Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

Started Mar 30, 2013 | Discussions
gbhwc
New MemberPosts: 5
Like?
Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
Mar 30, 2013

I am ready to upgrade from an older fixed lens camera and looking for a versatile camera for:

  • Misc. Family Activities
  • Kids sports – outdoors
  • Travel
  • Backpacking & landscapes

Note: The above use list is in descending order of expected use.

I currently have a Nikon so I am partial to them.  The Nikon 5200 has caught my attention.

COMPARING THE NIKON 5200 to the OMD

Size is obviously important and the OMD wins there.

Weigh is also important and the OMD body is 4.6 oz. lighter.  Now sure about zoom lenses but a 4.6oz difference seems minor.

Environmental sealing is a nice feature.

There are a few things I like about Nikon that is better:

-       Low light focusing

-       Built in flash

-       Optical viewfinder

-       Better feel/comfort unless I add optional power battery holder / grips which reduce the weight / size advantage.  (I wouldn’t bring these backpacking and probably not traveling).

-       NOTE: I just compared the reviews from this website and the OMD received a higher rating on ergonomics and handling.  Does this make sense?

-       What else am I missing?  What do you think?

Thanks,  Glenn

Alumna Gorp
Senior MemberPosts: 1,531Gear list
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to gbhwc, Mar 30, 2013

gbhwc wrote:

I am ready to upgrade from an older fixed lens camera and looking for a versatile camera for:

  • Misc. Family Activities
  • Kids sports – outdoors
  • Travel
  • Backpacking & landscapes

Note: The above use list is in descending order of expected use.

I currently have a Nikon so I am partial to them.  The Nikon 5200 has caught my attention.

COMPARING THE NIKON 5200 to the OMD

Size is obviously important and the OMD wins there.

Weigh is also important and the OMD body is 4.6 oz. lighter.  Now sure about zoom lenses but a 4.6oz difference seems minor.

Environmental sealing is a nice feature.

There are a few things I like about Nikon that is better:

-       Low light focusing

-       Built in flash

-       Optical viewfinder

-       Better feel/comfort unless I add optional power battery holder / grips which reduce the weight / size advantage.  (I wouldn’t bring these backpacking and probably not traveling).

-       NOTE: I just compared the reviews from this website and the OMD received a higher rating on ergonomics and handling.  Does this make sense?

-       What else am I missing?  What do you think?

Thanks,  Glenn

Lenses, once you start building up a collection, your compact dslr is no longer compact.

DSLR lenses are generally much larger and heavier than CSC lenses.

Using a DSLR and wanting IS, you will have to pay extra for the lenses that have it.

EVF`s give you the whole picture, optical viewfinders do not.

 Alumna Gorp's gear list:Alumna Gorp's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
papillon_65
Forum ProPosts: 18,350Gear list
Like?
I think you just answered your own question....
In reply to gbhwc, Mar 30, 2013

gbhwc wrote:

I am ready to upgrade from an older fixed lens camera and looking for a versatile camera for:

  • Misc. Family Activities
  • Kids sports – outdoors
  • Travel
  • Backpacking & landscapes

Note: The above use list is in descending order of expected use.

I currently have a Nikon so I am partial to them.  The Nikon 5200 has caught my attention.

COMPARING THE NIKON 5200 to the OMD

Size is obviously important and the OMD wins there.

Weigh is also important and the OMD body is 4.6 oz. lighter.  Now sure about zoom lenses but a 4.6oz difference seems minor.

Environmental sealing is a nice feature.

There are a few things I like about Nikon that is better:

-       Low light focusing

-       Built in flash

-       Optical viewfinder

-       Better feel/comfort unless I add optional power battery holder / grips which reduce the weight / size advantage.  (I wouldn’t bring these backpacking and probably not traveling).

-       NOTE: I just compared the reviews from this website and the OMD received a higher rating on ergonomics and handling.  Does this make sense?

-       What else am I missing?  What do you think?

Thanks,  Glenn

You already like Nikon

You listed all the things you like about Nikon

You haven't really listed anything you like about the OMD apart from the size and weight.

Buy the Nikon 5200, according to your comments that seems the best fit for you personally. The IQ from either will be excellent.

-- hide signature --

For the person who is good with a hammer, everything in life tends to look like a nail.....
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Fujifilm XF1 Sigma DP3 Merrill Fujifilm X-T1 +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Makinations
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,688Gear list
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to gbhwc, Mar 30, 2013

Fast moving things go to the nikon.  Otherwise CD-AF on the E-M5 is going to be better.

