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

Started May 13, 2013 | Discussions
philosomatographer
Regular MemberPosts: 486Gear list
Like?
OM-D E-M5 vs E-5 (build quality)
May 13, 2013

Hi all,

As somebody with a pretty hefty investment into SHG lenses, and an almost daily user of the E-5, I am - as many of you surely are - naturally inclined towards an interest in the OM-D body as a means of getting the best possible out of our lenses, until Olympus offers a "professional" solution.

I've tinkered with the OM-D before, but this past weekend, I borrowed an E-M5 for an extended period of time, to get a very good feel for it, and it'a handling with the larger four thirds lenses, etc.

First of all, the additional battery grip is indispensible - it makes the little OM-D most pleasant to hold.

Secondly, the electronic viewfinder has a couple of very compelling aspects that make up for the loss of "definition" and "naturality" when compared to the big glass prism of the E-5. Most profound is the ability to "see" the true depth of field - something that the Lumi-Micron matte screen in the E-5 precludes. It's quite something to be able to really see the shallow depth of field of the f/2.0 lenses in the viewfinder. Together with the handy automatic focus-assist magnification, it's a wonderful compositional experience for static subjects, one I could get used to. If the next-generation of Olympus' EVF is anywhere near as good as Sony's brilliant EVF in the Nex-7/A99, I could live with it. A stabilised view when looking through a telephoto lens also fondly reminds of my Canon EF days

What shocked me most of all, upon picking up my E-5 again, is the dramatic build quality difference between the two. It's not subtle - it's absolutely evident. I'm not only talking of "superficial" measures such as heft/weight, but every aspect of operation - from the buttons to the articulating screen - feels industrial-grade by comparison the E-M5's flimsy, wobbly little dials and buttons. If you think an E-M5 is built "well", you have never used a properly-built camera before. It's a pity that Olympus resurrected the spirit of the professional-grade OM series in this decidedly cheapened camera.

Build quality is not everything, but the lacking build of the E-M5 is a sure indication that this is squarely a middle-range camera (and at the price - how could it otherwise?) and that we are - one hopes - still to see a much more substantial professional model.

There is a school of thought that digital cameras are inherently disposable - but I disagree. The E-5 produces 1m-wide prints that easily put most other systems to shame for detail/contrast, and this will not change for as long as the camera works. There are E-1's that have been in service for 10 years or so, and there is no reasong to believe that the tank of an E-5 can't do the same.

Ironically, I am very interested in acquiring an OM-D in anyway, to serve my "static" needs. The SHG lenses do not even break a sweat at any aperture on the better, 16MP sensor, which means the extra resolution and lower noise can be great for certain subjects. The autofocusing (MMF-3 adaptor) is abysmally-slow and inaccurate, but the manual focusing is excellent.

 philosomatographer's gear list:philosomatographer's gear list
Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm 1:4.0
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-5 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Sony Alpha NEX-7
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
RoelHendrickx
Forum ProPosts: 22,789
Like?
agree on some points but not completely
In reply to philosomatographer, May 13, 2013

philosomatographer wrote:

Hi all,

As somebody with a pretty hefty investment into SHG lenses, and an almost daily user of the E-5, I am - as many of you surely are - naturally inclined towards an interest in the OM-D body as a means of getting the best possible out of our lenses, until Olympus offers a "professional" solution.

I've tinkered with the OM-D before, but this past weekend, I borrowed an E-M5 for an extended period of time, to get a very good feel for it, and it'a handling with the larger four thirds lenses, etc.

First of all, the additional battery grip is indispensible - it makes the little OM-D most pleasant to hold.

I agree. I leave the horizontal part of the grip off only when I want the camera to be really really small (e.g. with the 45mm prime).  Otherwise it is always on.  The vertical part much less so.

Secondly, the electronic viewfinder has a couple of very compelling aspects that make up for the loss of "definition" and "naturality" when compared to the big glass prism of the E-5. Most profound is the ability to "see" the true depth of field - something that the Lumi-Micron matte screen in the E-5 precludes. It's quite something to be able to really see the shallow depth of field of the f/2.0 lenses in the viewfinder. Together with the handy automatic focus-assist magnification, it's a wonderful compositional experience for static subjects, one I could get used to. If the next-generation of Olympus' EVF is anywhere near as good as Sony's brilliant EVF in the Nex-7/A99, I could live with it. A stabilised view when looking through a telephoto lens also fondly reminds of my Canon EF days

I've gotten used to the EVF and am now totally used to, and happy with it.

Apart from what you mention, another great thing is the brightening of the image in low light situations : much easier to focus.

What shocked me most of all, upon picking up my E-5 again, is the dramatic build quality difference between the two. It's not subtle - it's absolutely evident. I'm not only talking of "superficial" measures such as heft/weight, but every aspect of operation - from the buttons to the articulating screen - feels industrial-grade by comparison the E-M5's flimsy, wobbly little dials and buttons. If you think an E-M5 is built "well", you have never used a properly-built camera before. It's a pity that Olympus resurrected the spirit of the professional-grade OM series in this decidedly cheapened camera.

I feel the E-M5 is not badly built for its price range.  It feels reasonably solid, especially compared to bodies that are all plastic.  The buttons feel "flimsy"mostly because they are so small.  But mine have seen a lot of use of the past years and still give the same tactile response.

OTOH, I would not feel totally confident bumping the E-M5 into walls and rocks like I do with my E-3 and E-5.

Build quality is not everything, but the lacking build of the E-M5 is a sure indication that this is squarely a middle-range camera (and at the price - how could it otherwise?) and that we are - one hopes - still to see a much more substantial professional model.

I would not mind the next model to be beefed up a little.

In fact, that would probably be better for use with large heavy lenses.

And it would make a nice two-camera combo with a lighter but still solid E-M5.

There is a school of thought that digital cameras are inherently disposable - but I disagree. The E-5 produces 1m-wide prints that easily put most other systems to shame for detail/contrast, and this will not change for as long as the camera works. There are E-1's that have been in service for 10 years or so, and there is no reasong to believe that the tank of an E-5 can't do the same.

In the end, the camera bodies ARE dispensable, but not for everyone at the same rate.

Lenses are "forever" (more or less).

Ironically, I am very interested in acquiring an OM-D in anyway, to serve my "static" needs. The SHG lenses do not even break a sweat at any aperture on the better, 16MP sensor, which means the extra resolution and lower noise can be great for certain subjects. The autofocusing (MMF-3 adaptor) is abysmally-slow and inaccurate, but the manual focusing is excellent.

I would not call AF abysmally slow.  Just not fast enough in some circumstances.

I've used a number of FT lenses on my E-M5 without many AF issues (in circumstances where speed is not essential).  The ZD70-300 gives average to OK results in good light.

-- hide signature --

Roel Hendrickx
lots of images: www.roelh.zenfolio.com
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
daddyo
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,518Gear list
Like?
Re: OM-D E-M5 vs E-5 (build quality)
In reply to philosomatographer, May 13, 2013

I certainly won't argue with you about the difference is built quality. The E-5 is simply a sledge hammer disguised as a camera:-) It is amazingly well built.

I also would agree that Olympus would be very wise to tighten up some of the controls on the next iteration of the OMD line. One of my biggest niggles with the E-M5 is that it's a bit too easy to inadvertently change a setting such as the focus target position, or exposure comp.

All that said, however, I have pretty much abandoned use of my E-5 in favor of the much smaller, lighter form factor of the whole E-M5 system. I am using my E-M5's now almost exclusively for my professional work -- and I've not experienced any malfunctions or breakage issues. So, while the build quality is not up to the E-5, it is still very good in my opinion.

With the introduction of the new E-P5, the future looks very bright for the next OMD model. 1/8000 Sec shutter speed, built in Wi-Fi, the new accessory VF-4 which will certainly be incorporated into the next OMD model, 1/320 Sec flash Sycnh, improved IBIS, selectable 100 ISO setting, etc. all mean an E-M5 replacement that will be a stunning performer.

If Olympus can add a PDAF fix to allow fast focusing of 4/3 ZD lenses -- then they will certainly have a winner.

The EVF issue is an interesting one. Initially, I was concerned that I would not like the EVF. However, after a very short time of using it I find that I can switch back and forth from optical to EVF without any problem. As you pointed out, there are some real advantages to shooting with EVF -- the biggest being WYSIWYG viewing in any of the 'auto' exposure modes. Being able to preview WB, Exposure, DOF, live histogram, IBIS effect, etc. in the viewfinder is a great benefit.

God Bless,

Greg

www.imagismphotos.com

www.mccroskery.zenfolio.com

www.pbase.com/daddyo

 daddyo's gear list:daddyo's gear list
Olympus 12-40mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
pris
Senior MemberPosts: 2,191
Like?
Re: OM-D E-M5 vs E-5 (build quality)
In reply to daddyo, May 13, 2013

daddyo wrote:

there are some real advantages to shooting with EVF -- the biggest being WYSIWYG viewing in any of the 'auto' exposure modes. Being able to preview WB, Exposure, DOF, live histogram, IBIS effect, etc. in the viewfinder is a great benefit.

All these things you listed make the possibility of a hybrid E-5 successor even more exciting that a straight DSLR. Imagine E-30-like size/weight, E-5-like built, stuffed with all these technological goodies plus couple more reserved for the flagship, even more refined IQ... if that's not salivation-inducing perspective, I don't know what is.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Skeeterbytes
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,820Gear list
Like?
Re: OM-D E-M5 vs E-5 (build quality)
In reply to philosomatographer, May 13, 2013

Everything seems well covered. Want to add I think Oly's approach to weatherproof controls lends to the indistinct feel on both models, but the very small E-M5 buttons accentuate the issue. Compared to, say, the E-30 with its very concise tactile feedback, the E-5 and E-M5 buttons often require me to look at the display to verify the command. Certainly an area they could improve; I just don't know what the technical options are.

There aren't any lenses I won't use on the E-M5, but in practice only a few I use frequently.

Cheers,

Rick

-- hide signature --

"Whiskey is for drinking, digicams are for fighting over."
—Mark Twain

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
philosomatographer
Regular MemberPosts: 486Gear list
Like?
Re: OM-D E-M5 vs E-5 (build quality)
In reply to pris, May 13, 2013

pris wrote:

All these things you listed make the possibility of a hybrid E-5 successor even more exciting that a straight DSLR. Imagine E-30-like size/weight, E-5-like built, stuffed with all these technological goodies plus couple more reserved for the flagship, even more refined IQ... if that's not salivation-inducing perspective, I don't know what is.

I agree completely! The OM-D is almost irresistable as it is - the prospects of a slightly beefed-up successor (or even a new model pitched at a higher price range), together with the new EVF and a solution to better autofocusing would be utterly enticing.

I have no delusions that there is a future in conventional SLRs, and such a model would satisfy my needs completely. The E-M5 comes very close, had the focusing been better.

 philosomatographer's gear list:philosomatographer's gear list
Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm 1:4.0
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
philosomatographer
Regular MemberPosts: 486Gear list
Like?
Re: agree on some points but not completely
In reply to RoelHendrickx, May 13, 2013
I would not call AF abysmally slow.  Just not fast enough in some circumstances.

I've used a number of FT lenses on my E-M5 without many AF issues (in circumstances where speed is not essential).  The ZD70-300 gives average to OK results in good light.

You know, I think the experience with some of the newer standard-grade lenses - especially the ones optimised for CDAF - is possibly much better than with the Super High Grade f/2.0 zooms.

With my 35-100mm and the MMF-3, I cannot even lock focus on a person walking reasonably slowly. Situations like those are all that I would need AF for in the first place - almost any other situation would be better servied with manual-focusing in anyway.

So - with my lenses - I am not sure the autofocusing with the adaptor adds any value. It's a pity - if it were just a tad faster, I could live with it. I don't do sports, but when I need AF, I need it tio be fast for unplanned, spontaneous compositions.

Thanks for the reply! WRT to the controls, it's not just the size of the buttons - it's the "feel"... And the ease with which they can be accidentally activated. No such possibility with the weighted controls of the E-5.

 philosomatographer's gear list:philosomatographer's gear list
Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm 1:4.0
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 24,681
Like?
Hmm.
In reply to philosomatographer, May 13, 2013

philosomatographer wrote:

The E-5 produces 1m-wide prints that easily put most other systems to shame for detail/contrast, and this will not change for as long as the camera works.

I assume that, by "most other systems", you are acknowledging that cell phones and compacts outnumber DSLRs by a massive margin.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roger Engelken
Senior MemberPosts: 2,943Gear list
Like?
Re: OM-D E-M5 vs E-5 (build quality)
In reply to pris, May 14, 2013

pris wrote:

daddyo wrote:

there are some real advantages to shooting with EVF -- the biggest being WYSIWYG viewing in any of the 'auto' exposure modes. Being able to preview WB, Exposure, DOF, live histogram, IBIS effect, etc. in the viewfinder is a great benefit.

All these things you listed make the possibility of a hybrid E-5 successor even more exciting that a straight DSLR. Imagine E-30-like size/weight, E-5-like built, stuffed with all these technological goodies plus couple more reserved for the flagship, even more refined IQ... if that's not salivation-inducing perspective, I don't know what is.

Now stop that!  Cruel and inhumane punishment to salivate for any extended period of time!  

 Roger Engelken's gear list:Roger Engelken's gear list
Olympus TG-830 iHS Olympus E-1 Olympus E-420 Olympus E-30 Olympus E-620 +22 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
pris
Senior MemberPosts: 2,191
Like?
Re: OM-D E-M5 vs E-5 (build quality)
In reply to Roger Engelken, May 14, 2013

Roger Engelken wrote:

pris wrote:

daddyo wrote:

there are some real advantages to shooting with EVF -- the biggest being WYSIWYG viewing in any of the 'auto' exposure modes. Being able to preview WB, Exposure, DOF, live histogram, IBIS effect, etc. in the viewfinder is a great benefit.

All these things you listed make the possibility of a hybrid E-5 successor even more exciting that a straight DSLR. Imagine E-30-like size/weight, E-5-like built, stuffed with all these technological goodies plus couple more reserved for the flagship, even more refined IQ... if that's not salivation-inducing perspective, I don't know what is.

Now stop that!  Cruel and inhumane punishment to salivate for any extended period of time!  

<<< hangs his head in a shame and promises not to do that anymore >>>

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
NoDOF
New MemberPosts: 5
Like?
Re: OM-D E-M5 vs E-5 (build quality)
In reply to philosomatographer, May 14, 2013

Hi,

I have no experience with the E-5, so I can't compare the two. But I do own a Canon 1DS MKII, which is a very professional camera, and I'm not disappointed by the E-M5's build quality. On the contrary, it was one of the factors that led me to buy one, instead of a Fuji. Some of the buttons are annoyingly small, and the kit lens feels cheap, but the body is fine by me.

But, I do think there may be an issue with the quality of the HLD-6 battery grip. My otherwise perfectly well-behaved E-M5 turns into a willful, obnoxious beast with a mind of its own when the grip is attached. It may or may not respond to the shutter button being depressed. At other times, it will randomly fire the shutter when my finger is nowhere near the button. Or when my finger barely brushes the button, far too lightly to engage the normal half-way action.

I am planning to run the Olympus program to check whether there is a firmware upgrade out there, in the hope that this will cure the incompatibility. If not, the HLD-6 goes back to Olympus for repair or replacement, under warranty.

I do like the battery grip, but I do not think it's absolutely necessary, as most people claim. The E-M5 body is small, but it's well-designed for ergonomics, with the thumb "pad" on the back and the finger ridge on the front. The add-on grip does allow a more secure hold, I guess, but it also takes away part of the charm of the system, for me; the small size.

Just my opinion, but I thought you might like to know about the grip issues.

Dave

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Just Having Fun
Senior MemberPosts: 3,869
Like?
Yeah, that was an overboard fan quote if I ever saw one :)
In reply to Great Bustard, May 14, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

philosomatographer wrote:

The E-5 produces 1m-wide prints that easily put most other systems to shame for detail/contrast, and this will not change for as long as the camera works.

I assume that, by "most other systems", you are acknowledging that cell phones and compacts outnumber DSLRs by a massive margin.

The E-5 is a fine, solid camera, but all of Oly's great processing can't bring the that circa 2008 sensor into the present.

For fun, let's see how the E-5 compares to a "last year's model" P&S...

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/812%7C0/(brand)/Sony/(appareil2)/682%7C0/(brand2)/Olympus

As for resolution, here is what DPR says:

E-5: our chart are accurately described by the E-5 up to approximately 2600Lph

Year old P&S: The RX100 is capturing detail comfortably beyond 2600 lph

OK, yeah, it's fun to think the E-5 has more detail and such, but silly sites like Dxo and DPR have to go and ruin everything!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Geo Wharton
Contributing MemberPosts: 810Gear list
Like?
Re: OM-D E-M5 vs E-5 (build quality)
In reply to philosomatographer, May 14, 2013

Build quality is not everything, but the lacking build of the E-M5 is a sure indication that this is squarely a middle-range camera (and at the price - how could it otherwise?) and that we are - one hopes - still to see a much more substantial professional model.

Olympus stated when the EM-5 was introduced that it was not a professional camera, and that one would come later.

 Geo Wharton's gear list:Geo Wharton's gear list
Olympus Stylus 770 SW Olympus E-5 Olympus PEN E-PM1 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro +17 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
boggis the cat
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,295Gear list
Like?
You shouldn't be making accusations
In reply to Just Having Fun, May 14, 2013

Just Having Fun wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

philosomatographer wrote:

The E-5 produces 1m-wide prints that easily put most other systems to shame for detail/contrast, and this will not change for as long as the camera works.

I assume that, by "most other systems", you are acknowledging that cell phones and compacts outnumber DSLRs by a massive margin.

The E-5 is a fine, solid camera, but all of Oly's great processing can't bring the that circa 2008 sensor into the present.

For fun, let's see how the E-5 compares to a "last year's model" P&S...

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/812%7C0/(brand)/Sony/(appareil2)/682%7C0/(brand2)/Olympus

DxO doesn't measure detail/contrast.

As for resolution, here is what DPR says:

E-5: our chart are accurately described by the E-5 up to approximately 2600Lph

Actual quote:

Even in JPEG mode, all nine lines of our chart are accurately described by the E-5 up to approximately 2600Lph, which represents excellent performance.

From further up:

Considering its relatively modest pixel count,at ISO the E-5 is capable of describing an extraordinary amount of detail, both in JPEG and RAW files.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse5/6

Year old P&S: The RX100 is capturing detail comfortably beyond 2600 lph

OK, yeah, it's fun to think the E-5 has more detail and such, but silly sites like Dxo and DPR have to go and ruin everything!

The RX100 has a higher pixel count, at 20.2 MPixels v 12.3 MPixel, but a smaller sensor.

What DPR actually said:

The RX100 is capturing detail comfortably beyond 2600 lph, which is the sort of figure you'd expect of a camera with 3648 vertical pixels.

...

Real-world tests, in which detail is often conveyed with more subtle tones, aren't quite as spectacular as this test chart result would suggest.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100/9

Now, why did you feel the need to lie by mis-quotation?  The E-5 is due for replacement and was using an older sensor when it was released, while the RX100 is a new (August 2012) high-end compact.  I don't see how they even relate, really.

 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
philosomatographer
Regular MemberPosts: 486Gear list
Like?
Re: OM-D E-M5 vs E-5 (build quality)
In reply to NoDOF, May 14, 2013

NoDOF wrote:

Hi,

I have no experience with the E-5, so I can't compare the two. But I do own a Canon 1DS MKII, which is a very professional camera, and I'm not disappointed by the E-M5's build quality. On the contrary, it was one of the factors that led me to buy one, instead of a Fuji. Some of the buttons are annoyingly small, and the kit lens feels cheap, but the body is fine by me.

But, I do think there may be an issue with the quality of the HLD-6 battery grip. My otherwise perfectly well-behaved E-M5 turns into a willful, obnoxious beast with a mind of its own when the grip is attached. It may or may not respond to the shutter button being depressed. At other times, it will randomly fire the shutter when my finger is nowhere near the button. Or when my finger barely brushes the button, far too lightly to engage the normal half-way action.

I am planning to run the Olympus program to check whether there is a firmware upgrade out there, in the hope that this will cure the incompatibility. If not, the HLD-6 goes back to Olympus for repair or replacement, under warranty.

I do like the battery grip, but I do not think it's absolutely necessary, as most people claim. The E-M5 body is small, but it's well-designed for ergonomics, with the thumb "pad" on the back and the finger ridge on the front. The add-on grip does allow a more secure hold, I guess, but it also takes away part of the charm of the system, for me; the small size.

Just my opinion, but I thought you might like to know about the grip issues.

Dave

Thanks for that, Dave. The E-M5 I borrowed worked 100% with the grip. By the way, when fitted with the large four thirds SHG lenses, I do consider the grip to be an absolute must!

 philosomatographer's gear list:philosomatographer's gear list
Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm 1:4.0
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
philosomatographer
Regular MemberPosts: 486Gear list
Like?
Re: OM-D E-M5 vs E-5 (build quality)
In reply to Geo Wharton, May 14, 2013

Geo Wharton wrote:

Build quality is not everything, but the lacking build of the E-M5 is a sure indication that this is squarely a middle-range camera (and at the price - how could it otherwise?) and that we are - one hopes - still to see a much more substantial professional model.

Olympus stated when the EM-5 was introduced that it was not a professional camera, and that one would come later.

I can't wait to see what form that may take... When Olympus makes a professional camera, it certainly feels that way (indisputably).

 philosomatographer's gear list:philosomatographer's gear list
Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm 1:4.0
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
philosomatographer
Regular MemberPosts: 486Gear list
Like?
Re: Yeah, that was an overboard fan quote if I ever saw one :)
In reply to Just Having Fun, May 14, 2013
OK, yeah, it's fun to think the E-5 has more detail and such, but silly sites like Dxo and DPR have to go and ruin everything!

It's fun to think that armchair reading of photography websites - instead of producing actual prints - is an important measure of reality, but then expert printers have to go and ruin everything

I have my prints made by one of the most respected labs in Johannesburg - and indeed the only one that can also still process my large-format slides (4x5 E6). For fun, I had them make 1.1m prints of these two images, jut to see what the four thirds system can do.

They were most impressed with the output, and almost refused to believe that these were produced by such a small and ageing sensor. You see, in a print this size, what matters as much is the abilities of the lens (and very careful processing to get the most out of that 12MP resolution - which is enough for most large prints).

I am the only customer of theirs that uses Olympus gear (it's mostly Nikon/Canon, and then the larger formats). You may dismiss this, but the printer claims that the contrast of the finest details, and the resolution across the image, is truly exceptional for a consumer-grade camera (meaning anything less than medium- or large format). He's never seen better from a DSLR (keeping the 12MP resolution in mind.

There is so much more to an image than the DxoMark of the sensor. The fact that you choose to not believe this possibility, but to post another off-topic flamebait comparison (as you so choose to do with many of my threads) instead of just letting it go is a little bit sad.

Oh well - you go and nurse your "hurt ego", I will enjoy my large prints, thank you...

 philosomatographer's gear list:philosomatographer's gear list
Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm 1:4.0
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rovingtim
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,234
Like?
good processing
In reply to philosomatographer, May 14, 2013

This suggests you have very good processing techniques. Either that, or this lab's other customers don't know what they are doing. (assuming the lab is not just blowing sunshine up the *** of a customer)

Just after the E3 was released, Getty did their own propriety in-house tests of the E3. The focus of their tests was to determine RAW file quality compared to other cameras. Their conclusion was the resolution was acceptable (the E5 improves this) but the files tended to be weak compared to other cameras in terms of colour depth and contrast (similar sensor tech as the E5). They followed that by saying acceptable files could be created in post.

So, while I'm sure your lab means well, it is possible Getty knows more about files.

Unless proven otherwise, I'll go with you are exceptionally good at processing your files.

(PS -- to my knowledge, Getty didn't test the E5)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 24,681
Like?
So, when you said...
In reply to philosomatographer, May 14, 2013

philosomatographer wrote:

OK, yeah, it's fun to think the E-5 has more detail and such, but silly sites like Dxo and DPR have to go and ruin everything!

It's fun to think that armchair reading of photography websites - instead of producing actual prints - is an important measure of reality, but then expert printers have to go and ruin everything

I have my prints made by one of the most respected labs in Johannesburg - and indeed the only one that can also still process my large-format slides (4x5 E6). For fun, I had them make 1.1m prints of these two images, jut to see what the four thirds system can do.

They were most impressed with the output, and almost refused to believe that these were produced by such a small and ageing sensor. You see, in a print this size, what matters as much is the abilities of the lens (and very careful processing to get the most out of that 12MP resolution - which is enough for most large prints).

...in your OP:

The E-5 produces 1m-wide prints that easily put most other systems to shame for detail/contrast

Which systems, in particular, are you saying would have been "put to shame" had the above photos been taken with them?

For example, would the Canon 60D have been "put to shame"?  The Nikon D7000?  The Pentax K5?  The Sony NEX 7?  Or are we talking non-DSLR / mirrorless systems, since cell phones and compacts outnumber DSLRs by far?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Just Having Fun
Senior MemberPosts: 3,869
Like?
Hmmm, why are you being misleading?
In reply to boggis the cat, May 14, 2013

boggis the cat wrote:

Just Having Fun wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

philosomatographer wrote:

The E-5 produces 1m-wide prints that easily put most other systems to shame for detail/contrast, and this will not change for as long as the camera works.

I assume that, by "most other systems", you are acknowledging that cell phones and compacts outnumber DSLRs by a massive margin.

The E-5 is a fine, solid camera, but all of Oly's great processing can't bring the that circa 2008 sensor into the present.

For fun, let's see how the E-5 compares to a "last year's model" P&S...

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/812%7C0/(brand)/Sony/(appareil2)/682%7C0/(brand2)/Olympus

DxO doesn't measure detail/contrast.

Which is why I provided quotes from DPR on detail.  But clearly for all else DxO shows who is the winner in their measurements, right?  As for contrast, doesn't DR play a role?  How does contrast look in the shadows/highlights of an image with very poor DR?

As for resolution, here is what DPR says:

E-5: our chart are accurately described by the E-5 up to approximately 2600Lph

Actual quote:

Even in JPEG mode, all nine lines of our chart are accurately described by the E-5 up to approximately 2600Lph, which represents excellent performance.

From further up:

Considering its relatively modest pixel count,at ISO the E-5 is capable of describing an extraordinary amount of detail, both in JPEG and RAW files.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse5/6

Year old P&S: The RX100 is capturing detail comfortably beyond 2600 lph

OK, yeah, it's fun to think the E-5 has more detail and such, but silly sites like Dxo and DPR have to go and ruin everything!

The RX100 has a higher pixel count, at 20.2 MPixels v 12.3 MPixel, but a smaller sensor.

What DPR actually said:

The RX100 is capturing detail comfortably beyond 2600 lph, which is the sort of figure you'd expect of a camera with 3648 vertical pixels.

...


Now, why did you feel the need to lie by mis-quotation?

Where did I lie or misquote?  DPR said the RX100 could capture beyond 2600 lph.  Is that a "lie" or is that a fact?  DPR said, the E-5 could capture up to approximately 2600Lph.  Is that a "lie" or fact?

So yes, as YOU point out the smaller sensor camera equals (or suprasses depending how you read it) the E-5 in detail.   Nowhere does DPR contradict what I said and claim the E-5 put the RX100 "shame for detail".

So the reality is the E-5 has a larger sensor with less pixels than the RX100 P&S...and it does NOT "put it to shame" for detail/contrast like that post said...in fact we BOTH agree detail about equal, and we BOTH agree the RX100 wins for DR, color depth and noise.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads