Why is an OM-D better than a Pentax K-5?

Started May 9, 2012 | Discussions thread
Henry Richardson Forum Pro • Posts: 15,380
Re: Another biased one

PerL wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

Here is an example. E-M5 + 20mm f1.7 (effective 40mm) and K-5 + 28mm f1.8 (effective 42mm):

http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.30,187.133,ha,t

Yes, the size/weight difference is pretty substantial and that is appreciated by some people.

This is better:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.93,187.82,202.220,ha,t

Yes, that is a good one. Look how much smaller the E-M5 is than the K-5. Thanks for pointing that out. Unfortunately, you chose lenses that aren't all that comparable though. The 45mm f1.8 is an effective 90mm and the 43mm f1.9 is an effective 64mm.

By the way, since the subject of this thread is the E-M5 and K-5 I don't see any relevance to adding a third camera. Might as well make that one a Nikon D4 or Canon S95 since those two are off subject as well.

And here:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#289,187

Assuming the cameras are of equal thickness (not shown in this photo) then one might be fooled into thinking the two cameras are almost the same size. Sadly, once you take them off the flat computer screen and hold them in your hand you discover that they are 3-dimensional and not 2-dimensional so the difference becomes substantial again.

Here's another somewhat more on point comparison. E-M5 + 9-18mm and K-5 + 10-20mm:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.96,187.146,ha,t

I bet we could go on all day with this! I might have to stop for dinner soon though...

-- hide signature --

Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Leo
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow