the Olympus E-M1: Kirk Tuck has been thinking along related lines: http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2014/03/important-announcement-from-ceo-of.html http://ripecamera.blogspot.com/2014/03/all-cameras-are-better-than-you-are.html I believe that for most of us, gradations in modern camera sensor image quality (often referred to as "IQ") are an unimportant contribution to system image quality (lens performance and even postprocessing being more important here), and system image quality is a relatively small component of photo quality (system performance and photographer performance being more important here). I enjoy file peeping, ISO marveling, and DxOmark analysis, but it's all a separate hobby for me. Distinct from photography. I don't begrudge those who actually want better and better low light sensor noise performance, cleaner shots, pushing the edge, etc. Nothing wrong with that. But I think most of us have arrived at the point where sensor image quality is good enough. That said, I'm not 100% on board with Kirk's idea that all of these cameras are fine. Sure, they will all get the job done, but still I think Your Camera Does Matter. Or at least mine does. I have to feel a connection to a camera. It needs to be configurable, responsive, feel good in the hand, easy to hold steady, autofocus well, give me a great view of the world, and look good doing its job. But IQ - for me - is near the bottom of the list.