So this is the capture from the Olympus EP-1 in full auto:
Not only it is quite noisy (and this is ISO 200), but the picture is not really sharp. In particular, look at the tree leaves on the left and the houses at the end of the street.
Maybe turning noise reduction off would help? This is the result:
Nope, the picture is noisier, but not sharper. Let us compare it to the tiny Ixus:
I'm speechless. Sure this picture is a bit heavy on sharpening, but the detail is there and the noise level is far better.
What about an APS-C camera with its kit lens? This is an APS-C capture from the A900 with the old Minolta/Sony kit lens at f/5.6:
This is a raw capture from the EOS 450D:
And a pro level zoom: the A900, APS-C mode with the CZ16-35:
And, of course, the FF raw capture scaled down to 12 Mpix:
Conclusion?
Let me show you again the size difference: the A900 with the CZ 16-35 zoom, the A900 with the much smaller 24-105 zoom, the Canon EOS 450D with its kit zoom, the Olympus EP-1 with its kit zoom and finally the tiny Canon Ixus.
Who would have known that, in daylight, the camera which gives the best jpegs out of the box is the one on the right?
Does this mean it is the best camera? Should I sell the A900? Of course not, the A900 is still vastly better when used at its full resolution in raw mode and it has plenty of other advantages. And in low light, it simply trounces the Ixus, of course. But as far as sharpness is concerned, for casual use during the day, the Ixus will keep its place in my day bag.
Is sharpness essential? No, any one of these cameras is sharp enough for most uses. But better IQ than a P&S in a small package is one of the selling points of the micro four third system. In my opinion, it does not deliver. The Olympus will have to go, sorry.
A side question is about the jpeg engine in DSLRs. Why isn't it as good as the one of the tiny Ixus? Sure, it is not a real problem in practice, but a bit frustrating nevertheless.
