as I said a few days For use IS with manual lenses in E-M5:

Dandelion Chip: http://peleng8.com/af-lens-adapters/af-chip-dandelion-micro-4-3-af-chip-dandelion-iv-generation-for-micro-4/3.html

i not tested, only i see video and put info here.

Any idea about the origen of the sensor of this jewel?

Olympus EM-5 test images, special for pixel peepers :-)

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/omd-em5/omd-em5A7.HTM

Back on video? would you buy an OMD for video or a hybrid? For me its a non entity, the stills ratio of the GH2 are more flexible, native 16:9 and 3:2 ratio's. The video ratios are native. The dr seems up there, I don't trust Oly, they appear to be a bit of a copy-cat company that dresses things up as their own. Why they have so many loyal followers is beyond me.

OK, cool! Look at the histo's, for the HL the GH2 is clearly over-blown by a margin over OMD HL. In the shadows they look similar but the image is clearly darker on the GH2! It suggests, metering-tone curve are very different? you cant draw any conclusions, I'm sorry if I appear to be have having a go, promise I'm not but you need to see beyond fascination with your new toys? I am not seeing how you proved OMD has more DR, with the histo its not black and white.

adventsam, I don't know what your problem is with me. You've got this axe to grind, and when I don't respond to you on DPReview in what you view as an adequate amount of time, you now go around to other sites calling me a cheat? Ever think that, I don't know, I might actually have a job and family and can't drop everything to get you your histograms right away?

Anyway, histograms have been posted in your 'call out' thread on DPReview.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&message=41483558

As to the other comments. Blowing out the channels is a perfectly valid way to test the high and low limits of dynamic range. Why? Well, if I cause a good portion of the image to clip the highlights, I can see what brightness values WEREN'T clipped, and where the pixels become saturated. This gives an upper bound to the brightness levels the sensor can record. Similarly, blocking out a good portion of the shadows well let me see how dark the sensor can record and still yield valuable data. Obviously you wouldn't shoot like that, but the test was designed to stress the sensors equally. Also, Adventsam..you keep saying that ISO 200 on the OMD is like ISO 100 on the GH2 and you have NOTHING to back that up. In fact, in my experience thus far with both cameras, the OMD is exposing about 1/3 stop brighter at the same ISO and settings on the same scene as the GH2 is, when done under completely constant light.

Anyway, look at the histograms in the link above if you are interested.

Thanks, Jordan Steele

@joesiv: The point is that his whole "measurement" was based on voluntarily over- and under-exposed images:

I chose a high DR area, and then decided to see how they did when overexposed 3 stops and pulled back, and underexposed 3 stops and pushed back.

... and that makes this a test of how much of the sensor value range is utilized by the cameras default metering, but not a test of DR.

I am not saying that the EM5 does not have a larger dynamic range for still images than the GH2, there have been grayscale tests (like the ones from dpreview) which indicate that. But the admiringlight.com test does not measure that.

@karl I'm not sure what you're talking about. The site metered with one camera, and then set both cameras (in manual) to the exact same settings, with exception to ISO which 160 was selected for GH2 and 200 was set for EM5 (both the native ISO's). He noted that viewing the images after on the computer showed gray point to be pretty much identical.

I'm not sure how this is unfair as both cameras are getting the same amount of light, and he tested both highlights and shadows from the same image. The EM5 was better in both ends, so even if he were to expose darker for the GH2, the shadows would have been even worse.

A dynamic range comparison (still image)

http://admiringlight.com/blog/olympus-e-m5-vs-panasonic-gh2-dynamic-range-battle/

Today, a friend of mine visited who recently bought an EM5 - and since we both own a Panasonic 14mm-140mm lens, we were able to shoot some stuff for comparison side-by-side at the same time.

Bottom line: I wouldn't trade in my GH2 for an EM5.

See below three stills extracted from 1920x1080 video clips. All stills were saved from I-frames.

The first from a cloudy evening outdoor daylight scene (at the same focal length, but only almost the same position). The moving leaves expose compression artifacts from the EM5. Ok, 100MBit/s video vs. 17MBit/s video may not be a fair comparison, but unless the EM5 is hacked, its users won't have a better choice.

The second is extracted from an indoor low-light shot, with very little light coming from one window. The GH2 shot was taken at ISO 12800. While of course it's noisy, you can still recognize the book shelf and read some titles. The EM5 did not allow to choose such a high ISO for video, so it's severely underexposed, and any details gone into the black void.

The third is extracted from a shot to a region with high contrast - a bright wall of a house, just besides some dark garden trees. No motion was involved, so the EM5 does not suffer from compression artifacts. But in the EM5 material, there is clearly too much contrast, so the dark regions and highlights are lacking detail, and the house wall (which is actually colored a little pink) looks too white. The EM5 shot is also sharpened a lot, too much for my taste. Maybe some option settings my friend did not try yet would allow for a "flatter" image with the EM5.

Regarding non-video still images: The RAW-to-JPEG conversion of the EM5 clearly applies more reasonable defaults, so its JPEGs look somewhat better. But in the RAW format comparison, the results from the GH2 looked as good or even better than those of the EM5, especially at low ISO values. At high ISO values, the EM5 was very slightly better. (The output of RawTherapee from the .RW2 files looked awesome in comparison to the JPEGs the GH2 had written, while the best results I could get from the .ORW files off the EM5 looked like the JPEGs the EM5 had also written, which means the EM5 did a better job of in-camera processing, but does not really have a significantly better sensor than the GH2.)

I understand that some people highly value the weather-sealing of the EM5, or particulary like its higher resolution display. But to me it's more relevant that the GH2 has a fully articulating display, and that it has a built-in flash for the few occasions that I need such for documentary reasons. I would miss both a lot with the EM5. And I am ok with a non-weather-sealed plastic body (that is 20g lighter than the EM5) especially since I need to buy an expensive underwater-housing, anyway.

other splash proof in real rain conditions

Splash proof test:

Getting the most out of the Olympus E-M5

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9115179666/user-guide-getting-the-most-out-of-the-olympus-e-m5