OM-D EM-5, or true DSLR?

AnandaSim said:

The Olympus E-series DSLRs are/were classic DSLRs. They too had Four Thirds sensors.

Click to expand...

Classic as in classic failures in the market (cruel but true)

AnandaSim said:

Comparing sensor size is like comparing who's got a bigger you-know-what. There are other things that make a camera work well.

Click to expand...

There is a cost argument here. A D7000 is cheaper than the OM-D
More camera very solid system for less money

AnandaSim said:

The smaller sensor of the EM-5 (the E-5 is a different camera with the same size sensor) does affect the depth of field on an equivalence basis. So does the APS-C sensor of the D7000 affect the equivalent DOF vs D700. So does the D700 FX sensor affect the equivalent DOF compared to a Mamiya 645 digital.

Click to expand...

Bottom line is APS-C more DOF control v less DOF control on 4/3

AnandaSim said:

The size of the sensor is a facet. It is neither good or bad.

Click to expand...

APS-C is the market leader ;-)

AnandaSim said:

The EM-5 will sell with the one currently available Micro Four Thirds weather proof lens - the 12-50mm.

Click to expand...

True but not a lot else out there. Sealing freaks tend to go for Pentax

AnandaSim said:

To the OP, if you want the cheapest, most compatible and belong to the big tribes, get a Canon or Nikon brand. There are no buts about that. You can find second hand bodies, lenses, rental etc... easily

If you want to emphasise a camera and gear that emphasise smaller size and weight, have enough manual / semi-auto functions, the Micro Four Thirds cameras are quite capable.

Click to expand...

Indeed they are capable. Still for the DSLR buyer I think far less appealing

There are what 11 micro 4/3 lenses available now
An option to have slow AF with some older 4/3 lenses

V a lens range that is huge for the top 2 makers
And a large s/h market + third party lenses on top
Lots of flash and accessory choices too

Barry Fitzgerald said:

AnandaSim said:

The Olympus E-series DSLRs are/were classic DSLRs. They too had Four Thirds sensors.

Click to expand...

Classic as in classic failures in the market (cruel but true)

Member said:

Comparing sensor size is like comparing who's got a bigger you-know-what. There are other things that make a camera work well.

Click to expand...

There is a cost argument here. A D7000 is cheaper than the OM-D
More camera very solid system for less money

Member said:

The smaller sensor of the EM-5 (the E-5 is a different camera with the same size sensor) does affect the depth of field on an equivalence basis. So does the APS-C sensor of the D7000 affect the equivalent DOF vs D700. So does the D700 FX sensor affect the equivalent DOF compared to a Mamiya 645 digital.

Click to expand...

Bottom line is APS-C more DOF control v less DOF control on 4/3

Member said:

The size of the sensor is a facet. It is neither good or bad.

Click to expand...

APS-C is the market leader ;-)

Member said:

The EM-5 will sell with the one currently available Micro Four Thirds weather proof lens - the 12-50mm.

Click to expand...

True but not a lot else out there. Sealing freaks tend to go for Pentax

Member said:

To the OP, if you want the cheapest, most compatible and belong to the big tribes, get a Canon or Nikon brand. There are no buts about that. You can find second hand bodies, lenses, rental etc... easily

If you want to emphasise a camera and gear that emphasise smaller size and weight, have enough manual / semi-auto functions, the Micro Four Thirds cameras are quite capable.

Click to expand...

Indeed they are capable. Still for the DSLR buyer I think far less appealing

There are what 11 micro 4/3 lenses available now
An option to have slow AF with some older 4/3 lenses

V a lens range that is huge for the top 2 makers
And a large s/h market + third party lenses on top
Lots of flash and accessory choices too

Click to expand...

What Barry said is true. Except for two little details.

Most "sealing freaks" I know go for Nikon, Canon OR Pentax. I know I am often out in storms and other things looking for the fun photo only those conditions can give you. Most of those I run in to are Nikon or Canon with the occasional Pentax (in that order).

I still think the EM-5 is a very interesting and compelling camera even if it does not stack up to a Nikon d7000 or Canon 7d.

For many a big turn on will be the size of the body and sensor. Sure the smaller sensor is not likely to match a d7000. But then again a em-5 with its smaller body and smaller lenses (lens size smaller due to smaller sensor) make for a smaller, lighter hiking kit.

My brother recently downgraded his large Nikon for a Nikon d3100 to get a smaller, lighter kit to take hiking. I don't know, but I imagine the EM-5 would also have made his short list if it had been available at that time.

As for Steven's point that image quality is tied to sensor size, this is true but for many even the older m4/3 sensor was "good enough".

Personally I am also tempted my a m4/3 body, and in particular the em-5. Not as a replacement for my Nikon full-frame d700 nor as a competitor to the very nice d7000. But as a tiny little companion camera for my d700. For those casual times when I don't feel like taking the bigger/better body with me. For now I have been using a P&S for this waiting to see what the Nikon 1-series looked like. Having seen it, I am more tempted by the m4/3. And even though there is only 1 sealed lens for now, this will surely change in time. And some of those 11 m4/3 lenses are more then good enough for "casual" use.
--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.

moss1310 said:

I am getting caught up in all the hype. I was all set to buy a Canon 60D or Pentax K5, but nave been reading all the chatter on the Oly EM-5 and I love the look of it. As a beggining creatrive and travel shooter, will I regret not getting the Canon or Pentax after the novelty wears off??

Click to expand...

I like the EM-5. I am thinking of getting one after I see some reviews as a 2nd smaller companion camera to my larger DSLR.

But, unless you really prize the smaller size and are willing to trade away a little image quality and lens selection away for that size, I suggest a DSLR.

If you want a moderate price sealed body with MANY more sealed lenses to pick from (several dozen vs just the 1), consider the Nikon d7000.

If you want something smaller / light, consider the Canon 600d and Nikon d5100. Both Nikon and Canon have many many times more lenses and other important accessories to pick from. They are the two best selling camera companies for a reason.

The larger sensor in the Canon and to an even greater degree in the Nikon preform a better than the smaller sensors. They produce less noise as you go up in ISO. They have more dynamic range. They have better color depth. They have better depth of field control. Short version is they are better cameras than the m4/3's and the system supporting them (lenses, flashes, etc) is also better.

That said, for most the m4/3 is good enough. And even though I have a significantly better camera than available for m/3, I am still considering adding a em-5. Will it be as good at any level? No. But it will be more convenient at times. And even though it won't match my current rig, I expect it will still be very good. Far better than my current small camera (a Panasonic TZ10).

Finally consider ergonomics. Go hold a few cameras. See what feels good. I once bought a Canon 500d pre-order based on specifications and I was throughly disappointed in the level of ergonomics from that body. You will get more statisfaction in the long term if you buy something that is both capable "enough" and you enjoy handling. A camera which is only "good" but is fun is going to be used more than a great camera you hate.

--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.

Barry Fitzgerald said:

AnandaSim said:

The Olympus E-series DSLRs are/were classic DSLRs. They too had Four Thirds sensors.

Click to expand...

Classic as in classic failures in the market (cruel but true)

Click to expand...

It has been shown that it is near impossible to gain market share from Nikon and Canon. Sony has a mountain of cash and they gained some share but had to resort to SLT to even make the little progress they made.

Member said:

Member said:

Comparing sensor size is like comparing who's got a bigger you-know-what. There are other things that make a camera work well.

Click to expand...

There is a cost argument here. A D7000 is cheaper than the OM-D
More camera very solid system for less money

Click to expand...

The D7000 is a huge camera. Fit that with the ubiquitous 18-200 and I tip over.

I just had a look at ebay.com.au - online price for the D7000 with 18-105 lens is AUD 1600. Bricks and mortar shop here in Oz will be a bit higher than that. Body only seems to be AUD 1300

The online price for EM-5 (dunno how they set a price when there is no stock) is AUD 1200

As I previously said, if OP wants to joint the 2 big tribes, get a Nikon / Canon.

Member said:

Member said:

The size of the sensor is a facet. It is neither good or bad.

Click to expand...

APS-C is the market leader ;-)

Click to expand...

What has that got to do with anything? I already said if you want to buy a brand and join a big tribe, get the Nikon / Canon.

But what has being market leader got to do with anything? Do they sell more DSLRs than camera phones? Compact Point and Shoots?

Being market leader does not mean that people do not yearn for a Full Frame which is not the market leader

Member said:

Member said:

The EM-5 will sell with the one currently available Micro Four Thirds weather proof lens - the 12-50mm.

Click to expand...

True but not a lot else out there. Sealing freaks tend to go for Pentax

Click to expand...

I specifically noted this for Stephen's info who invited info on Micro Four Thirds.

I specifically did not mention that the E-1, E-3, E-5 are very robust and weatherproof and Olympus DSLRs have a fair number of sealed lenses. I specifically did not mention Pentax because I don't keep an eye on them and Stephen is well aware of the Pentax marquee

Member said:

Member said:

To the OP, if you want the cheapest, most compatible and belong to the big tribes, get a Canon or Nikon brand. There are no buts about that. You can find second hand bodies, lenses, rental etc... easily

If you want to emphasise a camera and gear that emphasise smaller size and weight, have enough manual / semi-auto functions, the Micro Four Thirds cameras are quite capable.

Click to expand...

Indeed they are capable. Still for the DSLR buyer I think far less appealing

Click to expand...

Appeal is in the eye of the beholder

Member said:

V a lens range that is huge for the top 2 makers
And a large s/h market + third party lenses on top
Lots of flash and accessory choices too

Click to expand...

Yes certainly. Indisputable.

--



Ananda
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6861540877/a-compilation-of-tips-for-beginners
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/
http://gplus.to/anandasim

'Enjoy Diversity - Live a Little or a Lot'

moss1310 said:

I am getting caught up in all the hype. I was all set to buy a Canon 60D or Pentax K5, but nave been reading all the chatter on the Oly EM-5 and I love the look of it. As a beggining creatrive and travel shooter, will I regret not getting the Canon or Pentax after the novelty wears off??

Click to expand...

When contemplating any new camera, I always consider auto focus speed and shutter lag. I think this may be the Achille's heel (and a deal killer for me), of the OM-D.
--
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! The Great Oz has spoken!"

• Jon

Great Pics T3

Hey Andy, I appreciate all of the feedback. Its good to hear the POV of someone in the same position as myself.

jonikon said:

When contemplating any new camera, I always consider auto focus speed and shutter lag. I think this may be the Achille's heel (and a deal killer for me), of the OM-D.

Click to expand...

Here's the comparison stats regarding shutter lag of the E-M5 vs the Pentax K5:

http://snapsort.com/compare/Olympus-E-M5-vs-Pentax_K-5

29ms vs 105ms.

And here's the comparison stats regarding shutter lag of the E-M5 vs the Canon 60D:

29ms vs 253ms

Keep in mind, DSLR's have a reflex mirror that has to be moved out of the way before the shutter is activated, whereas mirrorless cameras have no such mirror in the way. So pressing the shutter button immediately activates the shutter.

As for auto focus speed, Olympus claims the E-M5 has "the world's fastest Autofocus Speed". What that means in real life remains to be seen. However, Olympus made claims of extremely fast AF with their previous PEN series (E-P3, E-PL3, E-PM1). And since I have both the Canon 60D and the E-PM1, I can definitely confirm that the E-PM1's AF speed is at least as fast as the 60D's, if not slightly faster. But I believe the E-PM1's focus speed is slightly faster mainly because of Oly's latest lenses, which have very fast focus motors, and most significantly, they have much smaller lens elements to move around. For example, when I compare the AF speed of my Canon 17-40/4L vs the AF speed of my Oly 14-42 kit lens, you can almost feel the slower AF speed of the 17-40L because of the much greater size of its internal lens elements. That's just my impression.

But needless to say, for the average photographer, you'll probably never notice any appreciable difference in AF speed (or shutter lag) between the OM-D vs any mid-to-lower range DSLR. You're talking about really really splitting hairs.

moss1310 said:

Great Pics T3

Click to expand...

Thanks moss1310. The point of these photos was to illustrate that, in spite of being a life long SLR and DSLR user, I definitely don't feel limited by my E-PM1 and VF3. If anything, it's helped me to enjoy photography more because I am able to carry a fast, responsive, interchangeable lens camera more often with me, with less hassle, with less attention drawn to me, and with quieter operation. As much as I tried to carry my DSLR with me as often as possible in casual situations and when running around town, it tends to stick out like a sore thumb, and obviously there is more bulk to carry. Sometimes it makes it seems like photography is more about carrying equipment, rather than actually capturing photos. For me, with the smaller m4/3 system, it gets back to capturing the image, rather than carrying around equipment. It makes you feel more like a modern Henri Cartier-Bresson. And in fact, these images I shot were inspired by Henri Cartier-Bresson's compositions.

The real difference will not be theoretical AF speed but how accurate it is particularly with moving subjects.

The current m4/3 bodies tend to AF plenty fast.... so long as their is good light and nothing in the scene is moving or being tracked.

The referenced Canon 60d is pretty good at tracking, even if it does not have motion tracking like the d7000.

Then there is hunting in low light, and a host of other issues which make life hard on an AF system.

These issues are not unique to m4/3's bodies. This was the achilles heal of the old Canon 5dmk2, which the new 5dmk3 is supposed address with the AF system from the upmarket 1dx.

I think there was something about this in the preview of the em-5...
--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.

Olympus seem to be following a well trodden path of making a new camera resemble a well respected camera design from the past but without the specs to do justice to the original OM design, the OM designation should have been applied to their top of the range DSLR camera IMHO, Olympus have a history of quirky camera designs that seemed to be more fashion orientated than photography based. There has been the recent Fuji Leica lookalike which seemed to concentrate on style without the versatility of the cameras it aped ! I am concerned that camera purchasing decisions are made for possibly the wrong reasons I.e a nostalgia trip rather than the present day usage,

I have been part of the Nikon ' tribe ' for more years than I care to remember and it has benefitted me enormously mainly due the continuinity of the lens mount, my old speciality infrequently used lens work etc. also a progressive upgrade path with much familiarity in layout between old and new models making the transition much simpler, I cannot offer opinions on technical aspects as I take what Nikon offer, set it the best quality image capture and go out and take photographs, at the end of the day that is what it is all about.
--

A selection of my images can be found at http://www.photo-genesis.net follow the galleries link then select the Jacks gallery

Bjorn_L wrote:
[snip]

Bjorn_L said:

The referenced Canon 60d is pretty good at tracking, even if it does not have motion tracking like the d7000.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean by this, Bjorn. All Canon DSLRs from the 1100D upwards have continuous focus tracking - AI Servo in Canonspeak.

Are you refering to Liveview?
--
Chris R

Art Jacks said:

Olympus seem to be following a well trodden path of making a new camera resemble a well respected camera design from the past but without the specs to do justice to the original OM design,

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why people have this rose-colored adulation and idolatry for the "original OM" cameras while completely dismissing the merits of the new OM-D camera. The fact is that the new OM-D camera runs circles around the original OM cameras. Faster focusing, focus magnification, much greater customizability, faster frame rate, more compact design, quieter operation, weather sealing, wireless flash, higher resolution photos, etc. are all attributes of the new OM-D body that exceed that of the original OM bodies. Maybe old-timers have an emotional attachment and nostalgia to the old OM bodies, but today's photographers can't shoot with "nostalgia". They need actual specs, features, and performance.

So to say that the new OM doesn't have "the specs to do justice to the original OM design" is just a lot of nostalgic, biased non-sense. Yes, the original OM bodies were great for their time (two decades ago!), but by today's specs standards, they are pretty outdated and out-spec'd. You may call this a "nostalgia trip", but many of us consider these things simple, straight-forward tactile controls that are easy to understand and easy to use. If you don't like the "nostalgia trip" of being able to use tactile, physical controls, there's always the Nikon 1 system cameras, which are practically devoid of all external, physical controls. No "nostalgia trip" there! Enjoy.

And btw, if you don't like the manual controls, buttons, and knobs that the new OM-D offers, and you think they are just gimicks "without the specs to do justice to the original OM design", there are plenty of menu-driven, screen-control cameras out there for you. But some of us actually appreciate that some companies are bringing back manual function knobs and controls like what older cameras used to have.

Chris R-UK said:

Chris R-UK said:

The referenced Canon 60d is pretty good at tracking, even if it does not have motion tracking like the d7000.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean by this, Bjorn. All Canon DSLRs from the 1100D upwards have continuous focus tracking - AI Servo in Canonspeak.

Are you refering to Liveview?

Click to expand...

No, not focus tracking (which they have), Motion tracking it something else. Check out how a d300 does it. My Canon 500d did not have it, my Nikon d90 did.

I believe the 1dx has this also. I ready something somewhere (no link sorry) which seemed to say it does. Not sure about the 5dmk3, but I know the 5dmk2 did not do this.

--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.