Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

Started Mar 30, 2013 | Discussions
Alumna Gorp
Senior MemberPosts: 1,531Gear list
Like?
Re: nikon
In reply to illy, Apr 1, 2013

illy wrote:

Mahmoud Mousef 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.

Nikon.

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

Nikon.

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).

Nikon.

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

I guess it depends on your subjective assessment. I wouldn't go by those silly ratings.

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

Thanks,  Glenn

You're missing nothing (except a Nikon).

My only problem with Nikon is they still haven't integrated Pixel Mapping with their DSLR bodies. I got one recently with 3 bad pixels visible on every pic the cam produces. Those pixels are in the same state no matter which pic I take. It's incredibly annoying. I have to shoot raw and let software map them out, something which I never bothered with in the past. I find this primitive to have to live with in 2013 and I wouldn't dare let any service center touch it for fear of making things worse (and being without my camera). I have the D5100. So I think Nikon is waaayyy behind the times on this. The D5200 is probably the same.

The one big disadvantage is body size/lens size with a DSLR. If you can live with that, I wouldn't change from Nikon. The output should please you.

What makes me use mirrorless (in my case, a Panasonic)?

The size and less clunky Live View. Though all the mirrorless cameras I've tried have worse battery life than a DSLR (and are far worse to view low-light scenes with their electronic viewfinders). But a DSLR has a size disadvantage and clunky Live View implementation, and those that are better in this area (Sony Alpha models) have to rely on electronic viewfinders...which can be pretty poor.

Otherwise, get a traditional DSLR like the Nikon.

but mirrorless has clunky OVF implementation........

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

CSC`s are hybrid machines designed for multimedia applicators, DSLR`s are designed for stills, plain and simple.
DSLR`s are good at stills and they can shoot video, but the video is poorly implemented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_xB6ofX__Y

 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
illy
Forum ProPosts: 12,160Gear list
Like?
Re: nikon
In reply to Alumna Gorp, Apr 1, 2013

Alumna Gorp wrote:

illy wrote:

Mahmoud Mousef 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.

Nikon.

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

Nikon.

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).

Nikon.

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

I guess it depends on your subjective assessment. I wouldn't go by those silly ratings.

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

Thanks,  Glenn

You're missing nothing (except a Nikon).

My only problem with Nikon is they still haven't integrated Pixel Mapping with their DSLR bodies. I got one recently with 3 bad pixels visible on every pic the cam produces. Those pixels are in the same state no matter which pic I take. It's incredibly annoying. I have to shoot raw and let software map them out, something which I never bothered with in the past. I find this primitive to have to live with in 2013 and I wouldn't dare let any service center touch it for fear of making things worse (and being without my camera). I have the D5100. So I think Nikon is waaayyy behind the times on this. The D5200 is probably the same.

The one big disadvantage is body size/lens size with a DSLR. If you can live with that, I wouldn't change from Nikon. The output should please you.

What makes me use mirrorless (in my case, a Panasonic)?

The size and less clunky Live View. Though all the mirrorless cameras I've tried have worse battery life than a DSLR (and are far worse to view low-light scenes with their electronic viewfinders). But a DSLR has a size disadvantage and clunky Live View implementation, and those that are better in this area (Sony Alpha models) have to rely on electronic viewfinders...which can be pretty poor.

Otherwise, get a traditional DSLR like the Nikon.

but mirrorless has clunky OVF implementation........

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

CSC`s are hybrid machines designed for multimedia applicators, DSLR`s are designed for stills, plain and simple.
DSLR`s are good at stills and they can shoot video, but the video is poorly implemented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_xB6ofX__Y

i would say a Dslr is a truer hybrid, OVF and live view, stills and video, PDAF and CDAF.....much more than in a mirrorless camera.

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

 illy's gear list:illy's gear list
Nikon D200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Nikon D5100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 5,685
Like?
Re: nikon
In reply to illy, Apr 1, 2013

Bet that OVF works well in movie mode.

Yeah, I said it. OVFs aren't all that cool.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lost in Time
Regular MemberPosts: 207
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to Alumna Gorp, Apr 1, 2013

Alumna Gorp wrote:

Since when has noise and depth dof been true equ.

All that really counts is reach and light gathering ability, both wiill gather equal amounts of light at the same apertures.

A 70mm f2.8 lens is not the same as a 35mm f2.8 lens. The longer focal length will show a noticeably smaller depth of field. The earlier poster was exactly correct: given equal technology, the 35-100m f2.8 on u4/3 at ISO 200 is equivalent to a 70-200mm f5.6 at ISO 800 on FF. Both will have the same exposure time and the same image noise: the images will be identical.

What the FF gives you is the option to shoot at lower ISO with a slower shutter speed for less noise, or at a lower f-stop for shallower DOF and/or faster shutter speed. You gain flexibility but loose out only in the sheer size and weight of the lens on FF, not to mention cost.

Of course, things are not equal. Many FF sensors are not as efficient as newer u4/3 sensors (don't mention Canon...), and none currently try to approach the same pixel density. Also, there are usually many more high-performance and specialised optics for FF, often with much higher IQ. For example, people fitting adapted Leica lenses to their u4/3 cameras (which is actually a terrible waste of glass, as you are only using 1/4 of the captured image...).

Unfortunately, *most* u4/3 lenses today are engineered to be cheap consumer solutions - such as the seemingly endless number of new kit zooms that seem to be released. This will improve as better high-end bodies such as the OM-D and GH3 are released, but as of now there are simply many more high-quality lenses for FF (with size, weight and price tags to match - look at some of Canon's long focal length fast primes, for example).

Hopefully Olympus will eventually port some of their original 4/3 lens line-up to u4/3 - weather sealed lenses with excellent quality and fast apertures.

All cameras are tools. There are times where small and unobtrusive are essential, and times where flexibility, noise and shallow DOF matter more. There is a lot more to taking an image than fretting over high-ISO noise and light gathering capability and will never be a single "does it all" solution for the reasons given above.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gbhwc
New MemberPosts: 5
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to Ulric, Apr 1, 2013

You all have been very generous with your feedback!  You have put on a clinic for me.  I will need to read up a bit on the abbreviations.

I have yet to touch a new camera but I will after April 15th - I am a tax accountant and snowed under until then.

I plan to go to a shop where where they rent cameras and hopefully they have these to demo and apply the rental fee against the purchase.  After I try them out I will check with you and give you an update.

Oh... a few more thoughts.  I have yet to check in on lens but yes I think I want a "mid" zoom that is fast.  2.8 or so.  3.5 won't cut it.  I am the type who doesn't carry a bag (yet?) just brings the camera with one lens.  As for price, I think I will find the camera and one or two lenses and then worry about cost.  If the new price is too much, then I will look for used if I can get a warranty.

Cheers,  Glenn

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

Lost in Time wrote:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

Since when has noise and depth dof been true equ.

All that really counts is reach and light gathering ability, both wiill gather equal amounts of light at the same apertures.

A 70mm f2.8 lens is not the same as a 35mm f2.8 lens. The longer focal length will show a noticeably smaller depth of field. The earlier poster was exactly correct: given equal technology, the 35-100m f2.8 on u4/3 at ISO 200 is equivalent to a 70-200mm f5.6 at ISO 800 on FF. Both will have the same exposure time and the same image noise: the images will be identical.

What the FF gives you is the option to shoot at lower ISO with a slower shutter speed for less noise, or at a lower f-stop for shallower DOF and/or faster shutter speed. You gain flexibility but loose out only in the sheer size and weight of the lens on FF, not to mention cost.

Of course, things are not equal. Many FF sensors are not as efficient as newer u4/3 sensors (don't mention Canon...), and none currently try to approach the same pixel density. Also, there are usually many more high-performance and specialised optics for FF, often with much higher IQ. For example, people fitting adapted Leica lenses to their u4/3 cameras (which is actually a terrible waste of glass, as you are only using 1/4 of the captured image...).

Unfortunately, *most* u4/3 lenses today are engineered to be cheap consumer solutions - such as the seemingly endless number of new kit zooms that seem to be released. This will improve as better high-end bodies such as the OM-D and GH3 are released, but as of now there are simply many more high-quality lenses for FF (with size, weight and price tags to match - look at some of Canon's long focal length fast primes, for example).

Hopefully Olympus will eventually port some of their original 4/3 lens line-up to u4/3 - weather sealed lenses with excellent quality and fast apertures.

All cameras are tools. There are times where small and unobtrusive are essential, and times where flexibility, noise and shallow DOF matter more. There is a lot more to taking an image than fretting over high-ISO noise and light gathering capability and will never be a single "does it all" solution for the reasons given above.

Appears you really are lost in time a 2.8 is a 2.8, I`m hardly going to replace a broken f2.8 with a 5.6 am I, a spades a spade yet some of you just like to argue for the sake of it.

 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
Alumna Gorp
Senior MemberPosts: 1,531Gear list
Like?
Re: nikon
In reply to illy, Apr 1, 2013

illy wrote:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

illy wrote:

Mahmoud Mousef 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.

Nikon.

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

Nikon.

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).

Nikon.

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

I guess it depends on your subjective assessment. I wouldn't go by those silly ratings.

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

Thanks,  Glenn

You're missing nothing (except a Nikon).

My only problem with Nikon is they still haven't integrated Pixel Mapping with their DSLR bodies. I got one recently with 3 bad pixels visible on every pic the cam produces. Those pixels are in the same state no matter which pic I take. It's incredibly annoying. I have to shoot raw and let software map them out, something which I never bothered with in the past. I find this primitive to have to live with in 2013 and I wouldn't dare let any service center touch it for fear of making things worse (and being without my camera). I have the D5100. So I think Nikon is waaayyy behind the times on this. The D5200 is probably the same.

The one big disadvantage is body size/lens size with a DSLR. If you can live with that, I wouldn't change from Nikon. The output should please you.

What makes me use mirrorless (in my case, a Panasonic)?

The size and less clunky Live View. Though all the mirrorless cameras I've tried have worse battery life than a DSLR (and are far worse to view low-light scenes with their electronic viewfinders). But a DSLR has a size disadvantage and clunky Live View implementation, and those that are better in this area (Sony Alpha models) have to rely on electronic viewfinders...which can be pretty poor.

Otherwise, get a traditional DSLR like the Nikon.

but mirrorless has clunky OVF implementation........

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

CSC`s are hybrid machines designed for multimedia applicators, DSLR`s are designed for stills, plain and simple.
DSLR`s are good at stills and they can shoot video, but the video is poorly implemented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_xB6ofX__Y

i would say a Dslr is a truer hybrid, OVF and live view, stills and video, PDAF and CDAF.....much more than in a mirrorless camera.

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

No its an over sized SLR fitted with a sensor and a load of electronics.

 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
illy
Forum ProPosts: 12,160Gear list
Like?
Re: nikon
In reply to Martin.au, Apr 1, 2013

Mjankor wrote:

Bet that OVF works well in movie mode.

Yeah, I said it. OVFs aren't all that cool.

about as well as a mirrorless camera without an EVF....yeah i said it.

I'm actually playing devils advocate by showing that picking a particular thing about any camera or system can easily be turned into a negative to show a personal bias towards favoured system.....yeah i said it

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

 illy's gear list:illy's gear list
Nikon D200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Nikon D5100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
illy
Forum ProPosts: 12,160Gear list
Like?
Re: nikon
In reply to Alumna Gorp, Apr 1, 2013

Alumna Gorp wrote:

illy wrote:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

illy wrote:

Mahmoud Mousef 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.

Nikon.

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

Nikon.

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).

Nikon.

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

I guess it depends on your subjective assessment. I wouldn't go by those silly ratings.

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

Thanks,  Glenn

You're missing nothing (except a Nikon).

My only problem with Nikon is they still haven't integrated Pixel Mapping with their DSLR bodies. I got one recently with 3 bad pixels visible on every pic the cam produces. Those pixels are in the same state no matter which pic I take. It's incredibly annoying. I have to shoot raw and let software map them out, something which I never bothered with in the past. I find this primitive to have to live with in 2013 and I wouldn't dare let any service center touch it for fear of making things worse (and being without my camera). I have the D5100. So I think Nikon is waaayyy behind the times on this. The D5200 is probably the same.

The one big disadvantage is body size/lens size with a DSLR. If you can live with that, I wouldn't change from Nikon. The output should please you.

What makes me use mirrorless (in my case, a Panasonic)?

The size and less clunky Live View. Though all the mirrorless cameras I've tried have worse battery life than a DSLR (and are far worse to view low-light scenes with their electronic viewfinders). But a DSLR has a size disadvantage and clunky Live View implementation, and those that are better in this area (Sony Alpha models) have to rely on electronic viewfinders...which can be pretty poor.

Otherwise, get a traditional DSLR like the Nikon.

but mirrorless has clunky OVF implementation........

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

CSC`s are hybrid machines designed for multimedia applicators, DSLR`s are designed for stills, plain and simple.
DSLR`s are good at stills and they can shoot video, but the video is poorly implemented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_xB6ofX__Y

i would say a Dslr is a truer hybrid, OVF and live view, stills and video, PDAF and CDAF.....much more than in a mirrorless camera.

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

No its an over sized SLR fitted with a sensor and a load of electronics.

why is it oversized? how do you quantify that statement, and with what set of specifications to measure against? I was actually showing a Dslr has more features than a mirrorless camera in certain regards.

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

 illy's gear list:illy's gear list
Nikon D200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Nikon D5100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alumna Gorp
Senior MemberPosts: 1,531Gear list
Like?
Re: nikon
In reply to illy, Apr 1, 2013

illy wrote:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

illy wrote:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

illy wrote:

Mahmoud Mousef 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.

Nikon.

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

Nikon.

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).

Nikon.

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

I guess it depends on your subjective assessment. I wouldn't go by those silly ratings.

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

Thanks,  Glenn

You're missing nothing (except a Nikon).

My only problem with Nikon is they still haven't integrated Pixel Mapping with their DSLR bodies. I got one recently with 3 bad pixels visible on every pic the cam produces. Those pixels are in the same state no matter which pic I take. It's incredibly annoying. I have to shoot raw and let software map them out, something which I never bothered with in the past. I find this primitive to have to live with in 2013 and I wouldn't dare let any service center touch it for fear of making things worse (and being without my camera). I have the D5100. So I think Nikon is waaayyy behind the times on this. The D5200 is probably the same.

The one big disadvantage is body size/lens size with a DSLR. If you can live with that, I wouldn't change from Nikon. The output should please you.

What makes me use mirrorless (in my case, a Panasonic)?

The size and less clunky Live View. Though all the mirrorless cameras I've tried have worse battery life than a DSLR (and are far worse to view low-light scenes with their electronic viewfinders). But a DSLR has a size disadvantage and clunky Live View implementation, and those that are better in this area (Sony Alpha models) have to rely on electronic viewfinders...which can be pretty poor.

Otherwise, get a traditional DSLR like the Nikon.

but mirrorless has clunky OVF implementation........

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

CSC`s are hybrid machines designed for multimedia applicators, DSLR`s are designed for stills, plain and simple.
DSLR`s are good at stills and they can shoot video, but the video is poorly implemented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_xB6ofX__Y

i would say a Dslr is a truer hybrid, OVF and live view, stills and video, PDAF and CDAF.....much more than in a mirrorless camera.

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

No its an over sized SLR fitted with a sensor and a load of electronics.

why is it oversized? how do you quantify that statement, and with what set of specifications to measure against? I was actually showing a Dslr has more features than a mirrorless camera in certain regards.

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

Buy growing up using SLR`s and various film camera`s, the last full frame DSLR I picked up was two or three times the Size and weight of my OLD OM1 fitted with a fifty.

 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
illy
Forum ProPosts: 12,160Gear list
Like?
Re: nikon
In reply to Alumna Gorp, Apr 1, 2013

Alumna Gorp wrote:

illy wrote:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

illy wrote:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

illy wrote:

Mahmoud Mousef 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.

Nikon.

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

Nikon.

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).

Nikon.

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

I guess it depends on your subjective assessment. I wouldn't go by those silly ratings.

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

Thanks,  Glenn

You're missing nothing (except a Nikon).

My only problem with Nikon is they still haven't integrated Pixel Mapping with their DSLR bodies. I got one recently with 3 bad pixels visible on every pic the cam produces. Those pixels are in the same state no matter which pic I take. It's incredibly annoying. I have to shoot raw and let software map them out, something which I never bothered with in the past. I find this primitive to have to live with in 2013 and I wouldn't dare let any service center touch it for fear of making things worse (and being without my camera). I have the D5100. So I think Nikon is waaayyy behind the times on this. The D5200 is probably the same.

The one big disadvantage is body size/lens size with a DSLR. If you can live with that, I wouldn't change from Nikon. The output should please you.

What makes me use mirrorless (in my case, a Panasonic)?

The size and less clunky Live View. Though all the mirrorless cameras I've tried have worse battery life than a DSLR (and are far worse to view low-light scenes with their electronic viewfinders). But a DSLR has a size disadvantage and clunky Live View implementation, and those that are better in this area (Sony Alpha models) have to rely on electronic viewfinders...which can be pretty poor.

Otherwise, get a traditional DSLR like the Nikon.

but mirrorless has clunky OVF implementation........

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

CSC`s are hybrid machines designed for multimedia applicators, DSLR`s are designed for stills, plain and simple.
DSLR`s are good at stills and they can shoot video, but the video is poorly implemented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_xB6ofX__Y

i would say a Dslr is a truer hybrid, OVF and live view, stills and video, PDAF and CDAF.....much more than in a mirrorless camera.

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

No its an over sized SLR fitted with a sensor and a load of electronics.

why is it oversized? how do you quantify that statement, and with what set of specifications to measure against? I was actually showing a Dslr has more features than a mirrorless camera in certain regards.

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

Buy growing up using SLR`s and various film camera`s, the last full frame DSLR I picked up was two or three times the Size and weight of my OLD OM1 fitted with a fifty.

sounds more like a personal preference than anything else, i doubt your experience is used globally to tell if a camera is oversized or not

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

 illy's gear list:illy's gear list
Nikon D200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Nikon D5100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 5,685
Like?
Re: nikon
In reply to illy, Apr 1, 2013

illy wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

Bet that OVF works well in movie mode.

Yeah, I said it. OVFs aren't all that cool.

about as well as a mirrorless camera without an EVF....yeah i said it.

I'm actually playing devils advocate by showing that picking a particular thing about any camera or system can easily be turned into a negative to show a personal bias towards favoured system.....yeah i said it

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

Ergo, the best hybrid would be a mirrorless with an EVF?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
String
Senior MemberPosts: 1,349Gear list
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to Alumna Gorp, Apr 1, 2013

Alumna Gorp wrote:

Appears you really are lost in time a 2.8 is a 2.8, I`m hardly going to replace a broken f2.8 with a 5.6 am I, a spades a spade yet some of you just like to argue for the sake of it.

Yep; last time I checked my Sekonic, it didn't have a setting for FF, m43, Crop, 4x5, etc. etc. Maybe thats on the new model with a "smaller" dome?

Seriously, we all know the DoF differences. How could we not as its been brought up here non stop. The big question is... who really cares?

 String's gear list:String's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
illy
Forum ProPosts: 12,160Gear list
Like?
Re: nikon
In reply to Martin.au, Apr 1, 2013

Mjankor wrote:

illy wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

Bet that OVF works well in movie mode.

Yeah, I said it. OVFs aren't all that cool.

about as well as a mirrorless camera without an EVF....yeah i said it.

I'm actually playing devils advocate by showing that picking a particular thing about any camera or system can easily be turned into a negative to show a personal bias towards favoured system.....yeah i said it

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

Ergo, the best hybrid would be a mirrorless with an EVF?

i agree

-- hide signature --

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

 illy's gear list:illy's gear list
Nikon D200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Nikon D5100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 16,320Gear list
Like?
There is really only one reason to choose a compact DSLR
In reply to gbhwc, Apr 1, 2013

over a micro four thirds camera....

tracking auto-focus.

That is it.

Everthing else a u 4/3 camera does better or as well.

The main benefit of u 4/3 over  compact dSLR is Live View.

Live View really gives you a WYSISYG preview of exposure and white balance so you know you are going to get the shot exposed right before you take it.  DSLR live view is poorly implemented and just not as good.

Period.

So, you have to decide wheter or not you need really good tracking AF.  If you don't, there is really no more reason to go with a crop sensored dSLR.

TEdolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lost in Time
Regular MemberPosts: 207
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to Alumna Gorp, Apr 1, 2013

Alumna Gorp wrote:

Appears you really are lost in time a 2.8 is a 2.8, I`m hardly going to replace a broken f2.8 with a 5.6 am I, a spades a spade yet some of you just like to argue for the sake of it.

You might want to read some more about how lenses and the camera as a system work...

Take a FF f2.8 lens and two cameras with the same pixel count, one FF and one u4/3.

Fit the lens to the FF camera and take a picture. The lens illuminates the entire FF sensor. You get an image.

Fit the same lens to the u4/3 camera and take a picture. It is still an f2.8 lens and the exposure and ISO will be reported as the same as the FF camera. However, the sensor now only captures 1/4 of the light as the image is cropped. As a result, the u4/3 sensor actually operates at 4x the gain *for the same ISO setting* as the FF sensor - and hence it has two stops more noise than the FF version. This is simply due to the amount of light collected (and it is the reason why the FF lens is so much larger).

For focal length and DOF equivalence see see http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm

If you still do not believe this, you could actually try using both formats. FWIW, I have both u4/3 and FF systems, each with focal lengths covering 16mm to 300mm+ (35mm equivalent). After a while, you get a feel for how the systems perform. You see equivalence in action, (even if in my case it is blunted somewhat by the ageing FF sensor technology compared to the OM-D and hence by far the most obvious difference is DOF).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 16,320Gear list
Like?
Complete non-sense.......
In reply to Lost in Time, Apr 1, 2013

Lost in Time wrote:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

Appears you really are lost in time a 2.8 is a 2.8, I`m hardly going to replace a broken f2.8 with a 5.6 am I, a spades a spade yet some of you just like to argue for the sake of it.

You might want to read some more about how lenses and the camera as a system work...

Take a FF f2.8 lens and two cameras with the same pixel count, one FF and one u4/3.

Fit the lens to the FF camera and take a picture. The lens illuminates the entire FF sensor. You get an image.

Fit the same lens to the u4/3 camera and take a picture. It is still an f2.8 lens and the exposure and ISO will be reported as the same as the FF camera. However, the sensor now only captures 1/4 of the light as the image is cropped. As a result, the u4/3 sensor actually operates at 4x the gain *for the same ISO setting* as the FF sensor - and hence it has two stops more noise than the FF version. This is simply due to the amount of light collected (and it is the reason why the FF lens is so much larger).

For focal length and DOF equivalence see see http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm

If you still do not believe this, you could actually try using both formats. FWIW, I have both u4/3 and FF systems, each with focal lengths covering 16mm to 300mm+ (35mm equivalent). After a while, you get a feel for how the systems perform. You see equivalence in action, (even if in my case it is blunted somewhat by the ageing FF sensor technology compared to the OM-D and hence by far the most obvious difference is DOF).

if you don't take pixel pitch (i.e. the size of the pixel) into account.

Noise is a function at the pixel level.  A pixel recieves a amount of light that is independent of how much light its neighbor is recieveing.

What matters is the signal to noise ratio of each individual pixel.

It does not matter how many pixels are in the array, just how large exach individual pixel is, and what is its signal to noise ratio.

Tedolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alumna Gorp
Senior MemberPosts: 1,531Gear list
Like?
Re: Complete non-sense.......
In reply to tedolf, Apr 1, 2013

tedolf wrote:

Lost in Time wrote:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

Appears you really are lost in time a 2.8 is a 2.8, I`m hardly going to replace a broken f2.8 with a 5.6 am I, a spades a spade yet some of you just like to argue for the sake of it.

You might want to read some more about how lenses and the camera as a system work...

Take a FF f2.8 lens and two cameras with the same pixel count, one FF and one u4/3.

Fit the lens to the FF camera and take a picture. The lens illuminates the entire FF sensor. You get an image.

Fit the same lens to the u4/3 camera and take a picture. It is still an f2.8 lens and the exposure and ISO will be reported as the same as the FF camera. However, the sensor now only captures 1/4 of the light as the image is cropped. As a result, the u4/3 sensor actually operates at 4x the gain *for the same ISO setting* as the FF sensor - and hence it has two stops more noise than the FF version. This is simply due to the amount of light collected (and it is the reason why the FF lens is so much larger).

For focal length and DOF equivalence see see http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm

If you still do not believe this, you could actually try using both formats. FWIW, I have both u4/3 and FF systems, each with focal lengths covering 16mm to 300mm+ (35mm equivalent). After a while, you get a feel for how the systems perform. You see equivalence in action, (even if in my case it is blunted somewhat by the ageing FF sensor technology compared to the OM-D and hence by far the most obvious difference is DOF).

if you don't take pixel pitch (i.e. the size of the pixel) into account.

Noise is a function at the pixel level.  A pixel recieves a amount of light that is independent of how much light its neighbor is recieveing.

What matters is the signal to noise ratio of each individual pixel.

It does not matter how many pixels are in the array, just how large exach individual pixel is, and what is its signal to noise ratio.

Tedolph

Completely agree Tedolph, although I`m not into all the mumbo jumbo, all I`m interested in is having a lens that is fast enough and that will offer adequate dof, a f2,8 m4/3 lens is good enough for me.

 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
gbhwc
New MemberPosts: 5
Like?
Re: There is really only one reason to choose a compact DSLR
In reply to tedolf, Apr 2, 2013

Tedolf,

Very interesting... Except for your description, I don't really even know what Live View is ... but I will find out.

The only reason I am looking at a 4/3 camera is because of the small size and the high rating a reviewer on staff of this website gave to the OMD.

Do you really think the quality of pictures in the OMD will be as good as a DSLR?

(If I go the 4/3 route I will wait a while to buy because it sounds like some new products might be coming out soon).

Thanks,  Glenn

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 5,685
Like?
Re: There is really only one reason to choose a compact DSLR
In reply to gbhwc, Apr 2, 2013

gbhwc wrote:

Tedolf,

Very interesting... Except for your description, I don't really even know what Live View is ... but I will find out.

The only reason I am looking at a 4/3 camera is because of the small size and the high rating a reviewer on staff of this website gave to the OMD.

Do you really think the quality of pictures in the OMD will be as good as a DSLR?

(If I go the 4/3 route I will wait a while to buy because it sounds like some new products might be coming out soon).

Thanks,  Glenn

Too many variables.

Which DSLR

Which lenses

What type of photography.

An OM-D with good glass will scare the hell out of a good DSLR with bad glass.

A good DSLR with high end glass will probably give better IQ than the OM-D with good glass.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads