PIX 2015

Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

Started Mar 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Senior MemberPosts: 8,560Gear list
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to Alumna Gorp, Mar 30, 2013

Alumna Gorp wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

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.


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?

Seems it is you that is mis informed, Optical viewfinders are extremely basic compared to EVF`s.

[quote]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[/quote]

Wrong again, are you wearing blinkers

Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 weighs 350g and cost £849
Canon 24-70 f2.8 weighs 805g and cost £1795
The M4/3 lens is half the weight and is half the price.
Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 weighs 360g and cost £949
Canons 70-200 f2.8 weighs 1490g and cost £1799
Here the Canon is 4 x the weight and almost twice the cost.

Ahh but you see they aren't "equivalent"

What is interesting is the fact that for his argument to work forpetessake is comparing lenses from m4/3s with lenses that don't exist.

What I find fascinating is that he's an APS-C mirrorless user. So everything he says here, applies to him as well.

Ergo he's just trolling.

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro +3 more
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