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

Started 11 months ago | Discussions
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 20,853
Like?
Re: Oh, here we go again...
In reply to Just Having Fun, 11 months ago

Just Having Fun wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

You know, it hasn't been demonstrated.  If I'm in error on that point, please link me to the photos where the E5 system put the other systems "to shame".

What he is saying is the Oly lenses are really good, and it is a real shame there is no DSLR better than the E-5 to put them on.

Hmm.  Seemed to me he was saying something stronger.  Something like, "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"

Of course you can buy a refurbished E-PM2 for about $300 and use those Oly lenses, and especially at ISOs above 800, it will put the E-5 to shame.

I'm thinking philosomatographer would disagree.

(In low light at ISO400 noise really starts destroying detail with the E-5 and DR is  reduced by then, as DPR says, "The drop in critical sharpness and detail resolution from ISO 400-800, for example, is more pronounced than we've come to expect, and by the time you get up to ISO 1600 and beyond, noise levels are disappointingly high") - Wow, a drop in detail at ISO400? So does that mean by ISO 800 you are only getting around 8MP resolution even with those expensive lenses?

I'm thinking philosomatographer would either disagree, or say that "real photography" is done at base ISO.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
philosomatographer
Regular MemberPosts: 478Gear list
Like?
Actually, I agree...
In reply to Great Bustard, 11 months ago

Great Bustard wrote:

Just Having Fun wrote:

Of course you can buy a refurbished E-PM2 for about $300 and use those Oly lenses, and especially at ISOs above 800, it will put the E-5 to shame.

I'm thinking philosomatographer would disagree.

Why would you think that? I agree 100%. The SHG lenses are absolutely starved for a better sensor. The slightly higher resolution, and the 1-2 stops better signal-to-noise ratio, of the OM-D E-M5 yields an appreciably better image, no doubt. The overall handling is just too quirky/slow (focusing, etc) for the benefits to be worth it for me. The E-5 was designed to handle well with these lenses, not the E-M5.

(In low light at ISO400 noise really starts destroying detail with the E-5 and DR is  reduced by then, as DPR says, "The drop in critical sharpness and detail resolution from ISO 400-800, for example, is more pronounced than we've come to expect, and by the time you get up to ISO 1600 and beyond, noise levels are disappointingly high") - Wow, a drop in detail at ISO400? So does that mean by ISO 800 you are only getting around 8MP resolution even with those expensive lenses?

I'm thinking philosomatographer would either disagree, or say that "real photography" is done at base ISO.

Again, not at all. ISO200 just happens to be absolutely sufficient for me, since I have image-stabilisation at f/2.0 with sharpness and contrast that is far superiour to most other lenses. The equivalence equation balances in my favour for my needs.

As I have said before, I shoot mostly film, so image-stabilised ISO200 at f/2.0 is already dramatically "faster" than what I usually have with, say, my Mamiya RB67 (e.g. ISO400, f/4.5, no I.S.) or when I shoot Pan F in my Nikon F (usually at ISO32).

 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: 20,853
Like?
Re: Actually, I agree...
In reply to philosomatographer, 11 months ago

philosomatographer wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Just Having Fun wrote:

Of course you can buy a refurbished E-PM2 for about $300 and use those Oly lenses, and especially at ISOs above 800, it will put the E-5 to shame.

I'm thinking philosomatographer would disagree.

Why would you think that? I agree 100%. The SHG lenses are absolutely starved for a better sensor. The slightly higher resolution, and the 1-2 stops better signal-to-noise ratio, of the OM-D E-M5 yields an appreciably better image, no doubt. The overall handling is just too quirky/slow (focusing, etc) for the benefits to be worth it for me. The E-5 was designed to handle well with these lenses, not the E-M5.

So what would your take be on the following comment:

I defy anyone to tell the difference with the naked eye between the printed images I have taken with my "antique" 5MP E-1 and those taken with my 10 MP E-510 or 12 MP E-30.

I'm thinking that if the difference between the E1 and E30 is not visible to the naked eye, then the same would be true for the E5 vs EM5.  However, if you disagree with the above statement, then, yes, I understand, and agree with, what you're saying.

(In low light at ISO400 noise really starts destroying detail with the E-5 and DR is  reduced by then, as DPR says, "The drop in critical sharpness and detail resolution from ISO 400-800, for example, is more pronounced than we've come to expect, and by the time you get up to ISO 1600 and beyond, noise levels are disappointingly high") - Wow, a drop in detail at ISO400? So does that mean by ISO 800 you are only getting around 8MP resolution even with those expensive lenses?

I'm thinking philosomatographer would either disagree, or say that "real photography" is done at base ISO.

Again, not at all. ISO200 just happens to be absolutely sufficient for me, since I have image-stabilisation at f/2.0 with sharpness and contrast that is far superiour to most other lenses.

I don't think anyone denies that the 14-35 / 2 is superior to other Olympus zooms in that range.

The equivalence equation balances in my favour for my needs.

Well, it depends on what your specific needs are.  For example, if we're talking the Tamron 24-70 / 2.8 VC and Tamron 70-200 / 2.8 VC on a D600 compared to a 14-35 / 2 and 35-100 / 2 on an E5, I'm curious how the equivalence equation balances in your favor.

As I have said before, I shoot mostly film, so image-stabilised ISO200 at f/2.0 is already dramatically "faster" than what I usually have with, say, my Mamiya RB67 (e.g. ISO400, f/4.5, no I.S.) or when I shoot Pan F in my Nikon F (usually at ISO32).

Digital is indeed significantly less noisy than film for any given ISO.  However, larger format film likely has the edge, in terms of IQ, when it comes to base ISO photography.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John King
Forum ProPosts: 12,788Gear list
Like?
Please do not misrepresent what I have said, Joe ...
In reply to Great Bustard, 11 months ago

Great Bustard wrote:

philosomatographer wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Just Having Fun wrote:

Of course you can buy a refurbished E-PM2 for about $300 and use those Oly lenses, and especially at ISOs above 800, it will put the E-5 to shame.

I'm thinking philosomatographer would disagree.

Why would you think that? I agree 100%. The SHG lenses are absolutely starved for a better sensor. The slightly higher resolution, and the 1-2 stops better signal-to-noise ratio, of the OM-D E-M5 yields an appreciably better image, no doubt. The overall handling is just too quirky/slow (focusing, etc) for the benefits to be worth it for me. The E-5 was designed to handle well with these lenses, not the E-M5.

So what would your take be on the following comment:

I defy anyone to tell the difference with the naked eye between the printed images I have taken with my "antique" 5MP E-1 and those taken with my 10 MP E-510 or 12 MP E-30.

I'm thinking that if the difference between the E1 and E30 is not visible to the naked eye, then the same would be true for the E5 vs EM5.  However, if you disagree with the above statement, then, yes, I understand, and agree with, what you're saying.

Joe, I do not take kindly to you misrepresenting what I have said, specially since that misrepresentation has already been pointed out to you a number of times now in the thread you have referenced above.

You seem to have a bit of a mental block about the words in bold in your "quote" from my post above. Leaving them out of your "summary" is disingenuous, to say the very least.

(In low light at ISO400 noise really starts destroying detail with the E-5 and DR is  reduced by then, as DPR says, "The drop in critical sharpness and detail resolution from ISO 400-800, for example, is more pronounced than we've come to expect, and by the time you get up to ISO 1600 and beyond, noise levels are disappointingly high") - Wow, a drop in detail at ISO400? So does that mean by ISO 800 you are only getting around 8MP resolution even with those expensive lenses?

I'm thinking philosomatographer would either disagree, or say that "real photography" is done at base ISO.

Again, not at all. ISO200 just happens to be absolutely sufficient for me, since I have image-stabilisation at f/2.0 with sharpness and contrast that is far superiour to most other lenses.

I don't think anyone denies that the 14-35 / 2 is superior to other Olympus zooms in that range.

The equivalence equation balances in my favour for my needs.

Well, it depends on what your specific needs are.  For example, if we're talking the Tamron 24-70 / 2.8 VC and Tamron 70-200 / 2.8 VC on a D600 compared to a 14-35 / 2 and 35-100 / 2 on an E5, I'm curious how the equivalence equation balances in your favor.

As I have said before, I shoot mostly film, so image-stabilised ISO200 at f/2.0 is already dramatically "faster" than what I usually have with, say, my Mamiya RB67 (e.g. ISO400, f/4.5, no I.S.) or when I shoot Pan F in my Nikon F (usually at ISO32).

Digital is indeed significantly less noisy than film for any given ISO.  However, larger format film likely has the edge, in terms of IQ, when it comes to base ISO photography.

 John King's gear list:John King's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-510 Olympus E-30
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 20,853
Like?
There was no misrepresentation...
In reply to John King, 11 months ago

John King wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

philosomatographer wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Just Having Fun wrote:

Of course you can buy a refurbished E-PM2 for about $300 and use those Oly lenses, and especially at ISOs above 800, it will put the E-5 to shame.

I'm thinking philosomatographer would disagree.

Why would you think that? I agree 100%. The SHG lenses are absolutely starved for a better sensor. The slightly higher resolution, and the 1-2 stops better signal-to-noise ratio, of the OM-D E-M5 yields an appreciably better image, no doubt. The overall handling is just too quirky/slow (focusing, etc) for the benefits to be worth it for me. The E-5 was designed to handle well with these lenses, not the E-M5.

So what would your take be on the following comment:

I defy anyone to tell the difference with the naked eye between the printed images I have taken with my "antique" 5MP E-1 and those taken with my 10 MP E-510 or 12 MP E-30.

I'm thinking that if the difference between the E1 and E30 is not visible to the naked eye, then the same would be true for the E5 vs EM5.  However, if you disagree with the above statement, then, yes, I understand, and agree with, what you're saying.

Joe, I do not take kindly to you misrepresenting what I have said, specially since that misrepresentation has already been pointed out to you a number of times now in the thread you have referenced above.

You seem to have a bit of a mental block about the words in bold in your "quote" from my post above. Leaving them out of your "summary" is disingenuous, to say the very least.

Here, I will quote the entire paragraph:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51474405

I defy anyone to tell the difference with the naked eye between the printed images I have taken with my "antique" 5MP E-1 and those taken with my 10 MP E-510 or 12 MP E-30. And just BTW, any modern printer (since around the year 2000) has well over 100x the resolution of the very best display screens ...

In what way was me quoting the first sentence a misrepresentation?  If you feel you were misrepresented, please clarify what you meant if it was different from what you wrote.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John King
Forum ProPosts: 12,788Gear list
Like?
Re: There was misrepresentation...
In reply to Great Bustard, 11 months ago

Great Bustard wrote:

John King wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

philosomatographer wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Just Having Fun wrote:

Of course you can buy a refurbished E-PM2 for about $300 and use those Oly lenses, and especially at ISOs above 800, it will put the E-5 to shame.

I'm thinking philosomatographer would disagree.

Why would you think that? I agree 100%. The SHG lenses are absolutely starved for a better sensor. The slightly higher resolution, and the 1-2 stops better signal-to-noise ratio, of the OM-D E-M5 yields an appreciably better image, no doubt. The overall handling is just too quirky/slow (focusing, etc) for the benefits to be worth it for me. The E-5 was designed to handle well with these lenses, not the E-M5.

So what would your take be on the following comment:

I defy anyone to tell the difference with the naked eye between the printed images I have taken with my "antique" 5MP E-1 and those taken with my 10 MP E-510 or 12 MP E-30.

I'm thinking that if the difference between the E1 and E30 is not visible to the naked eye, then the same would be true for the E5 vs EM5.  However, if you disagree with the above statement, then, yes, I understand, and agree with, what you're saying.

Joe, I do not take kindly to you misrepresenting what I have said, specially since that misrepresentation has already been pointed out to you a number of times now in the thread you have referenced above.

You seem to have a bit of a mental block about the words in bold in your "quote" from my post above. Leaving them out of your "summary" is disingenuous, to say the very least.

Here, I will quote the entire paragraph:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51474405

I defy anyone to tell the difference with the naked eye between the printed images I have taken with my "antique" 5MP E-1 and those taken with my 10 MP E-510 or 12 MP E-30. And just BTW, any modern printer (since around the year 2000) has well over 100x the resolution of the very best display screens ...

In what way was me quoting the first sentence a misrepresentation?  If you feel you were misrepresented, please clarify what you meant if it was different from what you wrote.

Your statement:

"I'm thinking that if the difference between the E1 and E30 is not visible to the naked eye, ... "

misrepresents what I said because I was talking about the differences between the printed image, not the difference on screen, or on the Internet, or when displayed on my mobile phone, or on my PDA, or in any other place.

OTOH, your statement about what I said is all-inclusive in a way that mine never was, nor was ever meant to be. That is why I qualified it in the way I did.

I also made no comments about ways in which cameras may differ, only that they can and do:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51462748

but it doesn't suit your purposes or objectives on this forum or on the µFT forum to be accurate ...

IOW, you are making mischief merely for its own sake. Business as usual for you.

 John King's gear list:John King's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-510 Olympus E-30
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
philosomatographer
Regular MemberPosts: 478Gear list
Like?
Re: Actually, I agree...
In reply to Great Bustard, 11 months ago

Great Bustard wrote:

The equivalence equation balances in my favour for my needs.

Well, it depends on what your specific needs are.  For example, if we're talking the Tamron 24-70 / 2.8 VC and Tamron 70-200 / 2.8 VC on a D600 compared to a 14-35 / 2 and 35-100 / 2 on an E5, I'm curious how the equivalence equation balances in your favor.

The Tamron is a C-grade optic that needs stopping down to f/5.6 to even approach the resolution of the ZD 14-35 at f/2.0, and simply never reaches the contrast or colour fidelity, that's how. LOL - comparing the two is quite a funny proposition Thanks for the laugh.

If you prefer a smooth but bland and mushy high-megapixel image, that's your business. I prefer an ultra-sharp, contrasty, vivid image at a lower resolution. With lots of PP and downscaling you could make your image look like that too, but I made a different choice.

This is all reminiscent over the outrage over how "poor" the images coming out of the Leica M9 is. Yet, when you actually print well-processed images from that camera, the image quality is spectacular, and the detail is usually superior to most prints made from most DSLRs.

Why? Because of superior lenses. Yet the M-system gets as much crap from Canon/Nikon owners as the Four Thirds people do. Oh well...

 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: 20,853
Like?
Re: There was misrepresentation...
In reply to John King, 11 months ago

John King wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

John King wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

philosomatographer wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Just Having Fun wrote:

Of course you can buy a refurbished E-PM2 for about $300 and use those Oly lenses, and especially at ISOs above 800, it will put the E-5 to shame.

I'm thinking philosomatographer would disagree.

Why would you think that? I agree 100%. The SHG lenses are absolutely starved for a better sensor. The slightly higher resolution, and the 1-2 stops better signal-to-noise ratio, of the OM-D E-M5 yields an appreciably better image, no doubt. The overall handling is just too quirky/slow (focusing, etc) for the benefits to be worth it for me. The E-5 was designed to handle well with these lenses, not the E-M5.

So what would your take be on the following comment:

I defy anyone to tell the difference with the naked eye between the printed images I have taken with my "antique" 5MP E-1 and those taken with my 10 MP E-510 or 12 MP E-30.

I'm thinking that if the difference between the E1 and E30 is not visible to the naked eye, then the same would be true for the E5 vs EM5.  However, if you disagree with the above statement, then, yes, I understand, and agree with, what you're saying.

Joe, I do not take kindly to you misrepresenting what I have said, specially since that misrepresentation has already been pointed out to you a number of times now in the thread you have referenced above.

You seem to have a bit of a mental block about the words in bold in your "quote" from my post above. Leaving them out of your "summary" is disingenuous, to say the very least.

Here, I will quote the entire paragraph:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51474405

I defy anyone to tell the difference with the naked eye between the printed images I have taken with my "antique" 5MP E-1 and those taken with my 10 MP E-510 or 12 MP E-30. And just BTW, any modern printer (since around the year 2000) has well over 100x the resolution of the very best display screens ...

In what way was me quoting the first sentence a misrepresentation?  If you feel you were misrepresented, please clarify what you meant if it was different from what you wrote.

Your statement:

"I'm thinking that if the difference between the E1 and E30 is not visible to the naked eye, ... "

misrepresents what I said because I was talking about the differences between the printed image, not the difference on screen, or on the Internet, or when displayed on my mobile phone, or on my PDA, or in any other place.

But that's what I meant -- the printed photo.  Where did I say, or imply, otherwise?

OTOH, your statement about what I said is all-inclusive in a way that mine never was, nor was ever meant to be. That is why I qualified it in the way I did.

I also made no comments about ways in which cameras may differ, only that they can and do:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51462748

but it doesn't suit your purposes or objectives on this forum or on the µFT forum to be accurate ...

IOW, you are making mischief merely for its own sake. Business as usual for you.

I specifically asked if you meant operation instead of IQ:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51474774

You are talking about operation, not IQ, here.  So, just to make sure, you are saying that the reason to choose one system over another is for operation, not IQ, except for extreme situations.  Do I have that right?

So, if I may ask, what constitutes "extreme situations"?  Low light?  If so, how low?  Large prints?  Other?

See?  I even mentioned prints directly.  Your response was:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51474924

No. Another example of your literal mindedness, Joe. Try thinking all the way to the corners of the box ... After you have mastered that part, try thinking outside of the box, square, circle, whatever ...

A question for you: How good is the IQ of a non-functional camera?

Are they the only two things you can think of?

I would also comment on your post/s in this thread that it appears that you are not here for reasons that have anything to do with the OP, or photography, AFAICS.

WTF?  So, no, you were not being misrepresented, and I went out of my way to give you every opportunity to explain in more detail.  Instead...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sergey_Green
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,133Gear list
Like?
Just few points
In reply to philosomatographer, 11 months ago

philosomatographer wrote:

The Tamron is a C-grade optic that needs stopping down to f/5.6 to even approach the resolution of the ZD 14-35 at f/2.0, and simply never reaches the contrast or colour fidelity, that's how. LOL - comparing the two is quite a funny proposition Thanks for the laugh.

Is not 14-54 what used to be Tamron? So 14-54 would be a C-grade lens just as well, or is it not so? (Hypothetically) mounting it on a high resolution full frame camera would not make any difference either, you say?

If you prefer a smooth but bland and mushy high-megapixel image, that's your business. I prefer an ultra-sharp, contrasty, vivid image at a lower resolution. With lots of PP and downscaling you could make your image look like that too, but I made a different choice.

When downsizing high resolution image to the current 12MPx size frame? - I don't think you will see much of mushiness in it, if there was any. From my observation.

-- hide signature --

- sergey

 Sergey_Green's gear list:Sergey_Green's gear list
Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 20,853
Like?
Re: Actually, I agree...
In reply to philosomatographer, 11 months ago

philosomatographer wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

The equivalence equation balances in my favour for my needs.

Well, it depends on what your specific needs are.  For example, if we're talking the Tamron 24-70 / 2.8 VC and Tamron 70-200 / 2.8 VC on a D600 compared to a 14-35 / 2 and 35-100 / 2 on an E5, I'm curious how the equivalence equation balances in your favor.

The Tamron is a C-grade optic that needs stopping down to f/5.6 to even approach the resolution of the ZD 14-35 at f/2.0, and simply never reaches the contrast or colour fidelity, that's how. LOL - comparing the two is quite a funny proposition Thanks for the laugh.

Hmm.  What's your souce on that?  I was thinking:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Tamron-SP-70-200mm-f2.8-Di-VC-USD-Canon-review-Excellent-Value-and-a-Great-All-Rounder/Conclusion

If you work with Canon camera body and you are looking for a “sport reportage” zoom then there are two that float to the surface as good choices to make: The Canon EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II USM or the Tamron SP 70-200mm f2.8 Di VC USD Canon. The Canon has a slight edge in sharpness and is more consistent across the range but it is much more expensive. The Tamron lens is very good and while it isn’t cheap it is exceptionally good value. If on the other hand your gadget bag contains Nikon or Sony cameras; and assuming that the performance of this very accomplished lens is similar in the Nikon and Sony versions to the results we achieved for the Canon version, then the decision should be much easier: Tamron all the way.

and:

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-70-200mm-f-2-8-di-vc-usd-lens-review-20774

This telephoto zoom from Tamron certainly delivers. Sharpness is excellent from maximum aperture through much of the zoom range, plus chromatic aberrations and distortion are kept well in check. The suggested retail price may come as a shock for many, who may be expecting this lens to be considerably cheaper than lenses from camera manufacturers. Even so, the performance of this lens is on a par with those lenses, and suggested price at launch is rarely the price a lens will eventually retail for.

and:

https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/telephoto/tamron-70-200mm-f2.8-sp-di-vc-usd-for-canon

Roger's Take

Roger Cicala

President of LensRentals.com

I call this one The Napoleon – it’s a bit short (of 200mm) but still kicks butt. The Tamron is very sharp throughout the zoom range, autofocuses much, much quicker than the older Tamron superzooms did, and the Vibration Control is excellent.

Is it as good as the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II? No, not quite. The Canon is one of the best zoom lenses ever made. But it’s close to that and less expensive. I don’t find it quite the great value for Canon shooters that I do for Nikon shooters, though. The price difference isn’t as great and the IS II is a bit better lens than the VR II. Still, the Tamron can save you some money and you won’t be disappointed in it, it’s excellent.

If you prefer a smooth but bland and mushy high-megapixel image, that's your business. I prefer an ultra-sharp, contrasty, vivid image at a lower resolution. With lots of PP and downscaling you could make your image look like that too, but I made a different choice.

So what comparison photos did you see that led you to that opinion?

This is all reminiscent over the outrage over how "poor" the images coming out of the Leica M9 is. Yet, when you actually print well-processed images from that camera, the image quality is spectacular, and the detail is usually superior to most prints made from most DSLRs.

Um, OK.  Is there anything other than your opinion to go with that "analysis"?  Or do we just invoke "the Leica Look" and leave it at that?

Why? Because of superior lenses. Yet the M-system gets as much crap from Canon/Nikon owners as the Four Thirds people do. Oh well...

I'm not sure how this conversation got shifted to Leica vs Canon, but, OK...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Raist3d
Forum ProPosts: 31,976Gear list
Like?
Re: Wow, you are extremely confused.
In reply to Just Having Fun, 11 months ago

Just Having Fun wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

Just Having Fun wrote:

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?

"The winner" meaning what, exactly?

DxO extracts information from raw data, then uses various methods to generate what it considers to be comparative numbers.  These don't necessarily mean a lot if you are interested in how a given photographic tool (body or lens) will perform.

SAY WHAT???  It will tell you which sensor/body will give you better DR, less noise, etc. (Agree on lenses)

Sadly, you are confused here because what they do test is the body/sensor combination for RAW output (what most of us use).  Their measurements do mean A LOT if you are interested in how a given photographic tool (body) will perform.

DPR back this up too,  Select the RX100 and E-5 in the their compare tool and set it to ISO6400 and RAW...then select any darker area.  It is not even close and the RX100 visually has more real-life detail (even with its lesser/cheap lens).

Now we get to the part that is really disturbing.  You keep calling people "liars" when they quote DPR measurements.

Again,

  • the E-5 they measured "up to approximately 2600Lph" resolution.
  • the RX100 they measured "comfortably beyond 2600 lph" resolution.

Those are called FACTS.  Yes, the RX100 has a higher MP sensor which explains the high resolution from the point and shoot.  Yes, the E-5 can give "the impression of resolution" that is NOT " 'true' detail" according to DPR.

I gotta admit, I have no idea how he gets the "RX100 comfortably beyond 2600..." with the "which is expected of a camera of xxxx resolution" - as an invalidation of the former claim in that paragraph. Well *duh* yes, that's how it achieves it. So? Surprise! No?

What nobody here is mentioning is the downright *nasty* banding the E-5 sensor has starting to show in as little as ISO 1600. God forbid if you need to raise shadows at high ISO's for whatever reason, though now there are some noise reduction plug ins/program that try to eliminate banding.

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Raist3d
Forum ProPosts: 31,976Gear list
Like?
Re: Yeah, that was an overboard fan quote if I ever saw one :)
In reply to philosomatographer, 11 months ago

While I agree with you that there's more to a simple number, truth is, many other systems have much better tonality, DR and details at least with some lens combinations than the E-5.

Olympus lenses are good, but he E_5 sensor is really holding it back. Nothing should prove this further than an OM-5- just put the very same 4/3rd lenses with an adapter and see for yourself.

Olympus vs Olympus body except one has a state of the art sensor while the other doesn't.  Oh , and that of course assumes you are not lifting shadows too much, shooting at the low ISO- then ok. God forbid you are doing work at higher ISO on the E-5 where banding shows up.

Finally you are taking the opinion of ONE printer. Could it be possible maybe other printers could have a different opinion?

I'll agree with you in the operating domain where the E-5 can do well with its sensor, an SHG lens plus the E-5 can produce outstanding output.  But that would be a very different thing to say from what you said and it's worth noting what range that operating domain has.  It's like the E-3 review at Luminous Landscape- 2nd opinion:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/E-3-Second.shtml

"Under ideal conditions, the E-3 produces absolutely stunning file quality."

"An E-3 frame shot at 1600ASA. 
Banding is manifesting itself quite obviously in the flat areas of the frame
and there is absolutely no latitude for pushing the exposure in post production."

The very same applies to the E-5, imho. (in fact, the banding could be worse)

I bet your printer would be surprised to see what a Fuji Xtrans camera can do, or hell, even the Pentax Q:

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Skeeterbytes
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,580
Like?
Re: OM-D E-M5 vs E-5 (build quality)
In reply to philosomatographer, 11 months ago

Did you ever have your question answered? I'm not seeing much discussion about E-5 vs. E-M5 build quality, but you've certainly attracted a flock of my ignore-birds.

Cheers,

Rick

-- hide signature --

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
boggis the cat
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,273Gear list
Like?
Re: OM-D E-M5 vs E-5 (build quality)
In reply to Skeeterbytes, 11 months ago

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Did you ever have your question answered? I'm not seeing much discussion about E-5 vs. E-M5 build quality, but you've certainly attracted a flock of my ignore-birds.

More people upset about the comment that an 'old' DSLR can still produce comparable images to anything new.  The 'flock' don't have either body, so it is unlikely that they could comment.

In my view, the E-M5 is pretty solid build-wise, and the 'spongy button' thing is something that I noted on the E-5.  Obviously the E-5 is much larger and solid feeling due to the extra heft, and I would expect it to do better if knocked around a lot.  OTOH, the E-M5 doesn't have a relatively fragile mirror present.

I don't have much complaints about either.  They are different beasts, and I'd expect the E-M5 to have a significant image quality edge at higher ISO settings (as is the case for low available light).

My preference for an upgrade would be for a cheaper option (an 'E-70'?) or a high-end MicroFT that can PDAF and is large enough to handle well with the 50-200.  We will likely get an E-7 at US$1700, and lots of whinging about how it uses the 'old' E-M5 sensor and isn't worth the money etc.

 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 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
goblin
Senior MemberPosts: 2,507Gear list
Like?
Re: OM-D E-M5 vs E-5 (build quality)
In reply to boggis the cat, 11 months ago

To add to my "E-M5 build quality review" - drop from chest level on vinyl floor, less than two days ago. Hit the ground then rolled several times, with 14mm 2.5 Panny attached.

The only scratch is on... ... ... the rubber thumbrest. It's like a little, 1.5mm cut. Other than that - nada. Fresh as a daisy.

 goblin's gear list:goblin's gear list
Ricoh GXR P10 28-300mm F3.5-5.6 VC Olympus E-1 Olympus E-3 Olympus E-330 Olympus E-400 +31 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sergey_Green
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,133Gear list
Like?
On full frame?
In reply to philosomatographer, 11 months ago

philosomatographer wrote:

The Tamron is a C-grade optic that needs stopping down to f/5.6 to even approach the resolution of the ZD 14-35 at f/2.0, and simply never reaches the contrast or colour fidelity, that's how. LOL - comparing the two is quite a funny proposition Thanks for the laugh.

It is not what the testers say

Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD on Canon EOS 5D Mark II

It is also known that different makers do intentionally produce different color renderings, and so there is no one better than the other. As far as the tamron goes, I saw them produce brighter and more vibrant tones, than other system (native) variants that I had. Vibrant tones do usually look attractive (juicy) in macro photography, closeups, flowers, etc..  whereas cooler hues are often better fit in portrait and even some landscape renderings. Most what you shoot today gets post-processed in one way or the other anyway (or preset in camera), so at the end it all makes very little difference if at all.

-- hide signature --

- sergey

 Sergey_Green's gear list:Sergey_Green's gear list
Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SuperAchromat
New MemberPosts: 12
Like?
Re: NOT nostalgia
In reply to philosomatographer, 11 months ago

I loved the E-5 body, the fit and comfort level.  I just wish (because like it or not, even a cheap Nikon D3200 with a good lens will clobber the E-5 and the OM-D certainly will when it comes to image quality) they would shoehorn the OM-D innerds into it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Nacha
Regular MemberPosts: 175Gear list
Like?
Re: build quailty very over-hyped...
In reply to philosomatographer, 11 months ago

in my opinion. both my e-1 and e-3 have broken and are useless. the e-1 flash card pin broke, and the lcd screen of the e-3 broke apart. both with less than 15,000 shutter activations, and with very light useage. mean while my consumer grade canon power shot g5 has over 20,000 activations and is going strong, and my pany fz20 still is working great. the E series may be built like tanks, but tanks are not very reliable.

 Nacha's gear list:Nacha's gear list
Olympus E-M1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
philosomatographer
Regular MemberPosts: 478Gear list
Like?
Re: On full frame?
In reply to Sergey_Green, 11 months ago

Sergey_Green wrote:

philosomatographer wrote:

The Tamron is a C-grade optic that needs stopping down to f/5.6 to even approach the resolution of the ZD 14-35 at f/2.0, and simply never reaches the contrast or colour fidelity, that's how. LOL - comparing the two is quite a funny proposition Thanks for the laugh.

It is not what the testers say

Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD on Canon EOS 5D Mark II

It is also known that different makers do intentionally produce different color renderings, and so there is no one better than the other. As far as the tamron goes, I saw them produce brighter and more vibrant tones, than other system (native) variants that I had. Vibrant tones do usually look attractive (juicy) in macro photography, closeups, flowers, etc..  whereas cooler hues are often better fit in portrait and even some landscape renderings. Most what you shoot today gets post-processed in one way or the other anyway (or preset in camera), so at the end it all makes very little difference if at all.

-- hide signature --

- sergey

Oh please, the sharpness and contrast is nowhere near in the same league. It distorts massively (2.5%+). Vignetting in the corners is immense (almost 3 stops!). Sergey, if you think this lens competes in the same space as - say - the Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0, you really know almost nothing about lenses.

Of course, you probably do know a thing or two - you are just here to troll. Enjoy your Tamroms and your Nikkors, I will enjoy my Zuikos.

 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: 478Gear list
Like?
Re: build quailty very over-hyped...
In reply to Nacha, 11 months ago

Nacha wrote:

in my opinion. both my e-1 and e-3 have broken and are useless. the e-1 flash card pin broke, and the lcd screen of the e-3 broke apart. both with less than 15,000 shutter activations, and with very light useage. mean while my consumer grade canon power shot g5 has over 20,000 activations and is going strong, and my pany fz20 still is working great. the E series may be built like tanks, but tanks are not very reliable.

My goodness, that's pretty alarming. Thank you for sharing that - I hope this is not a common ocurrence? I have to agree with you that build quality is often overrated. My brother shoots a plastic Canon EOS-350D from 2005 that's had a pretty rough life so far, and it's still going strong!

 philosomatographer's gear list:philosomatographer's gear list
Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm 1:4.0
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads