Just spent the last one hour reading and going through DPReview's review of the E-3, regardless of what the reviewer say, the photographic and comparison tests shows that the E-3's image is more superior - sharper, full of details and pleasant colours, at lower ISOs.
I think the reviewer is spot-on in his comments and conclusions....
"The E-3 is then a camera that produces fantastic results as long as you stay within its comfort zone. Thanks to the limitations of its sensor, if you push the envelope at all (trying to capture too much dynamic range, pushing the sensitivity in low light, trying to eke the finest detail out of a scene) it starts to under-perform compared to the best of its competitors.
And so, in conclusion, how is the E-3 to be judged? No camera is perfect, and whilst there are areas where the E-3 trails the competition slightly there are also other areas where it leads. And inevitably there are some types of photography it excels at, some it doesn't: the live view, magnified manual focus and tilting screen make it a superb still life studio camera; the build quality and weather sealing make it perfect for shooting in challenging environments, be they dusty deserts or icy mountaintops. Our experiences with the focus in low light and at the long end of the zoom would seem to suggest that what it isn't ideal for is shooting indoor sports (and in fact if you want to shoot at high ISO settings there are better alternatives out there, full stop).
Its also a camera that will only produce the best results in experienced hands; you need to be prepared to roll up your sleeves and take control of metering, exposure, focus and (unless you're shooting raw) white balance; the automatic systems are over sensitive and sometimes go seriously awry.
Ultimately though, despite its foibles, we liked the E-3; it feels great in the hand (even if it demands a longer than average learning curve), produces pleasing output most of the time, and has some really useful features. It sits at the heart of a system that is slowly maturing into a serious competitor for the dominant players, with some superb lenses, particularly the fast zooms."
I would say it's a fair review, but I wouldn't agree with his rating of 8.0 for Ergonomics and Image Quality. It should be a 9.5 for Ergonomics and maybe a 8.5 for Image Quality. But that's just my opinion.
Given time and technology advancement, the Four Thirds will overcome the 'small sensor' issue perceived by many.
