Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Downsizing to E-M5  (Read 2977 times)
Rory Rosszell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« on: November 12, 2012, 12:39:44 AM »
ReplyReply

After reading Richard's glowing review of the E-M5 (among others), as someone searching for better IQ and low-light performance (and feels that smaller is better), I am considering downsizing from a Nikon D80 + 18-200mm (rather than upgrading to the D7000). However, as great as the E-M5+12-60mm+adapter+grip sound, with all that size and weight, would I really be downsizing, and would the IQ be significantly different than if I opted for the much cheaper/simpler option of buying a D7000 body (and possibly a smaller zoom with better IQ)? Comments very much welcome. 
Logged
brianrybolt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2012, 06:57:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Having owned 2 m4/3's cameras I do not feel you will get the image quality equal to the Nikon D7000.  Since I have no idea of what type of photography you are engaged in it's hard to advise.

I would look into the new Fuji x-e1.  Their lens line-up is coming along and they will be delivering on time unless major problems come up.  The Fiji system has excellent IQ, small, light weight and at a decent price.

Good luck,
Brian
Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1226



« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2012, 08:58:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I suspect the answer is sort of yes and no.  I did some direct comparisons this weekend of the D800 and the E-5M, at equivalent 35mm focal length with same top to bottom area of view under tight controls (camera on tripod, focus with live view, several shots to eliminate focus errors), each processed as best I could and printed at 17x22.  You can see a difference in the prints, but only with your nose a foot away.  So IMO it depend on your intended use.  Dynamic range is another issue, of course.
Logged

Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 872


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2012, 10:35:21 AM »
ReplyReply

  Dynamic range is another issue, of course.

And I think that is probably the biggest drawback with micro 4/3 cameras.
Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1226



« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2012, 10:45:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, per DXOMark, the D7000 has about 1.5 stops more DR than the E-M5.  That said, the E-M5 comes in at over 12 stops of DR (an amazing amount to this former Kodachrome shooter) which is more than adequate for all but the most extreme situations, especially when combined with the capabilities of LR4/ACR7 to tame highlights and pull detail out of the shadows.
Logged

deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1134



« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2012, 10:55:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Having owned 2 m4/3's cameras I do not feel you will get the image quality equal to the Nikon D7000. 
so if owned a Contax FF dSLR you'd also say that FF camera will not get the image quality equal to the Nikon D7000 no matter what, right ?
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1134



« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2012, 11:00:48 AM »
ReplyReply

And I think that is probably the biggest drawback with micro 4/3 cameras.
true, but somehow that does not stop people from using Canon APS/Cs which are even more behind D7000s/K5s of the world in terms of DR at base ISO
Logged
simonstucki
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2012, 04:50:17 PM »
ReplyReply

I have both the d7000 and the E-M5, I don't use the d7000 any more (I never liked the viewfinder with the permanent af field) and of course the d7000 offers a better image quality (noise and dr) the om-d is quite good (and it has much nicer skintones out of camera (and I never managed to get really good skintones with the d7000 (with LR3 and 4) however I'm no expert in color correction so you might not have this problem). the om-d also has a very useful shadows/highlights exposure warning (how to use it http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2012/6/14/olympus-e-m5-exposing-to-the-right-and-lightroom-41.html) which makes it very easy to get the right exposure.
apart from that the size is very important I have the om-d with the 12/2, 20/1.7 and 45/1.8 in my backpack almost all the time and it is barely noticeable. so if you don't mind the size of the d80, just get the d7000 but if you want something lighter definitely get the om-d (or the fuji, the differnece with one or two lenses is probably not that noticeable, but if you want more lenses then it might be a bigger difference in size and weight).


what I miss though is the dynamic range of the d7000, you could just not care about the exposure because it mattered so little. so I didn't care much and didn't have a well exposed picture (easy fix with little quality loss). with the om-d I have to be more careful but due to the excellent shadows/highlights "blinkies" it isn't hard to get well exposed pictures.
Logged
rambler44
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 103


« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2012, 05:25:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Rory, Well, I just went the other way from a Olympus E620 which is a 4/3 to the Nikon D7000.  My main concern was what to do with the excellent lenses that I own for the 620.  They work on the E-5 (OM-D EM-5!!) with an adapter, but there are issues when doing that.  Anyway, I was at a discount day at Hunt's camera and the Nikon and Olympus dealers were side by side.  I had a D5100 in my hand when I asked the Nikon dealer why he would prefer the Nikon to the Oly and his answer was two words, "The sensor".  He also pointed out that with the Nikon there would be a much wider choice of lenses.  Nikon accessories are more widely available, too.  When I lost the remote shutter part, stores had the Nikon, but not the Olympus in stock.  

What drew me to the Nikon D7000 was the focus options. The E-5 has a interesting touch screen, however.  Just touch the screen on the spot where you want the focus point to be an it appears!
  
What I will miss on the Nikon is the swivel options on the LCD, especially when I have the camera held down for a low angled shot.  
In the Oly, I also got used to seeing the exposure number in the LCD in Manual Mode.  It was easy to change the EV number and watch the effect it would have on the image.  This can be done with the D7000, but the exposure button has to be pressed and there does not seem to be a connection between the viewfinder exposure number, the screen on the top, and that on the LCD screen.  The Nikon is filled with many more features than the OLY which will take longer to learn, I am sure.  The Oly manual fits easily in a pocket, which was convenient for the field while I was learning it.

I will miss the lightweight and size of the Oly.  The mm on the Oly is double that of the 35mm which works to one's advantage with telephoto, but not wide angle.  For example, the 4/3 300mm equals 600mm on a 35mm scale, but a 12mm 4/3 equals a 24mm.  

The only reason I changed was that the OLY has been having to go for repairs more frequently including a vacation last month when I had rented a high quality wide angle lens from BorrowLens that I never got to use. Groan.  (I have had the camera over three years, but it was not new when I purchased it.)

Anyway, those are some random details that do not have much to do with the quality of images.  I certainly do not have the ability to distinguish which cameras were used in any photo I have seen in contests here, or in courses I have taken online!

Downhill skiers have a wide choice of brands and models to choose from, but I rarely, if ever, hear someone complain about a new pair of skis.  People tend to enjoy what they own, just like photographers.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 05:31:07 PM by rambler44 » Logged
Rory Rosszell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2012, 10:53:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you very much to all those who responded. The hands-on experience is invaluable. As nice as the D7000 sounds, and as much as IQ and dynamic range effect the quality of the pictures, I really think, primarily due to the reduced size/weight, I will eventually switch to a m43 system. Most who have used both systems seem to feel that m43 quality has reached such a high level that under most circumstances it is indistinguishable from pictures taken with an APS camera. It sound like in addition to the E-M5, I should check out the Fuji XE-1 (about which I know nothing).

Although, I remember trekking around East Africa when I was young with a heavy 35mm system, as I get older (now in my 50s) I don't want to do so much lugging, and because I now want to buy the decent birding zoom that I never bought because I didn't want to have to lug around a 1.5-2kg lens (cost was also a factor), m43 seems to be the way to go - especially when I have people writing to me to say that despite all the criticism the Oly 12-50 is a joy to use (and the macro feature would be great for flowers), and I see decent reviews for half-kilo tele-zooms like the Lumix 100-300 and the Olympus 75-300.

However, because the range of quality m43 lenses is still quite limited, I think I may hold off for a bit and hope that some good lenses become available in the near future.  For now, I'm thinking of picking up a used Tamron 24-135 (I can get one here in Tokyo for about $150), which sounds like a very sharp lens, with a good range, and a semi-macro feature that I could use for flowers. I hope that on my D80 I will see an appreciable improvement in quality over my 18-200, but I really won't know until I get a chance to compare. From what I've read, the Tamron is the kind of lens I hope will soon become available in a m43 mount. 
Your last point is certainly a good one. You can discuss and compare until the cows come home, but many of the details that people harp on aren't really meaningful because even the loser in many comparisons produces excellent pictures. Such is the state of modern technology.

Thanks gain for all your feedback.
Logged
brianrybolt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 18, 2012, 04:26:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Rory,  I recently bought a fujifilm EX-1 with the 3 available primes at the moment.  I have been blown away by the IQ.  Relatively fast glass, excellent dynamic range, low noise, and great high iso shots.  I've loaded all the firmware updates and the camera/lenses are a dream plus it weighs nothing and I'm over 65.  I'm used to hauling around a Sony A900, Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8G lens, 35mm f/1.4 and a Minolta 16-35 f/2.8 zoom.  I recently came back from shooting in Colo. and New Mexico.  My decision was made then.  My body couldn't take it anymore.  I had previously shot with 2 m4/3's cameras for personal stuff but could never get on with the lack of good IQ (I tend to print up to 22x36").  Fuji is now working with Adobe and I expect the RAW conversion will get better but I can certainly live with the ones that are produced now.  I suggest you rent the camera for a day or two and see how you get on.  They have a good lens line up and seem to be on target with their releases.

