I have the OM-D, and am very happy. I moved from the Canon 5d mk2, and believe the Olympus is superior. So why is it so good?
Others say the menu is confusing, but they are wrong. Once you have configured the system, you need only the super control panel, and that's bliss.
The image quality is better than the mk2, but it has aged, so this is to be expected.
The lenses for the OM-D are superb, or at least the 12-25-45 oly-pana-oly lenses are, which I use.
The camera is also light, and very modular.
The camera also has an evf, which leaves it worlds apart from SLRs. Some may dissagree, but they are wrong. The clarity and information visible is quickly indispensible - never again could I return to a plain ttl view. I have an exact reproduction of my image prior to exposure, and my histogram reveals any clipping.
It beats the sony nex7 because the lenses for the nex are vastly inferior to the oly armoury, plus the oly is well disguised as a retro camera, and leaves you to shoot peacefully.
The recent firmware update has nearly completely silenced the om-d, and the 5 axis stabilizer is immense.
Personally speaking, the OM-d is the best camera ever made. If the full frame offerings were built to the same way as the OM-D, it would be a revolution.
Unless you're in need of a full frame beast and the primes needed to make it perform, go for the OM-D.
Olympus are the best right now, at their level (sub-full frame nikon).
And if they weren't, then I'd not own one.
Simple.
