They didn't bother implementing the rendering of actual raw data in playback mode. So if you shoot raw only, in playback mode you'll be looking at a half-res jpeg preview embedded in the raw.
Don't know if this is fixed in the newest cameras like E-M1 though.
I just sort of accepted the fact that you can only get it only so good enough in camera and that the final step really is post-processing
coming from the more regarded medium of film because of its romantic "authenticity" where digitizing negatives requires even more extra work and sliders than processing a RAW file out of camera I found that easy to accept.
>I just sort of accepted the fact that you can only get it only so good enough in camera and that the final step really is post-processing
This is true especially because my manual white balance settings go in increments of 50k, so fine tuning is almost always necessary.
I shot film seriously for a couple of years and I really enjoyed printing black and white 35mm negatives because of how accessible and yet how challenging/rewarding it could be. Large format was just a hot mess and it almost didn't feel worth it. I was originally attracted to it for the movements more than anything but I will honestly say I didn't see enough of a difference between a LF scan and what digital can do to warrant all the hassle, especially driving 30 minutes south of here to spend another $20 to develop a whopping 10 shots of color that I got in a box on B&H for $40.