Help deciding between Nikon D7100 or Olympus O-MD E-M1?

[wildlifr]

I shoot Nikon and m4/3. The following are just some thoughts from my experience of about 30,000 frames with the Nikon 24mp sensor and 20,000 with the 16mp m4/3 sensor.... The camera's themselves aside, it depends on you and the type of photographer you are. First, for anything fast moving...sports, motorsports, nature (especially BIF), etc, Oly has made leaps and bounds in improvement with the new AF system, but the Nikon is still the way to go by a large margin due to the OVF/EVF alone, and yes, I've spent some time with the Oly's new EVF. It's good. For most photography, it's very good, but there is still an EVF lag that you don't get with the OVF.

If you are willing to spend a lot of attention to the details of technique, exposure, etc, the Nikon will blow the m4/3 system away in overall image quality at low or high ISO. With that image quality/detail comes some noise though, even at low ISO so there are many times you will need to work NR in to your workflow to get the most out of the Nikon images. In short, if you're willing to do your part, the Nikon will pay huge dividends in image quality that the Oly just can't get close to.

If you're looking for a camera that is going to make YOU look good, no matter what, with minimal input on your part beyond pointing the camera in the right direction and pushing the button, the m4/3 will make you look like a hero most of the time where the Nikon will show every single mistake you make.

Heed Jim's wise advice. Where the 7100 and em1 differ is at the extremes of IQ

Thats arguable, but a rational argument.

and AF

Thats not accurate IMO. The focusing on the D7100 looks like it easily surpasses that of any m4/3.

. Both give super results. The Em1 does so in a smaller package, but at a high price. For some of us, smaller size matters.

But it's important that the OP understand the actual difference in weight, and how that would affect him. With the two possible systems he's considering, the difference is a little over 1 lb. (542g), and neither is pocketable. You could easily throw in a few more lenses on both sides and still be within 2 lbs or so. The price is about $120.00 more for the E-M1 system (and that relatively small difference is only because he was interested in the poor performing 12-50). So higher cost and poorer performance, all for 1 lb? I guess that makes sense to some people, but certainly not me.

Choose the tool for the purpose. One camera does not fit all missions.

 

[j_photo]

I also tend to lean towards wide angle zoom lenses. So the Nikon 16-85mm lens is what I'd probably get with the D7100 and I'd most likely get the 12-50mm for the E-M1.!

I can't help with the body choice, but I suggest you look beyond the 16-85 if you go with the D7100. I shot the 16-85 on my D7000 for quite a while, then upgraded to the 17-55 with constant f/2.8. The 16-85 is nice for it's portability and zoom range, but the image quality is nowhere near the 17-55 or the other comparable 3rd party options (that others here know more about than I do).

You sound like a discriminating shooter. I think you might be disappointed with the 16-85.

 

[jimoyer]

wildlfr, as far as the AF goes, actually in my experience, m4/3 will AF significantly faster in S-AF/AF-S than the Nikon system. Where the Nikon system blows m4/3 away is in C-AF/AF-C and more specifically in tracking. On the very rare occasion I'm stuck shooting sports with m4/3, I never even bother with C-AF or tracking. I shoot it in S-AF because it's so fast, and refocus every few frames. Between the 9 fps of the m4/3 (I have an E-PL5 which I'm referring to at 9 fps, and a Panasonic G5 which is nearly as good as the E-PL5 and an E-PL2 which I wouldn't bother with to shoot anything fast moving) the speed of the S-AF and the very deep DOF of the m4/3 sensor, I'm able to manage a fair amount of keepers although rarely saleable images.

As far as size and weight, I'd have to disagree a bit more. Comparing apples to apples, a D7100 with a 70-200 f2.8 is going to be significantly larger and heavier than a E-M1 (and even more so with an E-M5, G5, G6, etc) with a Panasonic 35-100 f2.8.

Ultimately, everyone has their own opinions, experiences and needs. I can only offer the OP what mine have been shooting both systems fairly extensively. I actually considered moving to the E-M1 exclusively when it was announced and all the hype about it were going around, but like most hype, it proved to be just that when I actually got my hands on one and compared it for myself to my D7100. The EM1 is a fantastic camera and depending on your priorities and subjects it could be all someone needs. Right tool for the right job. It's just not for mine and my priorities as my only camera. I could be happy with one in addition to a dSLR but not in leu of one.

 

[wildlifr]

wildlfr, as far as the AF goes, actually in my experience, m4/3 will AF significantly faster in S-AF/AF-S than the Nikon system.

I understand that the m4/3 is faster in that mode. But IMO, in the situations you would be using AF-S on a nikon, the speed difference is not relevant. I certainly haven't noticed a difference.

Where the Nikon system blows m4/3 away is in C-AF/AF-C and more specifically in tracking. On the very rare occasion I'm stuck shooting sports with m4/3, I never even bother with C-AF or tracking. I shoot it in S-AF because it's so fast, and refocus every few frames. Between the 9 fps of the m4/3 (I have an E-PL5 which I'm referring to at 9 fps, and a Panasonic G5 which is nearly as good as the E-PL5 and an E-PL2 which I wouldn't bother with to shoot anything fast moving) the speed of the S-AF and the very deep DOF of the m4/3 sensor, I'm able to manage a fair amount of keepers although rarely saleable images.

Yes, when I shot m4/3 those are the same things I took advantage of to make up for poor C-AF and even worse tracking, making the system not quite as bad in actual shooting of fast moving subjects as it would seem on paper.

As far as size and weight, I'd have to disagree a bit more. Comparing apples to apples, a D7100 with a 70-200 f2.8 is going to be significantly larger and heavier than a E-M1 (and even more so with an E-M5, G5, G6, etc) with a Panasonic 35-100 f2.8.

There certainly can be big differences in weight depending on lenses selected. But I was trying to keep the selection the same as what the OP was asking about. Aside from that, your examples aren't really equivalent, either in DOF flexibility or in overall performance according to DXOmark.

Ultimately, everyone has their own opinions, experiences and needs. I can only offer the OP what mine have been shooting both systems fairly extensively. I actually considered moving to the E-M1 exclusively when it was announced and all the hype about it were going around, but like most hype, it proved to be just that when I actually got my hands on one and compared it for myself to my D7100. The EM1 is a fantastic camera and depending on your priorities and subjects it could be all someone needs. Right tool for the right job. It's just not for mine and my priorities as my only camera. I could be happy with one in addition to a dSLR but not in leu of one.

Your last statement is extremely important I think. I could see an E-M1 with its compromises (as small or large as they might be interpreted) as an addition to a DSLR if money was no object, but not as a replacement, especially given the price. And I think the OP was referring to having only 1 camera. Back when the price of m4/3 was still reasonable, the case was a lot more compelling.

 

[rhlpetrus]

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

And I'm thinking maybe you should get a D610. Almost same size as D7100, better in all aspects (maybe not re AF, but IQ is superior).

 

[morel22]

I also tend to lean towards wide angle zoom lenses. So the Nikon 16-85mm lens is what I'd probably get with the D7100 and I'd most likely get the 12-50mm for the E-M1.!

I can't help with the body choice, but I suggest you look beyond the 16-85 if you go with the D7100. I shot the 16-85 on my D7000 for quite a while, then upgraded to the 17-55 with constant f/2.8. The 16-85 is nice for it's portability and zoom range, but the image quality is nowhere near the 17-55 or the other comparable 3rd party options (that others here know more about than I do).

You sound like a discriminating shooter. I think you might be disappointed with the 16-85.

I beg to differ. Haven't used or owned a 17-55, using the 16-85 as my main lens though, and I can highlight certain points.

To start with, the price of the 17-55 is ridiculous given it is a DX lens! I consider that robbery! Better off, paying a bit extra and invest then in a proper FX F/2.8 lens. Especially nowadays where everyone would eventually be upgrading to FX soon enough.

