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

Started May 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,812
Like?
Re: Actually, I agree...
In reply to philosomatographer, May 16, 2013

philosomatographer wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Just Having Fun wrote:

Of course you can buy a refurbished E-PM2 for about $300 and use those Oly lenses, and especially at ISOs above 800, it will put the E-5 to shame.

I'm thinking philosomatographer would disagree.

Why would you think that? I agree 100%. The SHG lenses are absolutely starved for a better sensor. The slightly higher resolution, and the 1-2 stops better signal-to-noise ratio, of the OM-D E-M5 yields an appreciably better image, no doubt. The overall handling is just too quirky/slow (focusing, etc) for the benefits to be worth it for me. The E-5 was designed to handle well with these lenses, not the E-M5.

So what would your take be on the following comment:

I defy anyone to tell the difference with the naked eye between the printed images I have taken with my "antique" 5MP E-1 and those taken with my 10 MP E-510 or 12 MP E-30.

I'm thinking that if the difference between the E1 and E30 is not visible to the naked eye, then the same would be true for the E5 vs EM5.  However, if you disagree with the above statement, then, yes, I understand, and agree with, what you're saying.

(In low light at ISO400 noise really starts destroying detail with the E-5 and DR is  reduced by then, as DPR says, "The drop in critical sharpness and detail resolution from ISO 400-800, for example, is more pronounced than we've come to expect, and by the time you get up to ISO 1600 and beyond, noise levels are disappointingly high") - Wow, a drop in detail at ISO400? So does that mean by ISO 800 you are only getting around 8MP resolution even with those expensive lenses?

I'm thinking philosomatographer would either disagree, or say that "real photography" is done at base ISO.

Again, not at all. ISO200 just happens to be absolutely sufficient for me, since I have image-stabilisation at f/2.0 with sharpness and contrast that is far superiour to most other lenses.

I don't think anyone denies that the 14-35 / 2 is superior to other Olympus zooms in that range.

The equivalence equation balances in my favour for my needs.

Well, it depends on what your specific needs are.  For example, if we're talking the Tamron 24-70 / 2.8 VC and Tamron 70-200 / 2.8 VC on a D600 compared to a 14-35 / 2 and 35-100 / 2 on an E5, I'm curious how the equivalence equation balances in your favor.

As I have said before, I shoot mostly film, so image-stabilised ISO200 at f/2.0 is already dramatically "faster" than what I usually have with, say, my Mamiya RB67 (e.g. ISO400, f/4.5, no I.S.) or when I shoot Pan F in my Nikon F (usually at ISO32).

Digital is indeed significantly less noisy than film for any given ISO.  However, larger format film likely has the edge, in terms of IQ, when it comes to base ISO photography.

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