As to weight the oly lenses are much smaller and lighter.  So the over all kit will be lighter and more compact.

Why would you expect the nikon to have better ergonomics/handling than the OM-D?  Which is to say it does make sense to me.  But then I prefer canon's controls to nikon's.

Oh, and the oly comes with a small flash that you can leave clipped on.

gbhwc wrote:

I am ready to upgrade from an older fixed lens camera and looking for a versatile camera for:

  • Misc. Family Activities
  • Kids sports – outdoors
  • Travel
  • Backpacking & landscapes

Note: The above use list is in descending order of expected use.

I currently have a Nikon so I am partial to them.  The Nikon 5200 has caught my attention.

COMPARING THE NIKON 5200 to the OMD

Size is obviously important and the OMD wins there.

Weigh is also important and the OMD body is 4.6 oz. lighter.  Now sure about zoom lenses but a 4.6oz difference seems minor.

Environmental sealing is a nice feature.

There are a few things I like about Nikon that is better:

-       Low light focusing

-       Built in flash

-       Optical viewfinder

-       Better feel/comfort unless I add optional power battery holder / grips which reduce the weight / size advantage.  (I wouldn’t bring these backpacking and probably not traveling).

-       NOTE: I just compared the reviews from this website and the OMD received a higher rating on ergonomics and handling.  Does this make sense?

-       What else am I missing?  What do you think?

Thanks,  Glenn

-- hide signature --

This never would have happened if Tedolf was still alive.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/smrlabs/

 Makinations's gear list:Makinations's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Olympus XZ-1 Canon EOS 40D Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
daveco2
Regular MemberPosts: 489
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to gbhwc, Mar 30, 2013

I travel a lot, backpack, and occasionally do some climbing in various parts of the world.  I moved from my D5000 to the OMD for reduced size and weight and (to my eyes) better Oly IQ and colors.  I added an E-PL5 as backup that I can keep in my duffel bag until the need arises, and of course it shares the same accessories as the OMD.

I used to be a dedicated Nikon fan, but now I'm very satisified with the Oly M43 system for its weight, compactness, and versatility.

By the way, I love that Oly 9-18 mm and the weather sealed 12-50 mm.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PC Wheeler
Forum ProPosts: 13,886Gear list
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to Alumna Gorp, Mar 30, 2013

Alumna Gorp wrote:

Lenses, once you start building up a collection, your compact dslr is no longer compact.

DSLR lenses are generally much larger and heavier than CSC lenses.

Exactly! Lenses *must* be considered. If you want quality lenses with long reach (say 200-600 mm, full-frame equivalent) DSLR lenses are large and massive.  Compare the Panasonic 100-300 lens (200-600 equivalent) to a DSLR lens reaching to 600mm.

-- hide signature --

Phil

 PC Wheeler's gear list:PC Wheeler's gear list
Canon PowerShot S100 Canon PowerShot G15 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
BingoCharlie
Contributing MemberPosts: 849
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to PC Wheeler, Mar 30, 2013

Enjoy your Nikon.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
forpetessake
Senior MemberPosts: 3,714
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to PC Wheeler, Mar 30, 2013

PC Wheeler wrote:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

Lenses, once you start building up a collection, your compact dslr is no longer compact.

DSLR lenses are generally much larger and heavier than CSC lenses.

Exactly! Lenses *must* be considered. If you want quality lenses with long reach (say 200-600 mm, full-frame equivalent) DSLR lenses are large and massive.  Compare the Panasonic 100-300 lens (200-600 equivalent) to a DSLR lens reaching to 600mm.

-- hide signature --

Phil

He can get 100-300mm lens for his DSLR, which are the same size and weight and crop it. The image won't be any worse than from Panasonic. There are many great DSLR telephoto lenses, there aren't any good m43 telephoto lenses. I've been there, and that's not only my opinion, but also a professional opinion, here is Roger Cicala : "I was so unhappy with everything over 150mm in m4/3 format I sort of lost interest. I use the m4/3 cameras as SLR alternatives but when I did side-by-side comparisons there was nothing even equal to the Canon 100-400. In fact I got more detail with 5D3 at 400mm than with OM-D at 300mm (600mm equivalent)."