Cheers,
Brian
Logged
Rory Rosszell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2012, 09:51:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Dear Brian,

Thank you very much for writing. Sorry for the long delay in responding.

It's great to hear how pleased you are with the EX-1. You are certainly not alone.

If you are printing 22/36" prints, you are obviously doing more serious work than me.

I am unfortunately not much of a prime guy and much prefer the versatility of zooms. Although Fuji currently offers the 18-55mm (and has a tele zoom in the works), Olympus has a much wider range of options in the prosumer range (although the IQ is better, I don't want the heavy pro grade glass (e.g., 12-60mm and 50-200mm + adapter) because it would defeat the purpose of moving to a smaller/lighter system). Despite the negative reviews, many are happy with the IQ of the 12-50mm (which also has a semi-macro feature) and the 75-300mm zooms. Those are what I am currently thinking of going with.

Although you say you were not satisfied with the IQ of your m43 shots, you don't mention any particular makers or lenses. Have you had the opportunity to try out the E-M5 (which many claim has raised m43 IQ to a new level)?

Thanks again,

Rory

 
Logged
250swb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


« Reply #12 on: November 28, 2012, 02:35:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Rory, I can't help but think some respondents are unfamiliar with m4/3 as it now stands with the Sony sensor coming on stream in the latest Olympus bodies.

I don't think you will have any problems with image quality or dynamic range. And with Olypmus you get the best lens manufacturer outside Germany, so any tiny gains with a Nikon body are wiped out with the lens, any tiny downsides of the E-M5 are more than made up for in lens quality. So don't forget the lenses in your choice, they are the heart of a system. And you also have the superb Panasonic lenses to chose from. In fact if you are an equipment junkie you can leapfrog between Panasonic and Olympus bodies as they each outdo each other, and keep all your lenses.

Steve
Logged

scooby70
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 233


« Reply #13 on: November 28, 2012, 07:43:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm probably too late to this to help the OP but I thought I'd chip in anyway...

I have a 5D and the best lenses that I usually use are a Sigma 50mm or 85mm f1.4 and these are pretty nice lenses IMVHO. I also have a Panasonic G1 which is a first generation MFT camera, I use a Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 or legacy Rokkor or Zuiko lenses, my favourite being a Rokkor 55mm f1.7.

I find that at low to middling ISO's the G1 plus what I think is a nice lens can produce whole images that can easily be lost amongst 5D images and the vast majority of people would never find them without serious pixel peeping and looking for very minor clues. At the higher ISO's the 5D pulls ahead but with care and careful post capture processing G1 images are still perfectly usable at 1600 and even with a little more thought and care at 3200. I fully expect that newer MFT cameras will close the gap even further.

If you are going to produce massive prints or do heavy crops which are going to hang on a gallery wall a first generation MFT camera may not be capable of capturing the same image quality as a full frame camera but for reasonably sized whole image prints up to and including A3 and the usual on screen and web viewing I find my humble G1 to be perfectly adequate, at low to middling ISO settings. I fully expect that newer MFT cameras will be even better.

One common complaint against MFT is DoF control and by that most mean the ability to get really shallow DoF. I find the difference between MTF and APS-C to be minimal and I find that I can get shallow DoF from MFT when I want it by using longer lenses, wide apertures and by willing to alter my camera to subject distance and framing. DoF is a two way street of course and one real advantage of MFT is the ability to get adequate DoF at higher shutter speeds and / or lower ISO settings. For example I can get a higher shutter speed and / or lower ISO setting with the DoF I want with a MFT and 25mm lens set to f1.4 - f2.8 but with a FF and 50mm lens I'll need to use a smaller aperture setting to get the equivalent DoF. This is a real advantage for MFT when shooting handheld with available light.

I'd urge anyone thinking aout looking at MFT to give them a fair trial, they may surprise.
Logged
Rory Rosszell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #14 on: December 01, 2012, 07:37:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you Scooby and Steve for adding your perspectives. If I can get clear images up to A3, I'll be a happy guy. (I rarely print over A4.) I just want what I print to show the details clearly. I will have to figure out the best way to deal with any DoF problems that present themselves after buy the camera and a lens or two. If m43 is not as good at blurring out the background as APS, I would expect that it might work better for macro where DoF is often more shallow than I would like it to be (when shooting flowers, for example). And as Steve pointed out, the option of being able to buy both Oly and Panny lenses as well as to jump back and forth in order to be able to use the most versatile body available is no doubt a great advantage. Thank again, Rory 
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad