OM-D E-M5 vs E-5 (build quality)

Started May 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
boggis the cat
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,284Gear list
Like?
The attempt to mislead is on your part
In reply to Just Having Fun, May 15, 2013

Just Having Fun wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

Just Having Fun wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

philosomatographer wrote:

The E-5 produces 1m-wide prints that easily put most other systems to shame for detail/contrast, and this will not change for as long as the camera works.

I assume that, by "most other systems", you are acknowledging that cell phones and compacts outnumber DSLRs by a massive margin.

The E-5 is a fine, solid camera, but all of Oly's great processing can't bring the that circa 2008 sensor into the present.

For fun, let's see how the E-5 compares to a "last year's model" P&S...

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/812%7C0/(brand)/Sony/(appareil2)/682%7C0/(brand2)/Olympus

DxO doesn't measure detail/contrast.

Which is why I provided quotes from DPR on detail.  But clearly for all else DxO shows who is the winner in their measurements, right?

"The winner" meaning what, exactly?

DxO extracts information from raw data, then uses various methods to generate what it considers to be comparative numbers.  These don't necessarily mean a lot if you are interested in how a given photographic tool (body or lens) will perform.

As for contrast, doesn't DR play a role?  How does contrast look in the shadows/highlights of an image with very poor DR?

If the scene you are shooting has a wider DR than you can capture, then obviously it will.

DxO DR numbers do not align with photographic results, in my experience.  My E-M5 has (I do not, however, do a lot of post-processing where 'extra' available DR can be of most use.)

As for resolution, here is what DPR says:

E-5: our chart are accurately described by the E-5 up to approximately 2600Lph

Actual quote:

Even in JPEG mode, all nine lines of our chart are accurately described by the E-5 up to approximately 2600Lph, which represents excellent performance.

From further up:

Considering its relatively modest pixel count,at ISO the E-5 is capable of describing an extraordinary amount of detail, both in JPEG and RAW files.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse5/6

Year old P&S: The RX100 is capturing detail comfortably beyond 2600 lph

OK, yeah, it's fun to think the E-5 has more detail and such, but silly sites like Dxo and DPR have to go and ruin everything!

The RX100 has a higher pixel count, at 20.2 MPixels v 12.3 MPixel, but a smaller sensor.

What DPR actually said:

The RX100 is capturing detail comfortably beyond 2600 lph, which is the sort of figure you'd expect of a camera with 3648 vertical pixels.

...


Now, why did you feel the need to lie by mis-quotation?

Where did I lie or misquote?

In your cherry-picked partial sentences above.

DPR said the RX100 could capture beyond 2600 lph.  Is that a "lie" or is that a fact?

It is an example of a lie through misdirection.  There are two important parts there, the second of which you have removed from the quote.  Here both sentences are again, with my emphasis on the important considerations:

The RX100 is capturing detail comfortably beyond 2600 lph, which is the sort of figure you'd expect of a camera with 3648 vertical pixels.

...

Real-world tests, in which detail is often conveyed with more subtle tones, aren't quite as spectacular as this test chart result would suggest.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100/9

What this comes down to is that the RX100 does not yield as much detail in actual photographs as you would expect given the pixel count.  This is hardly surprising, given that this is a high-end compact.

DPR said, the E-5 could capture up to approximately 2600Lph.  Is that a "lie" or fact?

It is a lie by omission, given that what they said was:

Even in JPEG mode, all nine lines of our chart are accurately described by the E-5 up to approximately 2600Lph, which represents excellent performance.

FWIW, I have found that you can pull a lot more detail from the E-5 files by using a better demosaicing algorithm on the raw files.  This should also be true for other cameras, to a greater or lesser extent, but I have not performed any tests.  (I suspect that sensors with lighter AA filters would benefit more than those with heavier -- this may seem obvious in theory, but it is not quite that straightforward with real photographs.)

Then consider this part:

Considering its relatively modest pixel count,at ISO the E-5 is capable of describing an extraordinary amount of detail, both in JPEG and RAW files.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse5/6

What this comes down to is that the E-5 yields more detail in actual photographs than you would expect given the pixel count.

So yes, as YOU point out the smaller sensor camera equals (or suprasses depending how you read it) the E-5 in detail.   Nowhere does DPR contradict what I said and claim the E-5 put the RX100 "shame for detail".

So the reality is the E-5 has a larger sensor with less pixels than the RX100 P&S...and it does NOT "put it to shame" for detail/contrast like that post said...in fact we BOTH agree detail about equal, and we BOTH agree the RX100 wins for DR, color depth and noise.

We don't agree about any such thing.  You have deliberately distorted DPR's reviews by carefully quoting partial sentences, then are making an unsubstantiated claim based on those.

This is fundamentally dishonest, and the only reason you have done so is to pretend that the OP's opinion:

"There is a school of thought that digital cameras are inherently disposable - but I disagree. The E-5 produces 1m-wide prints that easily put most other systems to shame for detail/contrast, and this will not change for as long as the camera works."

is invalid based on some 'technical' argument that turns out to be constructed from careful fabrications -- 'comparing' two entirely different cameras.

Precisely why you have chosen such an 'apples to oranges' comparison is also worth considering.  You should compare the E-5 to a similar camera in some terms -- 'flagship' status, price, pixel count -- and then you could make a truthful counter-argument to the OP's specific claim.  For example: the Nikon D800 yielding better detail/contrast (with the right lens choice) than the E-5, for a 1 m wide print, should be a justifiable counter to the OP's opinion and indicate that it is an exaggeration.  (Then you can agree or disagree on the relative merits of the systems for specific purposes, price, etc.)

It is my view that your 'approach' is not constructive, and seems intended to provoke unnecessary argument and cause trouble.  Consider your aims partially met from my response, but note that you have been called out for your dishonest 'methodology'.

 boggis the cat's gear list:boggis the cat's gear list
Olympus E-5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Hmm.New
Yup!New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow