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

Started May 9, 2012 | Discussions thread
zxaar Veteran Member • Posts: 4,341
Re: Another biased one

Henry Richardson wrote:

PerL wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

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


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

This is better:

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:

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.

Yaa but the problem is biggest dimension. Both cameras are unpocketable. You have to carry both of them in either hands or in bag.

-- hide signature --

::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.

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