Comparing it to the Sigma and Tamron versions, the Sigma in specific, according to DXO Labs, deliver even better optical quality at third the price!

True that having fixed F/2.8 is nice, but the 17-55 sharpness wide open at 2.8 is not consistent at all! It loses sharpness pretty quick wide open over the focal range.

Besides, its performance beyond the 35mm is ridiculous! Nikon should have made it a 17-35 instead. But maybe they thought it would complement the cheap 55-300 better this way.

Overall, its sharpness is not consistent and too focused on the center. Beyond the center it loses too much of sharpness almost all over the focal and aperture range.

Back to the 16-85, it's weakest at the middle of the focal range actually. Talking sharpness again. But consistent on its sweet point of F/5.6 to F/8 all over the focal range. Also retains decent center sharpness all over the range.

In short, while the 16-85 isn't the sharpest lens around, its consistency and very well distribution of sharpness over the bigger apertures and all over the focal range make it more reliable and usable.

Even the cheap kit lens 18-105 delivers more sharpness at some points, but too inconsistent. One has to really shoot at these points (specific combination of apertures and focal lengths) to get that amount of sharpness out of it. The 16-85 is more versatile..

To sum it up on sharpness: Again according to DXO, over 17 mm to 35mm, the 17-55 is mostly sharp at the center while falling out pretty quickly around the center and edges. For this wide focal range, this is not enough! Beyond 35mm the lens is poor. For that price this factor alone makes it a no go. Especially that the 16-85 is consistent over the whole focal range and maintains almost same sharpness within its aperture sweet point range.

16-85 also has VRII! Pretty useful, especially beyond 35mm. For the 17-55, VR isn't a must, but for that price it should still be there.

As to other optical qualities, they are on par. Besides, to me only sharpness matters, as distortion, vignetting, and CA are automatically adjusted in PP, especially when one shoots in RAW.

As to build quality, I have yet to see a DX lens or any lens below the 1000$ range that comes close to the 16-85 in terms of sturdiness and build quality! The lens is simply a pleasure to use. To me this is always a factor of high significance.

Also the extra 1mm at the lower end is significant.

So there you have it. I would always recommend the 16-85, and would definitely recommend against the 17-55 considering that price!

 

[jimoyer]

I also tend to lean towards wide angle zoom lenses. So the Nikon 16-85mm lens is what I'd probably get with the D7100 and I'd most likely get the 12-50mm for the E-M1.!

I can't help with the body choice, but I suggest you look beyond the 16-85 if you go with the D7100. I shot the 16-85 on my D7000 for quite a while, then upgraded to the 17-55 with constant f/2.8. The 16-85 is nice for it's portability and zoom range, but the image quality is nowhere near the 17-55 or the other comparable 3rd party options (that others here know more about than I do).

You sound like a discriminating shooter. I think you might be disappointed with the 16-85.

I beg to differ. Haven't used or owned a 17-55, using the 16-85 as my main lens though, and I can highlight certain points.

To start with, the price of the 17-55 is ridiculous given it is a DX lens! I consider that robbery! Better off, paying a bit extra and invest then in a proper FX F/2.8 lens. Especially nowadays where everyone would eventually be upgrading to FX soon enough.

Comparing it to the Sigma and Tamron versions, the Sigma in specific, according to DXO Labs, deliver even better optical quality at third the price!

True that having fixed F/2.8 is nice, but the 17-55 sharpness wide open at 2.8 is not consistent at all! It loses sharpness pretty quick wide open over the focal range.

Besides, its performance beyond the 35mm is ridiculous! Nikon should have made it a 17-35 instead. But maybe they thought it would complement the cheap 55-300 better this way.

Overall, its sharpness is not consistent and too focused on the center. Beyond the center it loses too much of sharpness almost all over the focal and aperture range.

Back to the 16-85, it's weakest at the middle of the focal range actually. Talking sharpness again. But consistent on its sweet point of F/5.6 to F/8 all over the focal range. Also retains decent center sharpness all over the range.

In short, while the 16-85 isn't the sharpest lens around, its consistency and very well distribution of sharpness over the bigger apertures and all over the focal range make it more reliable and usable.

Even the cheap kit lens 18-105 delivers more sharpness at some points, but too inconsistent. One has to really shoot at these points (specific combination of apertures and focal lengths) to get that amount of sharpness out of it. The 16-85 is more versatile..

To sum it up on sharpness: Again according to DXO, over 17 mm to 35mm, the 17-55 is mostly sharp at the center while falling out pretty quickly around the center and edges. For this wide focal range, this is not enough! Beyond 35mm the lens is poor. For that price this factor alone makes it a no go. Especially that the 16-85 is consistent over the whole focal range and maintains almost same sharpness within its aperture sweet point range.

16-85 also has VRII! Pretty useful, especially beyond 35mm. For the 17-55, VR isn't a must, but for that price it should still be there.

As to other optical qualities, they are on par. Besides, to me only sharpness matters, as distortion, vignetting, and CA are automatically adjusted in PP, especially when one shoots in RAW.

As to build quality, I have yet to see a DX lens or any lens below the 1000$ range that comes close to the 16-85 in terms of sturdiness and build quality! The lens is simply a pleasure to use. To me this is always a factor of high significance.

Also the extra 1mm at the lower end is significant.

So there you have it. I would always recommend the 16-85, and would definitely recommend against the 17-55 considering that price!

Just out of curiosity...there's a lot of "according to DXO" in there...have you actually owned or shot the 17-55?

 

[morel22]

Just out of curiosity...there's a lot of "according to DXO" in there...have you actually owned or shot the 17-55?

Your answer lies in the first line of the post you quoted. I haven't shot nor owned a 17-55. And that's why on sharpness, I made sure to point out that I'm quoting DXO.

However, I do trust DXO measurements. So far I have to come across a proof where their measurements don't coincide with reality.

Their measurements of the lenses I own are spot on. As well with many samples I saw from other lenses I compared DXO measurements to.

Besides, sharpness was one point I highlighted in the post. For other points, I don't need to shoot or own a 17-55 to confirm them. To me, the biggest show stopper for the lens is the price. I would never recommend paying that much for a DX lens. Especially at these times as it is a high probability that prosumer DX bodies are to be phased out soon.

 

[jimoyer]

No, I read that in your first sentence. I was trying to be nice.

Have you noticed that with many of Nikon's professional grade wide zooms they don't have VR? The 24-70 doesn't either. While I agree that I'd rather have a tool and not need it than need it and not have it, the $600-$800 that a 17-55 can be had for used, and to a lesser extent what it can be had for new....for a professional grade, constant aperture zoom, is hardly a ridiculous price. Again, I understand that it may not meet your needs, or may be too pricey whether financially or by features for you to consider, but to recommend that someone else not even consider a lens you've never even laid hands on is just silly, especially based on something you read on the internet.

DXO's reviews and ratings are good, but are not the be all, end all and numbers on a screen or a piece of paper rarely tell the whole story. Even without VR, the 17-55 is a better lens overall than the Tamron or Sigma with it. Not that they're not good lenses. They both certainly are (yes, I've shot all 3). Tamron and Sigma have really upped their game recently...especially Sigma. Hell, the Tamron 24-70 wide open, while nowhere near the build quality, was sharper on my D7100 than the Nikon 24-70 wide open. But that's not the case with the 17-50's/17-55.

The 16-85 you have is a great lens. It's far better than it has any right to be. But you're comparing apples and oranges comparing a constant aperture professional grade zoom to a variable aperture consumer grade zoom.

 

[mosswings]

wildlfr, as far as the AF goes, actually in my experience, m4/3 will AF significantly faster in S-AF/AF-S than the Nikon system.

I understand that the m4/3 is faster in that mode. But IMO, in the situations you would be using AF-S on a nikon, the speed difference is not relevant. I certainly haven't noticed a difference.

Where the Nikon system blows m4/3 away is in C-AF/AF-C and more specifically in tracking. On the very rare occasion I'm stuck shooting sports with m4/3, I never even bother with C-AF or tracking. I shoot it in S-AF because it's so fast, and refocus every few frames. Between the 9 fps of the m4/3 (I have an E-PL5 which I'm referring to at 9 fps, and a Panasonic G5 which is nearly as good as the E-PL5 and an E-PL2 which I wouldn't bother with to shoot anything fast moving) the speed of the S-AF and the very deep DOF of the m4/3 sensor, I'm able to manage a fair amount of keepers although rarely saleable images.

Yes, when I shot m4/3 those are the same things I took advantage of to make up for poor C-AF and even worse tracking, making the system not quite as bad in actual shooting of fast moving subjects as it would seem on paper.

As far as size and weight, I'd have to disagree a bit more. Comparing apples to apples, a D7100 with a 70-200 f2.8 is going to be significantly larger and heavier than a E-M1 (and even more so with an E-M5, G5, G6, etc) with a Panasonic 35-100 f2.8.

There certainly can be big differences in weight depending on lenses selected. But I was trying to keep the selection the same as what the OP was asking about. Aside from that, your examples aren't really equivalent, either in DOF flexibility or in overall performance according to DXOmark.

Ultimately, everyone has their own opinions, experiences and needs. I can only offer the OP what mine have been shooting both systems fairly extensively. I actually considered moving to the E-M1 exclusively when it was announced and all the hype about it were going around, but like most hype, it proved to be just that when I actually got my hands on one and compared it for myself to my D7100. The EM1 is a fantastic camera and depending on your priorities and subjects it could be all someone needs. Right tool for the right job. It's just not for mine and my priorities as my only camera. I could be happy with one in addition to a dSLR but not in leu of one.

Your last statement is extremely important I think. I could see an E-M1 with its compromises (as small or large as they might be interpreted) as an addition to a DSLR if money was no object, but not as a replacement, especially given the price. And I think the OP was referring to having only 1 camera. Back when the price of m4/3 was still reasonable, the case was a lot more compelling.

Jim got what I was trying to point out about AF, and both of you raise good points, but I'd class both of your primary missions as being at just those extremes where the DSLR has a clear advantage over a top-end u43 kit. For most amateur photos the biggest concern will be battery life, not AF or IQ. Equivalency is and will be a factor, but if you regularly shoot at f4 or f5.6 or higher u43 lenses will work just fine for you - they just have to be the best ones offered.

Proper tool for purpose is the most relevant point here. As much as I don't like the size and weight of my 7100 system for travel, I depend on its nearly 1000 shot battery life and its rapid AF acquisition and tracking for grab shots on the street. Follow focus is a nice feature, but fast acquisition in single shot mode is the dominant mode for most buyers. E

 

[gnewylliw]

a lot of you are comparing to the EM5 and E-PL3 or E-PL5, but remember that the E-M1 now has on-sensor phase-detect; mu4/3 lens use both contrast and phase-detect during c-AF

also, d7100=24MP, e-m1 = 16MP, could that account for some of the detail loss in the JPEGs?

 

[jimoyer]

a lot of you are comparing to the EM5 and E-PL3 or E-PL5, but remember that the E-M1 now has on-sensor phase-detect; mu4/3 lens use both contrast and phase-detect during c-AF

also, d7100=24MP, e-m1 = 16MP, could that account for some of the detail loss in the JPEGs?

Agreed, and the new AF is leaps and bounds beyond the C-AF on the CDAF only bodies but its still not at the same level as the D7100s AF-C (unless you are talking live view). The EVF is another quite significant issue. Keep in mind I'm a m4/3 fan and really wanted the E-M1 to be on par with the D7100, but its just not, at least not for the fast moving subjects I often shoot. My personal comments about the other bodies was the bodies I personally own with a SIMILAR 16mp sensor.

 

[j_photo]

You are welcome to differ. But I'll rely on real world experience over test charts any day. I own both and have shot extensively with both. I even like both. But the 16-85 just is not in the same league as the constant f/2.8 alternatives. I'm sure the op is smart enough to understand the differences and to decide if the difference in cost is worth it for his needs.

 

[gnewylliw]

Keep in mind I'm a m4/3 fan and really wanted the E-M1 to be on par with the D7100, but its just not, at least not for the fast moving subjects I often shoot.

Curious, not a jab, have you had a chance to shoot the E-M1?

I just found the Slrgear review on the 12-40mm f2.8, and holy smokes I don't think I've ever seen a sharper zoom lens. suddenly the 800$ price tag (rebate before dec 2nd) isn't looking so bad now

 

[jimoyer]

Keep in mind I'm a m4/3 fan and really wanted the E-M1 to be on par with the D7100, but its just not, at least not for the fast moving subjects I often shoot.

Curious, not a jab, have you had a chance to shoot the E-M1?

I just found the Slrgear review on the 12-40mm f2.8, and holy smokes I don't think I've ever seen a sharper zoom lens. suddenly the 800$ price tag (rebate before dec 2nd) isn't looking so bad now

Yes. Actually with the 12-40 on it. It's a very impressive camera, and like I said, they've made huge improvements on the C-AF with the new focus system. I only shot it with that lens, and did not have an opportunity to shoot it with any legacy glass. One thing I will say...I wouldn't recommend it for an inexperienced shooter. There is an absolutely overwhelming amount of customization built in to the camera.

Everything about the 12-40 is impressive and it is absolutely a professional quality lens. If you think the images justify the price, wait until you have it in your hand. You'll wonder how they got it at that price point and not significantly more.

Like I said, I'm a huge fan of m4/3 and will probably own an E-M1 in the near future, but it's not going to replace my Nikon gear for sports shooting and paid work.

 

[morel22]

No, I read that in your first sentence. I was trying to be nice.

Have you noticed that with many of Nikon's professional grade wide zooms they don't have VR? The 24-70 doesn't either. While I agree that I'd rather have a tool and not need it than need it and not have it, the $600-$800 that a 17-55 can be had for used, and to a lesser extent what it can be had for new....for a professional grade, constant aperture zoom, is hardly a ridiculous price. Again, I understand that it may not meet your needs, or may be too pricey whether financially or by features for you to consider, but to recommend that someone else not even consider a lens you've never even laid hands on is just silly, especially based on something you read on the internet.

DXO's reviews and ratings are good, but are not the be all, end all and numbers on a screen or a piece of paper rarely tell the whole story. Even without VR, the 17-55 is a better lens overall than the Tamron or Sigma with it. Not that they're not good lenses. They both certainly are (yes, I've shot all 3). Tamron and Sigma have really upped their game recently...especially Sigma. Hell, the Tamron 24-70 wide open, while nowhere near the build quality, was sharper on my D7100 than the Nikon 24-70 wide open. But that's not the case with the 17-50's/17-55.

The 16-85 you have is a great lens. It's far better than it has any right to be. But you're comparing apples and oranges comparing a constant aperture professional grade zoom to a variable aperture consumer grade zoom.

The 17-55 makes a 26-83 equivalent. This is not quite a wide angle range.

I know the 17-55 is a different purpose lens to the 16-85, but my post was a reply to a comparison of these two recommending one over the other.

Anyway, my point was that for that price, better to invest in an FX lens. The 17-35 2.8 is in the same price range. An FX lens. Though it has poorer performance at 2.8 I would still tip it for the overall performance and the fact that it would still very usable with an FX body upgrade.

Another is the 16-35 F/4 VR.. One sacrifices here one stop of fixed aperture, but again this is an FX lens and sharper than the 17-55, and all over its focal range. Plus I consider the extra 1mm at the lower end as significant. And it's even cheaper than the 17-55.

Based on what does the 17-55 qualify as a professional grade lens? Because imo, no DX can be considered a pro grade. Build and fixed 2.8 aperture can't alone qualify a lens as pro grade. It can't be mounted on pro bodies to start with. And its optical performance over its focal range is very inconsistent.

Recommending this lens over the 16-85 as a main kit lens (the lens to use the most or as the sole lens to start with on a D7100) just doesn't seem right to me. 16-85 is a better general purpose lens and it's best quality Nikon has to offer for this category of kit lenses on DX bodies.

If I to get the 17-55, it won't be to replace the 16-85 but as an extra lens to use within the 17-35 range for its F/2.8.. But then again, I see better options for this usage at that price. So even here, I wouldn't recommend the lens. The main problem with I see with lens is the value it gives for its price. Not that it is a bad lens overall.

 

[SirSeth]

Keep in mind I'm a m4/3 fan and really wanted the E-M1 to be on par with the D7100, but its just not, at least not for the fast moving subjects I often shoot.

Curious, not a jab, have you had a chance to shoot the E-M1?

I just found the Slrgear review on the 12-40mm f2.8, and holy smokes I don't think I've ever seen a sharper zoom lens. suddenly the 800$ price tag (rebate before dec 2nd) isn't looking so bad now

Yes. Actually with the 12-40 on it. It's a very impressive camera, and like I said, they've made huge improvements on the C-AF with the new focus system. I only shot it with that lens, and did not have an opportunity to shoot it with any legacy glass. One thing I will say...I wouldn't recommend it for an inexperienced shooter. There is an absolutely overwhelming amount of customization built in to the camera.

Everything about the 12-40 is impressive and it is absolutely a professional quality lens. If you think the images justify the price, wait until you have it in your hand. You'll wonder how they got it at that price point and not significantly more.

Like I said, I'm a huge fan of m4/3 and will probably own an E-M1 in the near future, but it's not going to replace my Nikon gear for sports shooting and paid work.

... I agree with completely. I'm a big fan of m4/3rds. I will also probably buy an E-M1, and will not be getting rid of my DSLR. ~I like big glass and I can not lie~

I think several people here are missing how quickly m4/3rds has narrowed the gap in several areas though. There was a significant gap between 4/3rds and APS-C going back more than a decade. People claimed it was physics, but when Olympus switched to sourcing Sony sensors (E-M5 on) the gap closed in a radical way. Some like to quote DXO. The margins for color depth and DR are within what DXO claims to be "unnoticable" between the D7100 and the E-M1. The score for low light high ISO is 2/3rds a stop, but when looking at samples like the ones posted above, ISO6400 is noisy on both cameras and at 100% you start to get reduction of detail above 3200. For some, that makes Nikon the clear winner, but really, is used to be 2 stops not 2/3rds of a stop. 1/3rd of a stop for all practical purposes is unrecognizable in real life.

At first AF in mirrorless cameras was not even a contest. Use the E-M1 + 12-40mm or other newer micro lens and the AF is simply blazing. The gap has closed so quickly that folks who haven't used the different gens of mirrorless cameras, seem to be going off of old info. I'm not saying that the E-M1 is better at tracking moving objects. No no. But the speed at which Olympus has closed the gap is really impressive and for those not doing birds in flight as their main gig, the E-M1 focus speed is a total non-issue. In fact, many folks are reporting that it's much more accurate and they get more keepers with the new mirrorless.

So that said, both cameras have strengths, and one is only a clear winner over another here if your priority list plays to the strengths. I feel it could go either way for the OP. For me, it will most certainly go both ways--because I feel the strengths of DSLRs and mirrorless make near perfect companions. It does steam me when someone insinuates that if a person isn't doing BIFs or sports, then they are not serious photographers and therefor the E-M1 should only be relegated to a holiday snap shot camera. That's bias supported by faulty logic.

Best,

Seth

--

What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?
--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com

 

[gnewylliw]

Yes. Actually with the 12-40 on it. It's a very impressive camera, and like I said, they've made huge improvements on the C-AF with the new focus system. I only shot it with that lens, and did not have an opportunity to shoot it with any legacy glass. One thing I will say...I wouldn't recommend it for an inexperienced shooter. There is an absolutely overwhelming amount of customization built in to the camera.

Everything about the 12-40 is impressive and it is absolutely a professional quality lens. If you think the images justify the price, wait until you have it in your hand. You'll wonder how they got it at that price point and not significantly more.

Like I said, I'm a huge fan of m4/3 and will probably own an E-M1 in the near future, but it's not going to replace my Nikon gear for sports shooting and paid work.

You mentioned issues with the EVF: could you elaborate?

After seeing the slrgear chart I've became much more likely to buy the E-m1, specifically before that rebate expires Dec 2nd.

I absolutely loved how the D7100 handled AF at low-light: fast and dead-on. How did you find the E-m1+12-40mm at that?

 

[jimoyer]

Yes. Actually with the 12-40 on it. It's a very impressive camera, and like I said, they've made huge improvements on the C-AF with the new focus system. I only shot it with that lens, and did not have an opportunity to shoot it with any legacy glass. One thing I will say...I wouldn't recommend it for an inexperienced shooter. There is an absolutely overwhelming amount of customization built in to the camera.

Everything about the 12-40 is impressive and it is absolutely a professional quality lens. If you think the images justify the price, wait until you have it in your hand. You'll wonder how they got it at that price point and not significantly more.

Like I said, I'm a huge fan of m4/3 and will probably own an E-M1 in the near future, but it's not going to replace my Nikon gear for sports shooting and paid work.

You mentioned issues with the EVF: could you elaborate?

After seeing the slrgear chart I've became much more likely to buy the E-m1, specifically before that rebate expires Dec 2nd.

I absolutely loved how the D7100 handled AF at low-light: fast and dead-on. How did you find the E-m1+12-40mm at that?

First, I can't really help with the low light focusing of the E-M1. I didn't have an opportunity to shoot it in any challenging lighting. Sorry. I can say the C-AF struck me as faster than the previous generation.

The EVF didn't have any issues at all. It's the best EVF I've used, but it's an EVF, not an OVF and by nature lags just a bit compared to the OVF. With the D7100, I can switch into 1.3x crop and see what's coming into my frame before it does, and capture it at 7fps, watching it all the time. The EVF doesn't allow for that. Again, the E-M1's is close. Unless you're shooting very fast birds, auto/motorcycle racing, professional sports, (which is primarily what I shoot), it probably won't be a detractor from purchasing the E-M1. On the positive note, it still has all the positive features that are inherent of OVF's, while being significantly clearer and more responsive than previous EVF's (the E-M5, my G5, etc).

 

[Benntt]

I was in a similar position to the OP almost a year ago, trying to decide on the EM-5 vs waiting for the d7100 to come out (or was it out already?). I had sold my d300 because i was no longer doing the sports/action shots that I used to, and I found I was getting slightly better pictures from my D5000 in lower light such as the kids' school performances.

I wanted another camera with more direct controls than the D5000 and one that would do better with video.

I chose the EM-5 because of the weather sealing, the in-body stabilization, the availability of good small primes, the fast single shot focus, and the size and weight. I was also worried about quality control with Nikon and all the apparent "user error" problems with the D7000 that I read about. The EVF doesn't bother me, and I have several spare batteries. I can get 400 shots per charge if I am careful.

I find that I use the Oly a lot more than I did my Nikons because the system is small and light enough that I always have it in my backpack or coat pocket (camera with pancake in one pocket and another lens in the other). That makes the purchase worth it for me.

I still use my D5000, though, and I will buy another Nikon DSLR soon.