BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jim M." data-source="post: 3528589" data-attributes="member: 60675">I don't see any significant difference between the D500 and EM-1 mk II.  Think you can see what you want if you look long enough at such shots when there are small differences.  Also, those DP Review shots are not carefully controlled; they use inferior lenses on some cameras and process some shots differently than others.  Going beyond tests, here's a real world report from another forum that I linked to in another post:I shoot with the D500 and assorted lenses up to the 600mm f/4. My  wife shoots with the E-M1 Mark II and the E-M5 Mark II cameras and the  Olympus Pro lenses (12-40 f/2.8, 40-150mm f/2.8, 12mm f/2, 300mm f/4).  Her images are the equal of mine and sometimes better as the autofocus  is more accurate with mirrorless cameras. Her 300mm f/4 provides the field of view of my 600mm f/4 lens but  cost a quarter as much and weighs a third as much. With the in-camera  optical stabilization combined with the lens stabilization of the 300mm  f/4 lens she can take a shot at 1/8s hand held and the image is  perfectly sharp. I cannot do that with my Nikon D500 and any of my VR  lenses (70-200, 80-400, 500mm f/4, 600mm f/4). On a trip this month to Costa Rica we had equivalent kits and mine  fit in a 32 liter bag and weighed over 36 lbs., while hers fit in a 18  liter backpack and weighed in at 19 lbs.  Which would you rather carry? I read so many posts where people agonize over what to take on a trip  and with MFT cameras and lenses there would be no issue as they could  take it all. <a href="https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58988370" target="_blank">https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58988370</a></blockquote>

Verification