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
forpetessake
Senior MemberPosts: 3,714
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to gbhwc, Mar 30, 2013

It looks like everything you are shooting requires DSLR and the only thing you are unhappy is the weight of that 5200. Have you looked at Nikon D3200? I have some Nikkor screwdrive lenses I love, so it's not for me, otherwise I would have bought it myself, it's a great little camera. And it's practically the same weight and size as OM-D: http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=nikon_d3200&products=oly_em5

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
forpetessake
Senior MemberPosts: 3,714
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to Alumna Gorp, Mar 30, 2013

Alumna Gorp wrote:

gbhwc wrote:

I am ready to upgrade from an older fixed lens camera and looking for a versatile camera for:

  • Misc. Family Activities
  • Kids sports – outdoors
  • Travel
  • Backpacking & landscapes

Note: The above use list is in descending order of expected use.

I currently have a Nikon so I am partial to them.  The Nikon 5200 has caught my attention.

COMPARING THE NIKON 5200 to the OMD

Size is obviously important and the OMD wins there.

Weigh is also important and the OMD body is 4.6 oz. lighter.  Now sure about zoom lenses but a 4.6oz difference seems minor.

Environmental sealing is a nice feature.

There are a few things I like about Nikon that is better:

-       Low light focusing

-       Built in flash

-       Optical viewfinder

-       Better feel/comfort unless I add optional power battery holder / grips which reduce the weight / size advantage.  (I wouldn’t bring these backpacking and probably not traveling).

-       NOTE: I just compared the reviews from this website and the OMD received a higher rating on ergonomics and handling.  Does this make sense?

-       What else am I missing?  What do you think?

Thanks,  Glenn

Lenses, once you start building up a collection, your compact dslr is no longer compact.

DSLR lenses are generally much larger and heavier than CSC lenses.

The only reason they are heavier is because they are faster. Equivalent lenses are practically the same weight: "The reason is not as much due to the larger sensor as it is due to the fact that the lenses designed for larger sensor systems usually have larger maximum aperture diameters than lenses designed for smaller sensors.  But when equivalent lenses do exist in both systems, such as the 35-100 / 2 on 4/3 vs the 70-200 / 4L IS on 35mm FF, the lenses for the larger sensor systems are  usually lighter (but often longer for the telephoto lenses) and less expensive." (see http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#2)

Using a DSLR and wanting IS, you will have to pay extra for the lenses that have it.

It's completely the other way around, haven't you noticed how much more expensive the equivalent m4/3 lenses are? It's a lot cheaper to manufacture larger format lenses and it's easier to get better quality.

EVF`s give you the whole picture, optical viewfinders do not.

G, OVF are million times better than the best EVF, just dynamic range makes a huge difference. How can somebody be so uninformed?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ulric
Senior MemberPosts: 2,623Gear list
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to forpetessake, Mar 30, 2013

My SO has a D3200 and while it is a nice camera with an attractive price tag, it is clearly much bigger and heavier than my E-M5. Online comparison here:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#317.36,289.92,ha,t

 Ulric's gear list:Ulric's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ulric
Senior MemberPosts: 2,623Gear list
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to forpetessake, Mar 30, 2013

The "equivalent lens" comparison is a red herring. The Zuiko Digital is an old lens which was designed with no ambitions wrt compactness. It is hard to find any lens comparisons across systems that are both "equivalent" and relevant, mainly because design objectives are different.

 Ulric's gear list:Ulric's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
exdeejjjaaaa
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,809Gear list
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to Alumna Gorp, Mar 30, 2013

Alumna Gorp wrote:

g

Lenses, once you start building up a collection, your compact dslr is no longer compact.

it depends on what he needs... not everybody needs long tele or ultra wide.

 exdeejjjaaaa's gear list:exdeejjjaaaa's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Sony Alpha 7 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm F2.8 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SkiHound
Senior MemberPosts: 1,246
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to gbhwc, Mar 30, 2013

