Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

Started Mar 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
Alumna Gorp
Senior MemberPosts: 1,531Gear list
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to Martin.au, Apr 1, 2013

Mjankor wrote:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

richarddd wrote:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

richarddd wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

richarddd wrote:

illdawg wrote:

Since the 4/3 sensor gathers so much less light than FF at the same f-stop, how many stops should I overexpose by on a FF body if I plan to crop in post?

On any format, when shooting in raw, you should expose to get the most light on the sensor consistent with desired DOF and lack of motion blur, so long as you don't blow out highlights in which you wish to preserve detail.

Since the 35-100/2.8 is so clearly different in dof from the 70-200/2.8, why not compare it to the 24-70/2.8, which is a similar range of focal lengths and therefore has similar dof?

Because it's more useful to compare equipment that produces a comparable result. In this case, you'd want pictures taken from the same position with the same angle of view producing the same DOF with similar noise.

The 35-100 and the 24-70 will result in much different angles of view (35 compared to 24, 100 compared to 70 and intermediate values).

The only problem is you can buy FF, and cheap out on lenses, to approximately match m4/3s IQ (but not size and weight), or you can spend big and gain the IQ. You can't have it both ways though, well, not without spending really big.

Of course, if you do go the FF cheap lens route, then you lose out on weather sealing, size and other useful stuff.

Also, just a point, but you're comparing a weathersealed stabilised lens, with a non weathersealed, non stabilised lens. Over here, at least the Canon 70-200 f4 IS costs more than the Panasonic.

The Canon L USM lenses are regarded as high end lenses with high IQ. The 70-200/4 is an L USM lens.

The thread is about the E-M5, which has in body stabilization.

The Canon 70-200/4 is "Professionally sealed against moisture and dust ingress." In other words, weathersealed

The claim was that the Canon equivalent cost 4x as much.

The equ f2.8 version will cost twice as much and weigh 4 x as much.

It's only equ in your studio, where DOF, light gathering and noise don't matter.

Both lenses are weather sealed and both have IS.

"It's only equ in your studio, where DOF, light gathering and noise don't matter."

Your a complete and utter idiot, take a 5D fitted with the 70-200 f2.8 and the OMD fitted with the 35-100 f2.8 and both will meter and give the same exposer result.

Correct, but he's talking about true equivalence, where depth of field, noise, etc are the same

So the settings would be

5D 70-200, f5.6, ISO 800, 1/100

OM-D 35-100, f2.8, ISO 200, 1/100

And those two images should be almost identical.

They'll meter the same and have approximately equal noise. Of course, that's in theory. In practise it's not quite so clear cut.

Since when has noise and depth dof been true equ.

All that really counts is reach and light gathering ability, both wiill gather equal amounts of light at the same apertures.

 Alumna Gorp's gear list:Alumna Gorp's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +4 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