V1/V2 vs OM-D E-M10 (take 2)

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
IVN
IVN
Senior MemberPosts: 1,573Gear list
Like?
Re: Not to mention all those great fast M4/3 prime lenses
In reply to dougjgreen1, 6 months ago

dougjgreen1 wrote:

IVN wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Once you stop down to f8 or more, you're in the land of diffraction, with either of these systems.

Anything above f5.6 on N1 is diffraction limited. Anything above f8 on mFT is diffraction limited. You can have the same wide DOF with both systems.

The advantages for Nikon 1 are, much smaller, much lighter, and $700 left in your bank account.

Much smaller? Hahahaha! E-M10 + 45/1.8 vs V1 and 32mm? Is the Oly much larger and more expensive? No.

The Nocticron is certainly MUCH larger and heavier - and more expensive - you were talking about the Nocticron - remember? Feel free not to move the goalposts.

We were talking abou the Nocticron, until you began claiming that N1 is generally much much smaller, remember? And to prove that tha's not the case, I put the 45/1.8 into play. Feel free not to move the goalposts.

And if you don't care about that size advantage, you should be using something bigger than Micro 4/3 in any case.

Why?

Your claims that the Nocticron suddenly makes m4/3 cameras superior to APS-C cameras in this regard are, quite simply, erroneous. And I am a Micro 4/3 user.

I'm not claiming that the Nocti lens in particular is making mFT competitive, what I'm saying is that there are more options on the mFT front, than there are in any system except full frame.

And in case of portrait lenses with good DOF control, mFT is better than any APSC system.

In the sense that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

That would be the case, if mFT was only better than N1. but it is also better than NEX, Nikon DX and Canon APSC in many situations regarding DOF. If you don't want to pay for the capability, that's your decision, but saying that it is not possible, is simply untrue.

That's simply untrue - The New Nikkor 85mm f1.8 AF-S is quite good.

On FF it is. On APSC, not so much. It is a good lens, but not in the same class as the Nocticron and Fuji 56/1.2. And excellent IQ cost money.

Yes, in APS-C, it costs around $500 for the lens and $500 for a body that gets you better than anything available in Micro 4/3 for absolute IQ.

And what is absolute IQ? Most people look at pictures and decide. And good bokeh as opposed to bokeh with bokeh fringing is certainly easier to spot than 8MP more or less than a stop of DR more.

Also, in use, most photogs would prefer a camera that handles like a real camera. And the D5x00 series is very limited in this regard. The VF is rubbish and the controls are not in the same league as OMDs.

Dropping $1500 on a Nocticron (to use on any current gen M4/3 body) gets you close, but still not quite the level of my APS-C solution.

And dropping $1000 for a Voigt 42.5mm gets you beyond APSC.

Or you could use the 50mm f1.4 AF-S which is an effective 75mm on APS-C.

Which is one of the weakest 50/1.4 on the market. So no wonder that it is cheap.

In any case, if you really need very shallow DOF, Micro 4/3 is almost as wrong a system for you as Nikon 1 is.

I don't think so.

Nonetheless, you're wrong

I would think that of all people, I know the best what system is good for me and what system is not.

It's also bigger, and again, has MORE DOF than the 85mm lens on APS-C. For double the price.

You keep insisting on the 85/1.8, which has a much cheaper build than the Nocti, has no stabilization, has a different FL, and has weaker IQ...

No, it'a an ALMOST as good but twice as expensive choice.

In most ways it is better.

Assuming you don't care about absolute quality at the sensor, and the amount of dollars you spend. Those are the two ways it's not as good. And most folks would claim those are very important.

And you are here, in the N1 forum of all places, because you value "absolute quality at the sensor" above all else? Please! If most folks would think that way, a place like this, where expensive cameras with small sensors are being discussed, would not exist.

D5200 and 85mm f1.8 AF-S. I already said so. BTW, a MUCH lower price.

So as an example you are using a cheap and discontinued DSLR model, to prove that your price argument is right? I bought the E-M10, and there is no way that I would ever consider an underspec'd DLSR, with a terribly tinny VF, like the D5200. If your point is to push the price as far down as possible, then why don't you use a cheapo mFT camera to compare it with? Add to that the cost of the Voigt 42.5 and see which one is better?

I'm using a mid-range camera with a current generation sensor that's significantly better in terms of DR than any sensor on Micro 4/3.

Well, that's good for you. It's nice that the tinny VF and limited controls don't bother you.

The fact that you wouldn't consider it doesn't alter the fact that most reviewers and more end users disagree with you.

Unlike you, I can't speak for most reviewers, I can only point you to the DPReview's review of the E-M10. That doesn't sound like entry-level DSLRs are being recommended over an entry-level OMD.

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