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

Started May 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
boggis the cat
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,292Gear list
Like?
Re: These are results from the format ..
In reply to Sergey_Green, May 31, 2013

Sergey_Green wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

If you are mounting a lens designed for APS-C (or 135) on FT, then it gets a centre crop.  But for native FT lenses the design takes the 4:3 ratio into account, so the vignetting performance is as intended (and also distortion, CA, etc).

I don't know about that. My 50-200, which I assume you also have,

I have the SWD, but it should be the same optically (AFAIK -- some people seemed to think it was slightly different).

did vignette like there was no tomorrow,

I haven't noticed that.  I use it outdoors in bright light, however, and typically would only have uniform sky areas to notice any vignetting.

and 14-54 was not better.

I don't have that lens.  The 12-60 SWD also does not show any noticeable vignetting.  The distortion at 12 through around 13 mm is pronounced, however, and must be corrected if there is anything important at the edges of frame.

(I compose -- and 'crop' -- using the viewfinder, so often I have very tight composition.  This has proven problematic when a near 3:2 print is required as a satisfactory crop can be difficult.  Possibly this is not the best technique when post-processing is relatively easy.  Also, I have found that the E-5 with 100% coverage causes more issues of this sort than e.g. the E-620 as I compose using the VF coverage.)

The thing is that some lenses do show it more than the other, and the lower level makes will usually be shorter on high points than the top variants. From the pool of lenses that I tried on FF so far I do not see the projection as a big problem, although I know there will probably be some at some point. For example 70-200/2.8, it is in a drawer, and I have not even tried it on FF yet. But so what.

My point was that FT lenses are designed for FT, so they don't get any advantage from 'cropping' a lens designed for use on e.g. APS-C or 135.

You appeared to be claiming that there would be such an advantage.

IIRC, the Zuiko SHG lenses were supposedly designed to yield a full resolution gain out to around 20 MPixels -- i.e. the sharpness should be sufficient out to that limit.  Probably assumed to be a huge capability at a time when pixel counts were only just getting up to the 8 MPixel mark.  Now it seems likely that the SHG design will be exceeded within two or three years, perhaps five at most.

Was not it long ago when 12mpx was proclaimed to be enough? Did it make you feel better then, at least for a short time ?

12 MPixel is more than sufficient, IMO.  For my uses.

If you want to produce very large, high resolution / high detail prints then more pixels are better provided there is no other problematic trade-off.

(I would not care if Olympus stayed at 16 MPixel, or went back to 12 MPixel, actually.  OTOH the 5 MPixel from the E-1 is insufficient in some cases.)

(Although the pixel size will be getting too small at this density on the FT sensor, IMO.  Perhaps the manufacturers will relent from pursuing the pixel count when there are no real benefits to be gained and work on more useful areas.)

I do not see it as a problem. The monstrous files will probably be the first thing that everyone will talk about.

Are you referring to telecentricity issues?

I thought that the usual argument was that the FT telecentricity design aim was irrelevant given that other manufacturers use offset on-sensor micro-lenses to correct for this issue?

(If this is still an issue then my understanding of this is wrong.)

It is the same as with Olympus, some lenses do not project wide open evenly, other do. I can not be very specific about it, as I simply was not looking for it. I need to take more lenses out. And when I shoot wide open the corners have no significance in 99% of the outcome, so why should it even matter. Why is it important to you?

My preference is for as uniform an edge-to-edge result as possible.  That means uniform in all ways.  One think I don't care for with MicroFT is the dependence on distortion correction.  Correcting optically is far better.

I don't really understand the attitude that 'edges are not important'.  Does that mean that you always crop heavily?  (So compose 'wider' than you want?)

4:3 is a more efficient use of an image circle than 3:2 -- but, again, if you are discussing lenses designed for the sensor (and thus the aspect ratio) then there is no 'cropping advantage'.

The format that I print and frame is what the most efficient to me.

Sure.  But if you want to crop nearer one edge (or at an edge) then you will run into any 'edge issues' -- so it is better to start off with as uniform an image as possible.

 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 +7 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