Sigh...So i touch the "reply button" and then I get warped out of here into some sort of general forum in which my direct ppssibility to reply to you has now gone. ????? Impractical.
Anyways....Just look at your own graphs. Compare the EPM2 and the Sony 5T. No, these sensors are not identical (I am very aware of their size etc) but they do perform almost identical.
Yet you seem to imply that :
1) The difference between the EPM2 performance and the EOSM2 is marginal
2) The difference between the 5T and the EOSM2 is noted as "Against the APS-C format Sony NEX-5T, the EOS M2 doesn’t compare that favorably"
Noise performance throughout the range: all three score on par
DR: At base ISo Sony is clearly better than EOSM2, sligthly than EPM2. At high ISO the EPM2 is better than the Sony. EOSM2 also just nicks it there
Tonal range: Oly and Sony perform identical, EOSM2 is just a tad worse
Colour senisitity: Oly and Sony are again very close, EOSM2 is behind at lower ISO.
There is no reason to have a distinction between the Oly and the Sony performance. That is the point.
In fact: I wonder how come you score the Oly 72, the Sony 78. At base ISO the Sony on two points is a btit better, but above ISO 400 or so there is no difference or it is even a bit in favour of the EPM2.
That is my point.