My take, and I own an E-M5 so consider the source. I had an E-620 and liked it but the sensor was really getting dated, Oly was seemingly abandoning the regular 43 market, the pens had tweaked versions of the same old sensor. I really looked at cameras like the Canon D60, D7, and Nikon D7000 closely. I thought in terms of sensor performance the D7000 was the cream of the APS-C crop when I was shopping. But I also knew how I used a camera and actually wanted something smaller, lighter, and less intrusive for everyday use. And every time I looked at the Nikon and Canon dSLRs I was seeing bigger, heavier, more intrusive -- especially when you start adding a few lenses. The E-M5 really ticked a whole lot of the boxes I was looking for to check. I take it hiking, I throw it in a backpack on the bike, I take it traveling, I walk around town with it ... It goes with me and fits my lifestyle. It also sometimes doesn't get noticed where an SLR would. I went to a living history museum not knowing they had policies preventing people from using "professional cameras." The person selling the ticket sort of looked at my camera and said nothing. I later learned the policy and I'm pretty sure a D7000 wouldn't have gotten through the door. Also less intrusive walking around the street. If funds were no object I'd have a FF system to compliment the E-M5, but not replace. IMO, there's a lot to be said for relative portability, but that's a pretty individual requirement. One of the limitations is the cdaf autofocus system. For single shot autofocus it's very fast and accurate; it can't suffer from front and back focus that can occur with pdaf autofocus systems. But, it doesn't do continuous focus tracking very well. Right now, available SLRs would probably be better for action sports and perhaps better for your 2nd list requirement. It's also considerably pricier than a D5200. All of these cameras are darn good and none is perfect

-- hide signature --

www.bjaphotos.smugmug.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SwatOx
Regular MemberPosts: 410Gear list
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to gbhwc, Mar 30, 2013

You might put one of the Panny mirrorless into the mix,too.

 SwatOx's gear list:SwatOx's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SkiHound
Senior MemberPosts: 1,246
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to SkiHound, Mar 30, 2013

Forgot to mention the EVF. I think you'd find it less of an issue than you might think. I find it big and bright. It can tear when panning fast and once in a while you'll get in certain kinds of light where it looks odd. But overall it's bright and easy to use.

-- hide signature --

www.bjaphotos.smugmug.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alumna Gorp
Senior MemberPosts: 1,531Gear list
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to forpetessake, Mar 30, 2013

forpetessake wrote:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

gbhwc wrote:

I am ready to upgrade from an older fixed lens camera and looking for a versatile camera for:

  • Misc. Family Activities
  • Kids sports – outdoors
  • Travel
  • Backpacking & landscapes

Note: The above use list is in descending order of expected use.

I currently have a Nikon so I am partial to them.  The Nikon 5200 has caught my attention.

COMPARING THE NIKON 5200 to the OMD

Size is obviously important and the OMD wins there.

Weigh is also important and the OMD body is 4.6 oz. lighter.  Now sure about zoom lenses but a 4.6oz difference seems minor.

Environmental sealing is a nice feature.

There are a few things I like about Nikon that is better:

-       Low light focusing

-       Built in flash

-       Optical viewfinder

-       Better feel/comfort unless I add optional power battery holder / grips which reduce the weight / size advantage.  (I wouldn’t bring these backpacking and probably not traveling).

-       NOTE: I just compared the reviews from this website and the OMD received a higher rating on ergonomics and handling.  Does this make sense?

-       What else am I missing?  What do you think?

Thanks,  Glenn

Lenses, once you start building up a collection, your compact dslr is no longer compact.

DSLR lenses are generally much larger and heavier than CSC lenses.

The only reason they are heavier is because they are faster. Equivalent lenses are practically the same weight: "The reason is not as much due to the larger sensor as it is due to the fact that the lenses designed for larger sensor systems usually have larger maximum aperture diameters than lenses designed for smaller sensors.  But when equivalent lenses do exist in both systems, such as the 35-100 / 2 on 4/3 vs the 70-200 / 4L IS on 35mm FF, the lenses for the larger sensor systems are  usually lighter (but often longer for the telephoto lenses) and less expensive." (see http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#2)

Using a DSLR and wanting IS, you will have to pay extra for the lenses that have it.

It's completely the other way around, haven't you noticed how much more expensive the equivalent m4/3 lenses are? It's a lot cheaper to manufacture larger format lenses and it's easier to get better quality.

EVF`s give you the whole picture, optical viewfinders do not.

G, OVF are million times better than the best EVF, just dynamic range makes a huge difference. How can somebody be so uninformed?

Seems it is you that is mis informed, Optical viewfinders are extremely basic compared to EVF`s.

[quote]It's completely the other way around, haven't you noticed how much more expensive the equivalent m4/3 lenses are? It's a lot cheaper to manufacture larger format lenses and it's easier to get better quality[/quote]

Wrong again, are you wearing blinkers

Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 weighs 350g and cost £849
Canon 24-70 f2.8 weighs 805g and cost £1795
The M4/3 lens is half the weight and is half the price.
Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 weighs 360g and cost £949
Canons 70-200 f2.8 weighs 1490g and cost £1799
Here the Canon is 4 x the weight and almost twice the cost.

 Alumna Gorp's gear list:Alumna Gorp's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Hen3ry
Senior MemberPosts: 9,803Gear list
Like?
Try G5. nt
In reply to gbhwc, Mar 30, 2013

Cheers, geoff

 Hen3ry's gear list:Hen3ry's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 6,106Gear list
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to Alumna Gorp, Mar 30, 2013

Alumna Gorp wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

gbhwc wrote:

I am ready to upgrade from an older fixed lens camera and looking for a versatile camera for:

  • Misc. Family Activities
  • Kids sports – outdoors
  • Travel
  • Backpacking & landscapes

Note: The above use list is in descending order of expected use.

I currently have a Nikon so I am partial to them.  The Nikon 5200 has caught my attention.

COMPARING THE NIKON 5200 to the OMD

Size is obviously important and the OMD wins there.

Weigh is also important and the OMD body is 4.6 oz. lighter.  Now sure about zoom lenses but a 4.6oz difference seems minor.

Environmental sealing is a nice feature.

There are a few things I like about Nikon that is better:

-       Low light focusing

-       Built in flash

-       Optical viewfinder

-       Better feel/comfort unless I add optional power battery holder / grips which reduce the weight / size advantage.  (I wouldn’t bring these backpacking and probably not traveling).

-       NOTE: I just compared the reviews from this website and the OMD received a higher rating on ergonomics and handling.  Does this make sense?

-       What else am I missing?  What do you think?

Thanks,  Glenn

Lenses, once you start building up a collection, your compact dslr is no longer compact.

DSLR lenses are generally much larger and heavier than CSC lenses.

The only reason they are heavier is because they are faster. Equivalent lenses are practically the same weight: "The reason is not as much due to the larger sensor as it is due to the fact that the lenses designed for larger sensor systems usually have larger maximum aperture diameters than lenses designed for smaller sensors.  But when equivalent lenses do exist in both systems, such as the 35-100 / 2 on 4/3 vs the 70-200 / 4L IS on 35mm FF, the lenses for the larger sensor systems are  usually lighter (but often longer for the telephoto lenses) and less expensive." (see http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#2)

Using a DSLR and wanting IS, you will have to pay extra for the lenses that have it.

It's completely the other way around, haven't you noticed how much more expensive the equivalent m4/3 lenses are? It's a lot cheaper to manufacture larger format lenses and it's easier to get better quality.

EVF`s give you the whole picture, optical viewfinders do not.

G, OVF are million times better than the best EVF, just dynamic range makes a huge difference. How can somebody be so uninformed?

Seems it is you that is mis informed, Optical viewfinders are extremely basic compared to EVF`s.

[quote]It's completely the other way around, haven't you noticed how much more expensive the equivalent m4/3 lenses are? It's a lot cheaper to manufacture larger format lenses and it's easier to get better quality[/quote]

Wrong again, are you wearing blinkers

Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 weighs 350g and cost £849
Canon 24-70 f2.8 weighs 805g and cost £1795
The M4/3 lens is half the weight and is half the price.
Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 weighs 360g and cost £949
Canons 70-200 f2.8 weighs 1490g and cost £1799
Here the Canon is 4 x the weight and almost twice the cost.

Ahh but you see they aren't "equivalent"

What is interesting is the fact that for his argument to work forpetessake is comparing lenses from m4/3s with lenses that don't exist.

What I find fascinating is that he's an APS-C mirrorless user. So everything he says here, applies to him as well.

Ergo he's just trolling.

I've no idea why he makes a habit of trolling this forum. Judging from his photos in his gallery I suspect it may be to compensate.
 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Setter Dog
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,887
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to forpetessake, Mar 30, 2013

forpetessake wrote:

He can get 100-300mm lens for his DSLR, which are the same size and weight and crop it. The image won't be any worse than from Panasonic. There are many great DSLR telephoto lenses, there aren't any good m43 telephoto lenses. I've been there, and that's not only my opinion, but also a professional opinion, here is Roger Cicala : "I was so unhappy with everything over 150mm in m4/3 format I sort of lost interest. I use the m4/3 cameras as SLR alternatives but when I did side-by-side comparisons there was nothing even equal to the Canon 100-400. In fact I got more detail with 5D3 at 400mm than with OM-D at 300mm (600mm equivalent)."

With all due respect, you and Roger are talking nonsense. I think I'll continue to believe my lyin' eyes and using my Pany 100-300mm.

Jack

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads