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

Started May 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
Rriley
Forum ProPosts: 21,846Gear list
Like?
so that was it ...
In reply to Great Bustard, Jun 2, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

Rriley wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

Rriley wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Rriley wrote:

where?

The link immediately below.

like Ive been saying, it doesnt work

Immediately below,

so this at f/8

dpreview review samples

Yes.

was supposed to compare with the previous 14-35/2 at 2.8?

Yes.  As I said when I presented the original [broken] link:

Apologies that you were forced to do anything, but let me say that the photo you posted is an impressive display for the 14-35 / 2.  That said, I would argue that any scene that is captured at 14mm f/2.8 1/4000 ISO 200 on mFT (4/3) could would not be an issue for FF at 24mm f/8 1/250 ISO 100 on FF, right?  You see, I have not even made use of Equivalence here.  And at such settings, here's what we have on FF:

dpreview review samples

which looks quite good, to my eyes, anyway, even better, if I dare say so, especially when one stops to consider that the Canon 6D + Tamron 24-70 / 2.8 VC costs less than the Olympus EM5 + Olympus 14-35 / 2.

So, what you need to do, in my very humble opinion, is to find an example of a scene where, for example, the 4/3 system yields a better result than the FF system.  A good example would be where the light is so low and motion in the scene is such that f/2 is desirable, so that FF would be "obligated" to open up to at least f/4.

If the 4/3 system produces the better photo, then, for sure, we can say that, under that particular circumstance, the EM5 + 14-35 / 2 is indeed, a superior setup to say, the Canon 6D + 24-70 / 2.8 VC.  Of course, I also take it that AF is not an important consideration.

you people would do well to get acquainted of the difference between excellent and also ran
that Tamron is probably fine for what it is,
which is a budget lens designed to acquit itself at a lower price point than Canons best
(whatever that is)

For sure.  The question I thought we were discussing was the photos that came from an E5 and Olympus' best lenses vs FF systems at around the same size/weight/price point.

"That said, I would argue that any scene that is captured at 14mm f/2.8 1/4000 ISO 200 on mFT (4/3) could would not be an issue for FF at 24mm f/8 1/250 ISO 100 on FF, right? "

but you didnt do that, you gave a particular example, the Tamron

it would want to be a whole lot better than it was at f/8 on this particular example
otherwise, why introduce that Tamron at all

"which looks quite good, to my eyes, anyway, even better, if I dare say so, especially when one stops to consider that the Canon 6D + Tamron 24-70 / 2.8 VC costs less than the Olympus EM5 + Olympus 14-35 / 2."

costs not withstanding
it isnt anything like as good, whether you see with 'your eyes'  or borrow someone elses

if the purpose of this is to highlight that the best results come from the most expensive lenses, most people have already figured that out. OTOH if the purpose is to suggest that SHG or even the 14-35 in particular are inordinately expensive given the same things can be achieved with a cheap build Tamron, the notion fails.

at the end of the day people wont remember with fondness anything about that Tamron and they will forget about the cost of a 14-35 Zuiko,

theres a reason for that, theyre not using your eyes, and the rest whatever there is of that is expected

-- hide signature --

Riley
any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

 Rriley's gear list:Rriley's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Olympus E-3 Olympus E-5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 +1 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