some significant data. Granted, how they do their tests is a bit flattering to many cameras, and indeed, produces completely incomprehensible results for other cameras. Their results are at least comparable internally.
Most importantly is that the rumors of the sensor performing significantly better as regards dynamic range are unfounded, be it in JPEG or RAW. The E-PL5 performs identically to the E-M5. This is not a bad thing. It costs $300 less than the E-M5, and considering that it will probably be a sales failure, those who are interested in the m4/3 system will be able to net themselves a good deal.
I'm interested in the camera because the limitations of my trust GF1 have been becoming more apparent to me after having used so many exemplary cameras like the NEX-5n, Pentax K-5, and Fuji X Pro 1. At the same time, the superb size and ergonomics of the GF1 mean that the X Pro 1, K-5, and 5n are ersatz replacements. The NEX-6 is tempting, to say the least, but that would require investing in a new system.
So while seeing some test that blew away the E-M5 would have been seriously cool, it's not a huge disappointment to see results that don't. The E-M5 was already good and the much-needed performance upgrade that m4/3 was lacking. We now know that the E-PL5 will be the E-M5 in different clothes.