Quote Originally Posted by milest
Sticking my neckout, (and being indeed concerned about the chip size of 4/3rds), I browsed this forum and found several comments by you with the consistent line that 'Larger sensors always win so Olympus will always be behind the cuve of image quality.'.

Can you substantiate this, and especially to the extent of what the human eye can detect. You may be theoretically right but if we can't see the 'weakness' in terms of image quality then does it matter. Furthermore, I find no posts about poor E1 image quality?
Just read the reviews, the 4/3 cameras are OK at lower ISOs but suffer at higher ISOs just as one might expect. Start with www.dpreview.com and move on from there.

As for improvements, lets say technology gets better and improves the tiny Olympus sensor by leaps and bounds. Well, that same technology can be used to improve the larger sensors by leaps and bounds as well. Larger always wins.

This is the same type of argument that used to occur in the film world. Champions of 35mm would claim with each new development that they didn't need medium format. But the medium format film would then use those same improvements and still be heads above 35mm. Size matters.

Image quality is not the only way to judge a camera. Some find that the Olympus cameras suit their needs. No problem with that. What advantages? Maybe size for example. But then, the Pentax DSLRs are just as small or smaller. Perhaps "digitally enhanced lenses", but the final result is what counts and there isn't the difference one might guess at.

IMHO, Olympus placing all of their eggs in such a small sensor size basket is a bad and dangerous business move. Time will tell.