Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

Started Mar 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
forpetessake
Senior MemberPosts: 2,771
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to Alumna Gorp, Mar 30, 2013

Alumna Gorp wrote:

gbhwc wrote:

I am ready to upgrade from an older fixed lens camera and looking for a versatile camera for:

  • Misc. Family Activities
  • Kids sports – outdoors
  • Travel
  • Backpacking & landscapes

Note: The above use list is in descending order of expected use.

I currently have a Nikon so I am partial to them.  The Nikon 5200 has caught my attention.

COMPARING THE NIKON 5200 to the OMD

Size is obviously important and the OMD wins there.

Weigh is also important and the OMD body is 4.6 oz. lighter.  Now sure about zoom lenses but a 4.6oz difference seems minor.

Environmental sealing is a nice feature.

There are a few things I like about Nikon that is better:

-       Low light focusing

-       Built in flash

-       Optical viewfinder

-       Better feel/comfort unless I add optional power battery holder / grips which reduce the weight / size advantage.  (I wouldn’t bring these backpacking and probably not traveling).

-       NOTE: I just compared the reviews from this website and the OMD received a higher rating on ergonomics and handling.  Does this make sense?

-       What else am I missing?  What do you think?

Thanks,  Glenn

Lenses, once you start building up a collection, your compact dslr is no longer compact.

DSLR lenses are generally much larger and heavier than CSC lenses.

The only reason they are heavier is because they are faster. Equivalent lenses are practically the same weight: "The reason is not as much due to the larger sensor as it is due to the fact that the lenses designed for larger sensor systems usually have larger maximum aperture diameters than lenses designed for smaller sensors.  But when equivalent lenses do exist in both systems, such as the 35-100 / 2 on 4/3 vs the 70-200 / 4L IS on 35mm FF, the lenses for the larger sensor systems are  usually lighter (but often longer for the telephoto lenses) and less expensive." (see http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#2)

Using a DSLR and wanting IS, you will have to pay extra for the lenses that have it.

It's completely the other way around, haven't you noticed how much more expensive the equivalent m4/3 lenses are? It's a lot cheaper to manufacture larger format lenses and it's easier to get better quality.

EVF`s give you the whole picture, optical viewfinders do not.

G, OVF are million times better than the best EVF, just dynamic range makes a huge difference. How can somebody be so uninformed?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow