Sony A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM-1/5/10

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
captura
Forum ProPosts: 14,100Gear list
Like?
Sony A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM-1/5/10
5 months ago

noise?

ISO/resolution?

Color?

lenses?

handling?

AF?

Tracking?

Video?

Camera Labs repor, Sony Alpha A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM5 Noise RAW

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A6000/RAW_noise.shtml

Discussion?

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Samsung NX1000 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R +10 more
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Sony a6000
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
KwhyChang
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,149
Like?
Re: Sony A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM-1/5/10
In reply to captura, 5 months ago

Hi Steve,

Yeah, I read that yesterday and thought about providing a link...good that you did.

What was your impression of Laing's noise comments between the two systems?

-- hide signature --

Dave

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Vinylly
Contributing MemberPosts: 517
Like?
Re: Sony A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM-1/5/10
In reply to captura, 5 months ago

I couldn't see hardly any difference .

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
silps
Regular MemberPosts: 145Gear list
Like?
Re: Sony A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM-1/5/10
In reply to captura, 5 months ago

Shouldn't they have re-sized the Sony 24mp to match the 16mp of the Olympus to make the comparison more accurate?

As it stands, the crops of the Sony look more noisy to me but they are more magnified due to the extra pixels. The Sony looks much better at the 2 highest ISOs.

 silps's gear list:silps's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Apple iPhone 5 Google Nexus 4 Apple iPad 3G +WiFi
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alxy
Regular MemberPosts: 243Gear list
Like?
Re: Sony A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM-1/5/10
In reply to captura, 5 months ago

For me the lenses for Olympus (MFT):

200-600mm equivalent FF

14-24mm equivalent FF

There is no parallel of the first super-tele-zoom for Sony. And if it would be it would be much larger.

 Alxy's gear list:Alxy's gear list
Nikon D800E Canon EOS 5D Mark III Olympus E-M1 Sony Alpha 7 Fujifilm X-T1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bluevellet
Senior MemberPosts: 1,672Gear list
Like?
Re: Sony A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM-1/5/10
In reply to captura, 5 months ago

captura wrote:

noise?

ISO/resolution?

Color?

lenses?

handling?

AF?

Tracking?

Video?

Camera Labs repor, Sony Alpha A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM5 Noise RAW

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A6000/RAW_noise.shtml

Discussion?

Not much to discuss. Same old story.

Sony can make great sensors, but they're a bit clueless about extracting the most detail out of them themselves in Sony cameras, leaving often their competitors to best them. With the very same Sony sensors. This has been documented in countless reviews at DPR too and the subject of discussion in this forum.

As far as m43 is concerned, this ain't 2009 anymore. 2012 marked a turning point hence why Gordon Laing (from Cameralabs) is finding his old E-M5 (2012) performs toe-to-toe with the shiny new A6000 (2014), despite the Oly camera having a "tiny" sensor that is 2 years old.

 bluevellet's gear list:bluevellet's gear list
Kodak EasyShare P880 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Olympus E-620 Olympus PEN E-P3 Nikon D610 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
verybiglebowski
Senior MemberPosts: 3,044Gear list
Like?
Re: Sony A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM-1/5/10
In reply to silps, 5 months ago

silps wrote:

Shouldn't they have re-sized the Sony 24mp to match the 16mp of the Olympus to make the comparison more accurate?

As it stands, the crops of the Sony look more noisy to me but they are more magnified due to the extra pixels. The Sony looks much better at the 2 highest ISOs.

There are many problems with this kind of tests, one being magnification and proper method of image re-sizing comparison that you mentioned.

The other one is DOF relative to the f-stop and camera position (as one of the cameras was moved to compensate for the FOV). In that case, at same f-stop, camera that is further from the subject (with smaller sensor) will have narrower DOF an that can affect selected focus plane. (assuming the same FL was used)

Thus the background (together with noise) might be slightly more blurred. This is particularly visible in linked test shots.

RAW files are not what they used or meant to be. There is noise reduction going on the hardware and software level before data are written to the card. (Not to speak about lossy compression in some of them)

It is thus hard or even impossible to say which camera applies what amount of noise reduction at which level without having a chance to record real RAW data. When you look carefully to the posted results, there are quite some noise in the gray wall background on the OM-D files too, but noise is blurred. Aggressive noise compression in RAW or difference in DOF? Do you like more detail or less noise?

Those kind of user tests (including my own), have very little value in general terms.

While every method has its flaws and shortcomings, there are certainly more carefully and thoroughly made tests with higher empirical value.

-- hide signature --

Don't trust your eyes or mind, they might betray you! Trust only comments posted on the forums, because there is the absolute truth!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/viktor_viktor/
http://verybiglobo.blogspot.com/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
blue_skies
Senior MemberPosts: 7,060Gear list
Like?
Re: Deja Vu ? ...
In reply to bluevellet, 5 months ago

bluevellet wrote:

captura wrote:

noise?

ISO/resolution?

Color?

lenses?

handling?

AF?

Tracking?

Video?

Camera Labs repor, Sony Alpha A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM5 Noise RAW

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A6000/RAW_noise.shtml

Discussion?

Not much to discuss. Same old story.

Sony can make great sensors, but they're a bit clueless about extracting the most detail out of them themselves in Sony cameras, leaving often their competitors to best them. With the very same Sony sensors. This has been documented in countless reviews at DPR too and the subject of discussion in this forum.

As far as m43 is concerned, this ain't 2009 anymore. 2012 marked a turning point hence why Gordon Laing (from Cameralabs) is finding his old E-M5 (2012) performs toe-to-toe with the shiny new A6000 (2014), despite the Oly camera having a "tiny" sensor that is 2 years old.

This sounds soooo much like the early Nex-5N versus Nex-7 comparisons.

It took a long while, but finally the Nex-7 was deemed 'as good as' the Nex-5N, after downsampling.

However, for several applications (inc. video and high ISO), the Nex-5N would hold the flag.

Now, with the A6000 effectively moving the Nex-7 upstream, I would merely expect that at low ISO and down-sampled views, the A6000 would match the Nex-5N (or Nex-6), based on sensor size, and recent sensor technology. At higher ISO and high resolution application, the A6000 will hold the flag.

As to the E-Mx cameras - Victor already eluded to this: not all RAW is the same. Comparing across brands on an intermediate representation is somewhat misleading. Push both images through post and then compare. You will see that:

  • a) most of the differences get cleaned up in the post processing tool
  • b) the higher resolution sensor carries a number of advantages

Sure, the higher resolution sensor also puts more demands on glass, see the A7r/A7 debates, but if you compare 24Mp versus 16Mp and you seek IQ, the 24Mp naturally wins. If you only need web size, monitor size, or A4 prints, even 16Mp is more than you need

As to Sony JPG versus other mfgrs JPG processing: this is more myth than fact. Check the Fuji forum and their images - most were obtained in JPG flow, and are no different from Sony JPG. Same for m43 - I rarely see images that show any kind of superior algorithm. What I do see is more in camera tweaking. Apply some clarity, NR, pull up shadows in post on the Sony JPG and they are equal or better than the others. But that is 'post' on JPG, an oxymoron? Heck, even DPR commenting on this in their review - it is more common than you think. BUT IT IS NOT PART OF COMPARISONS

I use post on both RAW and JPG, and this allows me to pick and choose, as well as use the camera at its defaults. But I never use the 'defaults' as-is, they are simply not representative for the quality of the sensor (and lens, and subject). If reviewers do so, and make this their standard, so be it.

Per what I have seen in the JPG, the Oly impresses the most as in extracting detail, in JPG flow, from the small sensor. But I don't see how it betters the A6000 24Mp output and almost one stop faster - the exposure on the A6000 will often be superior, just for starters.

I have seen Nex-7 versus E-M5 comparisons, with the nod going to the Nex-7. Now, with the A6000 versus E-M1, we are comparing a dramatically improved Nex-7 (A6000) with an almost equivalent E-M5 (E-M1). And nothing ever changes, right?

I am not buying it - myths are just that.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

 blue_skies's gear list:blue_skies's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony Alpha 7 Sony a6000 +30 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ryan92084
Regular MemberPosts: 465Gear list
Like?
Re: Deja Vu ? ...
In reply to blue_skies, 5 months ago

blue_skies wrote:

This sounds soooo much like the early Nex-5N versus Nex-7 comparisons.

It took a long while, but finally the Nex-7 was deemed 'as good as' the Nex-5N, after downsampling.

However, for several applications (inc. video and high ISO), the Nex-5N would hold the flag.

Now, with the A6000 effectively moving the Nex-7 upstream, I would merely expect that at low ISO and down-sampled views, the A6000 would match the Nex-5N (or Nex-6), based on sensor size, and recent sensor technology. At higher ISO and high resolution application, the A6000 will hold the flag.

....snip

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

You may have missed it but there was an example of the a6000 actually outperforming the 5n in low light.

no downsampling

both at 16mp

Granted these were done in jpg not raw like the cameralabs test but it helps illustrate your point that with downsizing and the correct processing the a6000 would have likely been the better performer.

 ryan92084's gear list:ryan92084's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
verybiglebowski
Senior MemberPosts: 3,044Gear list
Like?
Re: Deja Vu ? ...
In reply to blue_skies, 5 months ago

blue_skies wrote:

I have seen Nex-7 versus E-M5 comparisons, with the nod going to the Nex-7. Now, with the A6000 versus E-M1, we are comparing a dramatically improved Nex-7 (A6000) with an almost equivalent E-M5 (E-M1). And nothing ever changes, right?

I am not buying it - myths are just that.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

I made probably slightly more controlled high ISO comparison some time ago, across few cameras including NEX 7, NEX 5N and OM-D E5 on my blog. Here is the result at 6400 ISO e.g.

When downsampled to the file size of Olympus OM-D EM5, at this ISO settings from my test, it is visible that OM-D EM-5 stays behind NEX 7 and NEX 5N. It is also visible that NEX 7 is not that bad as is used to believe, in fact it looks a bit cleaner than NEX 5N.

I used similar method as person in OP link, with exception of using same lens for all cameras and 2D target with even lighting.

I am lazy to do it again, but when all files where up-sized to the size of A7r, the noise on OM-D was actually reduced in perception, but lack of detail was quite evident.

There are so many ways to look at those cameras and their performance in terms of resolution or high ISO and none of them is "fair comparison" because there is no "fair comparison" between apples and oranges.

The question - should we compare enlarged or reduced files, has lot to do with desired and achieved field of view, DOF, target size and resolution.

In my experience, OM-D EM5 has visibly more noise than NEX 7, but it also has many advantages that shouldn't be overseen by photographers, one of them being IBIS that in some situations can be used to reduce ISO for the cleaner output. (mainly for static subjects though).

I should receive my a6000 soon, so I will probably repeat this little test.

-- hide signature --

Don't trust your eyes or mind, they might betray you! Trust only comments posted on the forums, because there is the absolute truth!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/viktor_viktor/
http://verybiglobo.blogspot.com/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 14,100Gear list
Like?
Re: Deja Vu ? ...
In reply to blue_skies, 5 months ago

blue_skies wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

captura wrote:

noise?

ISO/resolution?

Color?

lenses?

handling?

AF?

Tracking?

Video?

Camera Labs repor, Sony Alpha A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM5 Noise RAW

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A6000/RAW_noise.shtml

Discussion?

Not much to discuss. Same old story.

Sony can make great sensors, but they're a bit clueless about extracting the most detail out of them themselves in Sony cameras, leaving often their competitors to best them. With the very same Sony sensors. This has been documented in countless reviews at DPR too and the subject of discussion in this forum.

As far as m43 is concerned, this ain't 2009 anymore. 2012 marked a turning point hence why Gordon Laing (from Cameralabs) is finding his old E-M5 (2012) performs toe-to-toe with the shiny new A6000 (2014), despite the Oly camera having a "tiny" sensor that is 2 years old.

This sounds soooo much like the early Nex-5N versus Nex-7 comparisons.

It took a long while, but finally the Nex-7 was deemed 'as good as' the Nex-5N, after downsampling.

However, for several applications (inc. video and high ISO), the Nex-5N would hold the flag.

Now, with the A6000 effectively moving the Nex-7 upstream, I would merely expect that at low ISO and down-sampled views, the A6000 would match the Nex-5N (or Nex-6), based on sensor size, and recent sensor technology. At higher ISO and high resolution application, the A6000 will hold the flag.

As to the E-Mx cameras - Victor already eluded to this: not all RAW is the same. Comparing across brands on an intermediate representation is somewhat misleading. Push both images through post and then compare. You will see that:

  • a) most of the differences get cleaned up in the post processing tool
  • b) the higher resolution sensor carries a number of advantages

Sure, the higher resolution sensor also puts more demands on glass, see the A7r/A7 debates, but if you compare 24Mp versus 16Mp and you seek IQ, the 24Mp naturally wins. If you only need web size, monitor size, or A4 prints, even 16Mp is more than you need

As to Sony JPG versus other mfgrs JPG processing: this is more myth than fact. Check the Fuji forum and their images - most were obtained in JPG flow, and are no different from Sony JPG. Same for m43 - I rarely see images that show any kind of superior algorithm. What I do see is more in camera tweaking. Apply some clarity, NR, pull up shadows in post on the Sony JPG and they are equal or better than the others. But that is 'post' on JPG, an oxymoron? Heck, even DPR commenting on this in their review - it is more common than you think. BUT IT IS NOT PART OF COMPARISONS

I use post on both RAW and JPG, and this allows me to pick and choose, as well as use the camera at its defaults. But I never use the 'defaults' as-is, they are simply not representative for the quality of the sensor (and lens, and subject). If reviewers do so, and make this their standard, so be it.

Per what I have seen in the JPG, the Oly impresses the most as in extracting detail, in JPG flow, from the small sensor. But I don't see how it betters the A6000 24Mp output and almost one stop faster - the exposure on the A6000 will often be superior, just for starters.

I have seen Nex-7 versus E-M5 comparisons, with the nod going to the Nex-7. Now, with the A6000 versus E-M1, we are comparing a dramatically improved Nex-7 (A6000) with an almost equivalent E-M5 (E-M1). And nothing ever changes, right?

I am not buying it - myths are just that.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

I'm not buying it either, Henry. This review begs the question about the honesty or the real intent of the reviewer.

Crowded pixel sensors such as the A6000 are going to have more noise and the reverse is true: witness the 12 mp A7s. The A6000 has more pixel crowding than the E-M5. For obvious reasons but perhaps also the side-effect of the A6000 having all those dedicated PDAF pixels and the E-M5 having none. The E-M5 is inferior to the A6000 in every other way...who would dispute that? And yet that fact was mostly ignored in this comparison. Q? - Was the E-M5 cherry picked especially to downgrade the A-6000? Disinformation?

It's not surprising that the M-43 Forum LOVES this article; witness this thread.... Amazing!

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53482204

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Samsung NX1000 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bluevellet
Senior MemberPosts: 1,672Gear list
Like?
Re: Deja Vu ? ...
In reply to captura, 5 months ago

captura wrote:

blue_skies wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

captura wrote:

noise?

ISO/resolution?

Color?

lenses?

handling?

AF?

Tracking?

Video?

Camera Labs repor, Sony Alpha A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM5 Noise RAW

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A6000/RAW_noise.shtml

Discussion?

Not much to discuss. Same old story.

Sony can make great sensors, but they're a bit clueless about extracting the most detail out of them themselves in Sony cameras, leaving often their competitors to best them. With the very same Sony sensors. This has been documented in countless reviews at DPR too and the subject of discussion in this forum.

As far as m43 is concerned, this ain't 2009 anymore. 2012 marked a turning point hence why Gordon Laing (from Cameralabs) is finding his old E-M5 (2012) performs toe-to-toe with the shiny new A6000 (2014), despite the Oly camera having a "tiny" sensor that is 2 years old.

This sounds soooo much like the early Nex-5N versus Nex-7 comparisons.

It took a long while, but finally the Nex-7 was deemed 'as good as' the Nex-5N, after downsampling.

However, for several applications (inc. video and high ISO), the Nex-5N would hold the flag.

Now, with the A6000 effectively moving the Nex-7 upstream, I would merely expect that at low ISO and down-sampled views, the A6000 would match the Nex-5N (or Nex-6), based on sensor size, and recent sensor technology. At higher ISO and high resolution application, the A6000 will hold the flag.

As to the E-Mx cameras - Victor already eluded to this: not all RAW is the same. Comparing across brands on an intermediate representation is somewhat misleading. Push both images through post and then compare. You will see that:

  • a) most of the differences get cleaned up in the post processing tool
  • b) the higher resolution sensor carries a number of advantages

Sure, the higher resolution sensor also puts more demands on glass, see the A7r/A7 debates, but if you compare 24Mp versus 16Mp and you seek IQ, the 24Mp naturally wins. If you only need web size, monitor size, or A4 prints, even 16Mp is more than you need

As to Sony JPG versus other mfgrs JPG processing: this is more myth than fact. Check the Fuji forum and their images - most were obtained in JPG flow, and are no different from Sony JPG. Same for m43 - I rarely see images that show any kind of superior algorithm. What I do see is more in camera tweaking. Apply some clarity, NR, pull up shadows in post on the Sony JPG and they are equal or better than the others. But that is 'post' on JPG, an oxymoron? Heck, even DPR commenting on this in their review - it is more common than you think. BUT IT IS NOT PART OF COMPARISONS

I use post on both RAW and JPG, and this allows me to pick and choose, as well as use the camera at its defaults. But I never use the 'defaults' as-is, they are simply not representative for the quality of the sensor (and lens, and subject). If reviewers do so, and make this their standard, so be it.

Per what I have seen in the JPG, the Oly impresses the most as in extracting detail, in JPG flow, from the small sensor. But I don't see how it betters the A6000 24Mp output and almost one stop faster - the exposure on the A6000 will often be superior, just for starters.

I have seen Nex-7 versus E-M5 comparisons, with the nod going to the Nex-7. Now, with the A6000 versus E-M1, we are comparing a dramatically improved Nex-7 (A6000) with an almost equivalent E-M5 (E-M1). And nothing ever changes, right?

I am not buying it - myths are just that.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

I'm not buying it either, Henry. This review begs the question about the honesty or the real intent of the reviewer.

Crowded pixel sensors such as the A6000 are going to have more noise and the reverse is true: witness the 12 mp A7s. The A6000 has more pixel crowding than the E-M5. For obvious reasons but perhaps also the side-effect of the A6000 having all those dedicated PDAF pixels and the E-M5 having none. The E-M5 is inferior to the A6000 in every other way...who would dispute that? And yet that fact was mostly ignored in this comparison. Q? - Was the E-M5 cherry picked especially to downgrade the A-6000? Disinformation?

It's not surprising that the M-43 Forum LOVES this article; witness this thread.... Amazing!

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53482204

And big surprise that Sony fans take issue with the article. No one would ever have seen that coming.

The EM5 was chosen because Mr. Laing owns it. He mentions trying to get an EM-10 from Olympus to make a more current comparison, but couldn't. If you take issue with an EM-10 comparison as well, need I remind you the recent thread in which you participated yourself where a guy considers switching from the EM-10 to the A6000 (then changes his mind). Both cameras are in a similar price backet and category, it begs a comparison.
I'm sure when DPR scores the A6000, the EM-10 will be mentionned. If it scores lower, people here will complain, no doubt (I'm guessing it will be scored very similarly though).

 bluevellet's gear list:bluevellet's gear list
Kodak EasyShare P880 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Olympus E-620 Olympus PEN E-P3 Nikon D610 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
neil holmes
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,048
Like?
Re: Sony A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM-1/5/10
In reply to captura, 5 months ago

captura wrote:

noise?

ISO/resolution?

Color?

lenses?

handling?

AF?

Tracking?

Video?

Camera Labs repor, Sony Alpha A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM5 Noise RAW

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A6000/RAW_noise.shtml

Discussion?

I think for me, I would rank them (in order of preference)

EM-1

EM-10

A6000 ( though pretty close to the EM-10 IBIS and a few other things put it behind for me).

EM-5 (older model that is now behind for most specs).

The A6000 would rate higher for me if its specs were higher....if tracking AF was important to me, then again, the A6000 would win.

The things you listed are all things the Sony wins at (handling being subjective and video remains to be seen) but not by enough to make a big difference ...and other things make a much bigger difference to me.....others will have different priorities.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
blue_skies
Senior MemberPosts: 7,060Gear list
Like?
Re: Sony A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM-1/5/10
In reply to neil holmes, 5 months ago

neil holmes wrote:

captura wrote:

noise?

ISO/resolution?

Color?

lenses?

handling?

AF?

Tracking?

Video?

Camera Labs repor, Sony Alpha A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM5 Noise RAW

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A6000/RAW_noise.shtml

Discussion?

I think for me, I would rank them (in order of preference)

EM-1

EM-10

A6000 ( though pretty close to the EM-10 IBIS and a few other things put it behind for me).

EM-5 (older model that is now behind for most specs).

The A6000 would rate higher for me if its specs were higher....if tracking AF was important to me, then again, the A6000 would win.

The things you listed are all things the Sony wins at (handling being subjective and video remains to be seen) but not by enough to make a big difference ...and other things make a much bigger difference to me.....others will have different priorities.

Price plays no role for you, I guess.

But if true, I would include A7/r/s,

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

 blue_skies's gear list:blue_skies's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony Alpha 7 Sony a6000 +30 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TrojMacReady
Senior MemberPosts: 8,455
Like?
Hard to compare.
In reply to captura, 5 months ago
  • different visual brightness and contrast
  • different whitebalance
  • no physical exposures (EXIF) to see if both sensors received the same amount of light
  • different output size

I'll wait for the a test that allows me to remove all of the above from the equation (besides the DXO test results).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Pat Whittingham
Regular MemberPosts: 108Gear list
Like?
Re: Sony A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM-1/5/10
In reply to captura, 5 months ago

There is so much more to comparing these cameras than the minutiae being discussed here - in.

The quality from these cameras are well above the threshold for anything but the most demanding circumstances.

Just as the megapixel marketing hype has largely run its course, the noise, resolution, autofocus speed of the EM1/5 and A6000 are  close enough to instantaneous  and near perfect in good light that the difference in my opinion is largely meaningless.

i compared the image  quality between my 2-year old NEX 7 and the A6000 with  a variety of Sony-Zeiss glass and saw so little  difference that I almost wrote off the A6000 as just more over hyping. I had a renewed respect for the NEX7.

Then I covered a family event with my EM1 and  A6000  and couldn't believe the actual usability improvement  with the Alpha menu,  quick., accurate focus and handling that  came with the A6000.

A few months back, I got an A7r for landscape use and had thought to replace much of my gear with this FF system. yet the slow response of the A7r  forced me to use an EM1 to capture the immediacy of running children and any rapidly changing circumstances.

But after my initial use, I was so impressed with the A6000 and synergy within the total Alpha mirror-less system with the A7r that I will now shift away from MFT.

I may keep the EM1 with a Pana 100-300mm for wildlife but the A6000/A7r  together is the most enjoyable and flexible system I've had the pleasure to use.

That is not to say, I don't like the EM1 and NEX7 as well but I much prefer  the A6000.

When I can get a FF 70-300mm zoom with OSS, I will be able to completely address my needs with Sony gear. This has not ever been the case for me before  in A mount.

Sony's approach is costly with the Zeiss glass but I am just now starting to feel the system is strong enough to  address my needs.

But if I had to choose one camera to buy or use, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the A6000 Along with the 16-70mm zoom.

 Pat Whittingham's gear list:Pat Whittingham's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Sony Alpha 7R Sony a6000 Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 14-140mm F4-5.8 OIS +17 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
neil holmes
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,048
Like?
Re: Sony A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM-1/5/10
In reply to blue_skies, 5 months ago

blue_skies wrote:

neil holmes wrote:

captura wrote:

noise?

ISO/resolution?

Color?

lenses?

handling?

AF?

Tracking?

Video?

Camera Labs repor, Sony Alpha A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM5 Noise RAW

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A6000/RAW_noise.shtml

Discussion?

I think for me, I would rank them (in order of preference)

EM-1

EM-10

A6000 ( though pretty close to the EM-10 IBIS and a few other things put it behind for me).

EM-5 (older model that is now behind for most specs).

The A6000 would rate higher for me if its specs were higher....if tracking AF was important to me, then again, the A6000 would win.

The things you listed are all things the Sony wins at (handling being subjective and video remains to be seen) but not by enough to make a big difference ...and other things make a much bigger difference to me.....others will have different priorities.

Price plays no role for you, I guess.

But if true, I would include A7/r/s,

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

Price does play a role but not if it does not have what I want.....cheapest 4 seat car is no use to a family of 6......even if it is faster.

I don't want any of those cameras as I am very happy with both my GX7 and A7.

If I was only about price, I would still be using my Pentax KX (still a great camera), or would have got a Nikon 24mp entry level DSLR.

A6000 is likely the best value mirrorless for someone wanting an entry level camera as well as someone wanting decent AF in mirrorless (Nikon entry DSLRs might be better value still) but it is no value if it does not do what you want.

Other than the AF, and forgetting sensor size and pixel count, is there a ILC with lower specs that has been released this year yet?

It is because of the low specs and the A7 shortcomings that I would not be surprised if there was a camera coming that was between the A6000 and A7 and if it came, I may well put that above the EM-1.

NOTE....I think the A6000 is a great camera and the A7 is my favourite ever to date.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rayman 2
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,213
Like?
Thats the nice thing about dxo mark tests...
In reply to bluevellet, 5 months ago

bluevellet wrote:

captura wrote:

blue_skies wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

captura wrote:

noise?

ISO/resolution?

Color?

lenses?

handling?

AF?

Tracking?

Video?

Camera Labs repor, Sony Alpha A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM5 Noise RAW

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A6000/RAW_noise.shtml

Discussion?

Not much to discuss. Same old story.

Sony can make great sensors, but they're a bit clueless about extracting the most detail out of them themselves in Sony cameras, leaving often their competitors to best them. With the very same Sony sensors. This has been documented in countless reviews at DPR too and the subject of discussion in this forum.

As far as m43 is concerned, this ain't 2009 anymore. 2012 marked a turning point hence why Gordon Laing (from Cameralabs) is finding his old E-M5 (2012) performs toe-to-toe with the shiny new A6000 (2014), despite the Oly camera having a "tiny" sensor that is 2 years old.

This sounds soooo much like the early Nex-5N versus Nex-7 comparisons.

It took a long while, but finally the Nex-7 was deemed 'as good as' the Nex-5N, after downsampling.

However, for several applications (inc. video and high ISO), the Nex-5N would hold the flag.

Now, with the A6000 effectively moving the Nex-7 upstream, I would merely expect that at low ISO and down-sampled views, the A6000 would match the Nex-5N (or Nex-6), based on sensor size, and recent sensor technology. At higher ISO and high resolution application, the A6000 will hold the flag.

As to the E-Mx cameras - Victor already eluded to this: not all RAW is the same. Comparing across brands on an intermediate representation is somewhat misleading. Push both images through post and then compare. You will see that:

  • a) most of the differences get cleaned up in the post processing tool
  • b) the higher resolution sensor carries a number of advantages

Sure, the higher resolution sensor also puts more demands on glass, see the A7r/A7 debates, but if you compare 24Mp versus 16Mp and you seek IQ, the 24Mp naturally wins. If you only need web size, monitor size, or A4 prints, even 16Mp is more than you need

As to Sony JPG versus other mfgrs JPG processing: this is more myth than fact. Check the Fuji forum and their images - most were obtained in JPG flow, and are no different from Sony JPG. Same for m43 - I rarely see images that show any kind of superior algorithm. What I do see is more in camera tweaking. Apply some clarity, NR, pull up shadows in post on the Sony JPG and they are equal or better than the others. But that is 'post' on JPG, an oxymoron? Heck, even DPR commenting on this in their review - it is more common than you think. BUT IT IS NOT PART OF COMPARISONS

I use post on both RAW and JPG, and this allows me to pick and choose, as well as use the camera at its defaults. But I never use the 'defaults' as-is, they are simply not representative for the quality of the sensor (and lens, and subject). If reviewers do so, and make this their standard, so be it.

Per what I have seen in the JPG, the Oly impresses the most as in extracting detail, in JPG flow, from the small sensor. But I don't see how it betters the A6000 24Mp output and almost one stop faster - the exposure on the A6000 will often be superior, just for starters.

I have seen Nex-7 versus E-M5 comparisons, with the nod going to the Nex-7. Now, with the A6000 versus E-M1, we are comparing a dramatically improved Nex-7 (A6000) with an almost equivalent E-M5 (E-M1). And nothing ever changes, right?

I am not buying it - myths are just that.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

I'm not buying it either, Henry. This review begs the question about the honesty or the real intent of the reviewer.

Crowded pixel sensors such as the A6000 are going to have more noise and the reverse is true: witness the 12 mp A7s. The A6000 has more pixel crowding than the E-M5. For obvious reasons but perhaps also the side-effect of the A6000 having all those dedicated PDAF pixels and the E-M5 having none. The E-M5 is inferior to the A6000 in every other way...who would dispute that? And yet that fact was mostly ignored in this comparison. Q? - Was the E-M5 cherry picked especially to downgrade the A-6000? Disinformation?

It's not surprising that the M-43 Forum LOVES this article; witness this thread.... Amazing!

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53482204

And big surprise that Sony fans take issue with the article. No one would ever have seen that coming.

The EM5 was chosen because Mr. Laing owns it. He mentions trying to get an EM-10 from Olympus to make a more current comparison, but couldn't. If you take issue with an EM-10 comparison as well, need I remind you the recent thread in which you participated yourself where a guy considers switching from the EM-10 to the A6000 (then changes his mind). Both cameras are in a similar price backet and category, it begs a comparison.
I'm sure when DPR scores the A6000, the EM-10 will be mentionned. If it scores lower, people here will complain, no doubt (I'm guessing it will be scored very similarly though).

Thats the nice thing about dxo mark tests...

When cameras are in one class it shows in the results that there isnt much difference..

all those cameras ARE  in one class... around 1000 Points or dxo marks for sports or low light..

If you want or need more or much more you need to get a much larger sensor or simply buy

a faster lens.....

thats not rocketscience.. thats simply just common sense....

if you want or need even higher results from the sensor sizes you have today you need to look

at organic sensors..... those should be 2 stops better as reported !!!

Peter

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 14,100Gear list
Like?
Re: Deja Vu ? ...
In reply to bluevellet, 5 months ago

bluevellet wrote:

captura wrote:

blue_skies wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

captura wrote:

noise?

ISO/resolution?

Color?

lenses?

handling?

AF?

Tracking?

Video?

Camera Labs repor, Sony Alpha A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM5 Noise RAW

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A6000/RAW_noise.shtml

Discussion?

Not much to discuss. Same old story.

Sony can make great sensors, but they're a bit clueless about extracting the most detail out of them themselves in Sony cameras, leaving often their competitors to best them. With the very same Sony sensors. This has been documented in countless reviews at DPR too and the subject of discussion in this forum.

As far as m43 is concerned, this ain't 2009 anymore. 2012 marked a turning point hence why Gordon Laing (from Cameralabs) is finding his old E-M5 (2012) performs toe-to-toe with the shiny new A6000 (2014), despite the Oly camera having a "tiny" sensor that is 2 years old.

This sounds soooo much like the early Nex-5N versus Nex-7 comparisons.

It took a long while, but finally the Nex-7 was deemed 'as good as' the Nex-5N, after downsampling.

However, for several applications (inc. video and high ISO), the Nex-5N would hold the flag.

Now, with the A6000 effectively moving the Nex-7 upstream, I would merely expect that at low ISO and down-sampled views, the A6000 would match the Nex-5N (or Nex-6), based on sensor size, and recent sensor technology. At higher ISO and high resolution application, the A6000 will hold the flag.

As to the E-Mx cameras - Victor already eluded to this: not all RAW is the same. Comparing across brands on an intermediate representation is somewhat misleading. Push both images through post and then compare. You will see that:

  • a) most of the differences get cleaned up in the post processing tool
  • b) the higher resolution sensor carries a number of advantages

Sure, the higher resolution sensor also puts more demands on glass, see the A7r/A7 debates, but if you compare 24Mp versus 16Mp and you seek IQ, the 24Mp naturally wins. If you only need web size, monitor size, or A4 prints, even 16Mp is more than you need

As to Sony JPG versus other mfgrs JPG processing: this is more myth than fact. Check the Fuji forum and their images - most were obtained in JPG flow, and are no different from Sony JPG. Same for m43 - I rarely see images that show any kind of superior algorithm. What I do see is more in camera tweaking. Apply some clarity, NR, pull up shadows in post on the Sony JPG and they are equal or better than the others. But that is 'post' on JPG, an oxymoron? Heck, even DPR commenting on this in their review - it is more common than you think. BUT IT IS NOT PART OF COMPARISONS

I use post on both RAW and JPG, and this allows me to pick and choose, as well as use the camera at its defaults. But I never use the 'defaults' as-is, they are simply not representative for the quality of the sensor (and lens, and subject). If reviewers do so, and make this their standard, so be it.

Per what I have seen in the JPG, the Oly impresses the most as in extracting detail, in JPG flow, from the small sensor. But I don't see how it betters the A6000 24Mp output and almost one stop faster - the exposure on the A6000 will often be superior, just for starters.

I have seen Nex-7 versus E-M5 comparisons, with the nod going to the Nex-7. Now, with the A6000 versus E-M1, we are comparing a dramatically improved Nex-7 (A6000) with an almost equivalent E-M5 (E-M1). And nothing ever changes, right?

I am not buying it - myths are just that.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

I'm not buying it either, Henry. This review begs the question about the honesty or the real intent of the reviewer.

Crowded pixel sensors such as the A6000 are going to have more noise and the reverse is true: witness the 12 mp A7s. The A6000 has more pixel crowding than the E-M5. For obvious reasons but perhaps also the side-effect of the A6000 having all those dedicated PDAF pixels and the E-M5 having none. The E-M5 is inferior to the A6000 in every other way...who would dispute that? And yet that fact was mostly ignored in this comparison. Q? - Was the E-M5 cherry picked especially to downgrade the A-6000? Disinformation?

It's not surprising that the M-43 Forum LOVES this article; witness this thread.... Amazing!

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53482204

And big surprise that Sony fans take issue with the article. No one would ever have seen that coming.

The EM5 was chosen because Mr. Laing owns it. He mentions trying to get an EM-10 from Olympus to make a more current comparison, but couldn't. If you take issue with an EM-10 comparison as well, need I remind you the recent thread in which you participated yourself where a guy considers switching from the EM-10 to the A6000 (then changes his mind). Both cameras are in a similar price backet and category, it begs a comparison.
I'm sure when DPR scores the A6000, the EM-10 will be mentionned. If it scores lower, people here will complain, no doubt (I'm guessing it will be scored very similarly though).

Laing  could have used a newer E-M1 for the test. I did not participate in any discussion on M43 but you did yourself, on this very topic. One of the commonest excuses for the non-performance of the OMD cameras being made is that the M43 lenses are so vastly superior to E-mount, that no further comparison needs be made. Since you agreed to that statement in your M43 post, I need to remind you of the strawman argument.

Check out the DxO overall ratings; 82 vs 72 for A6000 vs OMD.

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Samsung NX1000 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 14,100Gear list
Like?
Re: Sony A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM-1/5/10
In reply to neil holmes, 5 months ago

neil holmes wrote:

captura wrote:

noise?

ISO/resolution?

Color?

lenses?

handling?

AF?

Tracking?

Video?

Camera Labs repor, Sony Alpha A6000 vs Olympus OMD EM5 Noise RAW

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A6000/RAW_noise.shtml

Discussion?

I think for me, I would rank them (in order of preference)

EM-1

EM-10

A6000 ( though pretty close to the EM-10 IBIS and a few other things put it behind for me).

EM-5 (older model that is now behind for most specs).

The A6000 would rate higher for me if its specs were higher....if tracking AF was important to me, then again, the A6000 would win.

The things you listed are all things the Sony wins at (handling being subjective and video remains to be seen) but not by enough to make a big difference ...and other things make a much bigger difference to me.....others will have different priorities.

Those may be your preferences, and because you are on the M43 forum so much, should I be surprised? But I'm most concerned about the validity and truthfulness of some so-called 'reviewers.'

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Samsung NX1000 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads