I’ve been playing around with the E-M5 II for a while. Here are some unorganised thoughts about the camera and the system in general. Firstly, the lenses aren’t always smaller. I’ve dealt with this issue in the past. If you want to see a more formal analysis, have a look at this blog post I wrote not too long ago: Link: Is Micro 4/3 really smaller? The narrower the AOV you want, the more sense that Micro 4/3 makes. I like the Sony Alpha system, but the FE bodies, with their 36mm sensors, require huge lenses for tele- and super-telephoto shooting. The Sony bodies are actually about the same size as their Olympus competitors, and in a few configurations actually out-compete the Olympus for size and weight. But a 600mm lens on an FE body is f—ing huge. Do you really want to go back to - or stay with - these kinds of lenses? No way. Give me an E-M1 and a 300/4 instead; or a G9 with the Leica 200/2.8. I have no issue using the system with wide angle lenses, but a Leica M body with its relatively small and compact wide angle lenses, will compete on size and win on quality every single time. Quite frankly I’m not aware of any system that competes with the M in this regard. APS-C is the sweet spot - at least on paper. I can’t deny it. On paper I ought to be shooting with APS-C cameras. But I just like Micro 4/3. I’m happy to change to Fuji, for example, but you won’t get the compact super-telephoto lenses, or the other features that come with the system. Think of the increased DOF, the smaller telephotos, the IBIS, etc. But Micro 4/3 has a trick up its sleeve. The lenses all seem to cover the slightly larger sensor of the GH5s. If either Panasonic or Olympus wants to, they can offer a high end pro oriented camera with a higher pixel count and a larger sensor. For example, the standard frame size is 17.3mm x 13mm. The 20Mpx sensors offer a 5184x3888 pixel count. The GH5s has a 19.2mm x 13mm sensor. If you keep the photosite density the same, the wider sensor offers a 5753x3888 pixel count, which comes to 22Mpx. However, if you increase the height as well as the width, you will get a sensor that’s 19.2mm x 14.4mm in size, which comes to a pixel count of 5753x4306, or almost 25Mpx. The benefits are nice on paper, but there is one extra benefit not often considered. You could choose to compose in ‘classic’ mode, while the entire sensor’s data is output if you’re shooting RAW. If you make a minor compositional error, you can ‘look around’ the original composition to improve it. I decided to test the 9-18/4-5.6 on a Sony E camera. I bought a cheap adapter (and you should never use cheap adapters unless you simply want to explore an idea) and did a quick test. Thankfully the flange focal distance of Micro 4/3 is a little bit deeper than that of the E mount. It’s 18mm on the Sony vs 19.25 on a Micro 4/3 body (Fuji’s X mount is 17.7mm, shorter again). The results were noteworthy. The Olympus lens covered the sensor entirely from about 12mm onwards. At 9mm there was obvious portholing, and the extremes of the frame were not of acceptable quality. However… if you cropped in, you’d get about 10Mpx worth of resolution from a 16Mpx sensor, which isn’t that bad. But there is a problem. The Olympus lens is all electronic, and the aperture cannot be changed, at least not with a standard adapter. And neither can the focus. Except - and this is quite interesting - you can adjust focus if you stick with the 9mm focal length! Now, this lens is collapsible, and as you extract it to 9mm, you’re also focusing it. So the zoom barrel becomes the focusing ring. Is it worth it? Maybe not, but it proves the point that all Micro 4/3 lenses can cover a sensor approximately half way between Micro 4/3 and APS-C. I also bought the 12-40/2.8 Pro. Panasonic offers a 12-60/2.8-4, which of course you should be able to use as a constant f/4 if you despise sliding apertures as I do. Panasonic also offers a 12-35/2.8, while Olympus now offers a 12-40/4. All of these are very good lenses indeed. The E-M5 with the 12-40/2.8 is IMHO a vastly superior proposition than a Sony FE body with the 28-70/3.5-5.6 kit lens. The two kits are about the same size, with the advantage going to Olympus. Of course you can choose an E mount body with the Zeiss 16-70/4, not the mention the Sony 16-55/2.8 which was released last year. And I’m not even going into the Fuji system here. The choice is yours, and there are lots of choices to go around. And as far as APS-C DSLRs go, forget it. Micro 4/3 wins hands-down as far as size is concerned. I’d also say it wins overall. But you knew I’d say that. I think you have to be in denial to choose any DSLR for any reason these days. This isn’t 2014 - it’s 2020 and the future is right here. I love how modern cameras are making post processing more and more redundant. Focus stacking is a great feature, although somewhat limiting. The new E-M1 III allows you to shoot 16 frames with focus stacking, which is double what you can do with the E-M5 II. However, focus bracketing, which lets you shoot up to 999 frames, is very flexible and can give you almost infinite DOF depending on how long your lens is. Either way, shoot RAW for insurance. High res mode lets you shoot 40Mpx images of static subjects. This mode does capture more detail, and it seems to be the case with almost all lenses. It’s limiting, but you have to accept the compromises that come with your sensor size of choice. Sadly, you cannot combine high res with other modes like focus stacking, or HDR bracketing. Perhaps in the future you will be able to do this. But, perhaps because high res mode captures more detail, and therefore more colour, the file is a little more flexible in terms of shadow detail. Thanks to IBIS, you can do hand-held HDR - and even focus stacking apparently. With the newer E-M1 bodies you can even do hand-held high res shots. Overall I am glad that I bought this camera. Will I be tempted back to APS-C? Sure, why not? With cameras like the X-T4 and A6600, and even the CL or TL2, that format has a definite future. Some say Micro 4/3 does not have a future, but I beg to differ.