Yeah, you approach a case of diminishing returns. At some point, you cease to care about the differences, as what you have is good enough. (I just wish I could feel good enough with a cheap camera! ;-) )
--
Gary W.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
OMD really match NEX APS-C sensor with 40% smaller size? Anyone have both?
- Thread starter Jefftan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sony alpha nex-7
--
Gary W.
Yes, I think a lot of us, and our financiers would like that too....!
I just keep telling myself that it's a far cheaper hobby than in the days of film.
You have gained the equivalent number of f-stops and thus a corresponding increase in shutter speed for a given ISO.
For low light event work, theater etc. that can sometimes be valuable. A larger sensor sometimes means less DOF than desired. Of course this is offset somewhat by increasing ISO but smaller sensors are catching up in high ISO performance.
But with a smaller-sensored camera, you're letting less light in for equivalent fields-of-view for the same f-stop. So, you have a wider aperture to match APS-C, and you haven't gotten anywhere. Your given ISO is a stop worse with m43 than APS-C.
Sensors are increasing in quality all around. DOF is a problem in some situations, but if I'm in a theater situation, I just have to balance what I have vs. the conditions. Sometimes wider apertures will work, sometimes not, but you have that extra bit to work with, with APS-C. Whether or not it matters is a psrsonal choice. I doubt there's much in it. The big move is up from P&S sized sensors.
--
Gary W.
I don't know how to figure that. Cameras were still expensive, even for P&S, and so was film, but we kept the same film camera for years -- the technology was stable enough to do so. Eventually, I bought an AF film camera, and used that for several years. Now, I'm lucky to get a few years out of a digital. But with film, I wouldn't have taken so many photos or found it so easy to edit them. So, I don't think it's a lot cheaper, but for the same cost, I am doing more and have a lot more flexibility.
--
Gary W.
Do you agree, that for a given DOF and ISO you can use a wider aperture and thus benefit from a faster shutter speed?
ChrisKramer1
Forum Enthusiast
On a trip to Mont Blanc today, I saw the lady in front of me using a EP3 and she was having a ball with it. It was fast and responsive, and the replays she was looking at looked great to me - nice colours, no blown highlights. If the EM-5 has a better sensor, then I can imagine many people would be pleased with it. I personally prefer the Sony NEX 5n because of the small size and more powerful sensor, but Olympus has come up with very good products in the EP3 and EM5 as well - which will be preferred by some.
...
You changed the focal length as well (in comparing the two sensor sizes), thus it's not really a wider aperture. For example, f2.8 isn't 2.8mm, it's focal-length divided by 2.8. That's the size of the opening. So, with comparing APS-C to m43, you change to a smaller focal length, thus the size of the actual aperture opening is smaller even if you're at f2.8 in both systems.
So, sure, you have more DOF, but you're also letting less light into the camera. For APS-C, you can stop down the aperture and let less light into the camera and get more DOF with the same view/angle.
As for "given ISO", if ISO 800 on a smaller sensor looks like ISO 1600 on an APS-C camera, then sure, you can set both cameras to ISO 800 and claim a stop of speed increase on the M43 camera. Although, in the real world, it's messier than that -- manufacturers do not use standardized ISO, and ISO can mean whatever they want. In the end, the best you can do is match aperture and shutter and see what the results look like. Or normalize the results like DxO does. The end result is, for a given shutter speed, what does my output look like? Once you fix the shutter and aperture, the ISO is whatever the camera says it is (although we know what it "should" be according to standard); it doesn't matter what the camera says it is, it only matters how noisy the resulting photo is.
It took me a while to understand what was going on when switching sensor sizes. I mean, I could see that larger sensors were better, but it's hard to know what to look for when comparing apertures.
--
Gary W.
chkproductions
Senior Member
A question - if ISO is a standard control by the International Standards Organization, then aren't manufacturers bound to those standards? Wouldn't ISO 100 have to have the same sensitivity regardless of sensor size to be an actual international standard?
http://chkphotography.zenfolio.com/
--
http://chkphotography.zenfolio.com/
There is a standard and noone (??) hits it. DxO has a good way of charting this, but I've seen it elsewhere. I first encountered this while comparing my f2.8 p&s with a f2.8 lens on a DSLR. F2.8 is f2.8, right? And yet, for the same ISO, the shutter speeds were way different.
Since you can, in software, modify the scene, it's probably best to fix the shutter and aperture and compare with auto ISO along with necessaryEV adjustment. Now see which is noisier. (We may be approaching a point where the sensors are so good that you effectively have an ISO-less sensor --expose the sensor for a set amount of time and just fix it up in software when needed.)
--
Gary W.
SHood
Veteran Member
This is just a preview. Full review and comparison is coming soon.
http://www.eoshd.com/content/8149/olympus-om-d-e-m5-first-impressions
"For me the OM-D is a superb stills camera with question marks for video. So satisfied I am with it as my main stills camera I’ve replaced both my Fuji X Pro 1 and NEX 7 with it for stills. Much better AF and the lens range were certainly a factor in that, but this camera also combines the retro good looks of the Fuji with the operational fluency and advanced featureset of the NEX 7, as well as offering superb 5 axis image stabilisation inside the body."
http://www.eoshd.com/content/8149/olympus-om-d-e-m5-first-impressions
"For me the OM-D is a superb stills camera with question marks for video. So satisfied I am with it as my main stills camera I’ve replaced both my Fuji X Pro 1 and NEX 7 with it for stills. Much better AF and the lens range were certainly a factor in that, but this camera also combines the retro good looks of the Fuji with the operational fluency and advanced featureset of the NEX 7, as well as offering superb 5 axis image stabilisation inside the body."
RussellInCincinnati
Veteran Member
Hold the phone, Martha, we've got to dump those Nex C3's before the bottom falls out of their market. I just found a camera that weighs and costs only twice as much, and has almost as good image quality.
SHood
Veteran Member
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/olympus_om_d_e_m5_review.shtml
At this point I'd judge there to be little to choose between them in terms of image quality. At 24MP and with an APS-C sized sensor the Sony has an edge in terms of file size, resolution, and shallow DOF. But unless strong cropping or very large prints are the order of the day this isn't an overwhelming advantage. When it comes to overall image quality the O-MD offers very good dynamic range and highly accurate color. I haven't done a side-by-side comparison (my NEX-7 is in for repairs) but based on experience, when it comes to high ISO noise performance these two cameras are very close.
When it comes to lenses the Olympus has a clear edge, being able to call upon not only its own range of MFT lenses, but also Panasonic's. And of course there are all those terrific Olympus high grade Four Thirds lenses as well. With third party and legacy lenses the NEX-7 offers focus peaking, but the O-MD has in-body stabilization, which I regard as a trump card for those interested in working with non-Olympus glass.
Simply put, the Olympus O-MD E-M5 is a winner, and has now become my preferred camera for travel and urban walk-around shooting. The Nikon D800/e is still my main squeeze – an awesome camera in almost every respect – but, for its price and size it's hard to top the new O-MD.
At this point I'd judge there to be little to choose between them in terms of image quality. At 24MP and with an APS-C sized sensor the Sony has an edge in terms of file size, resolution, and shallow DOF. But unless strong cropping or very large prints are the order of the day this isn't an overwhelming advantage. When it comes to overall image quality the O-MD offers very good dynamic range and highly accurate color. I haven't done a side-by-side comparison (my NEX-7 is in for repairs) but based on experience, when it comes to high ISO noise performance these two cameras are very close.
When it comes to lenses the Olympus has a clear edge, being able to call upon not only its own range of MFT lenses, but also Panasonic's. And of course there are all those terrific Olympus high grade Four Thirds lenses as well. With third party and legacy lenses the NEX-7 offers focus peaking, but the O-MD has in-body stabilization, which I regard as a trump card for those interested in working with non-Olympus glass.
Simply put, the Olympus O-MD E-M5 is a winner, and has now become my preferred camera for travel and urban walk-around shooting. The Nikon D800/e is still my main squeeze – an awesome camera in almost every respect – but, for its price and size it's hard to top the new O-MD.
from the DPR's full review:
--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~
jpr2
--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~
RussellInCincinnati
Veteran Member
Borders on the ridiculous to imply that a camera without focus peaking is better for manual-focusing lenses, just because it has in-body stabilization. After all focus peaking helps with just about every shot anyone ever takes. In contrast stabilization is only useful for that subset of scenes with so little light and action in them, that slow shutter speeds are both called for and sufficient.
Can't imagine, now that focus peaking is out of the bag, that anyone would seriously consider a manual-focusing rig without it. Videographers certainly wouldn't put up with that.
T
Thorgrem
Guest
You obviously don't know what you are talking about. While your story about IBIS in general is correct it isn't when talking about the E-M5. If someone want to manually focus at 150mm or more, it's pretty hard because at such tele-end the image shakes a lot. Not with IBIS on the E-M5, the IBIS kicks in and one could focus with stabilization. This works really well on the E-M5 so that manually focussing with legacy (or native) glass is a piece of cake.
Yes but it depends. Russell for me and what I take is 100% correct.
I shoot well over 1/1250th most of the time = switch IBIS off.
I shoot well over 90% of the time on a tripod = switch IBIS off
We don't all shoot the same. I'm sure its a blessing to a lot of folks, but have you seen the threads on the OMD with blurry shots using IBIS at high shutter speeds. There are a couple of threads in the m4/3 forum about it.
However, I do use focus peaking 100% of the time. Ever tried lifting a lens that weighs in at over 3kg's and hold it at slow speeds. Ain't going to happen, so IBIS is a waste of time in that situation when you need fast shutter speeds. Focus peaking is not a waste of time at the fast shutter speeds required, including hand held.
To put it into perspective, if the OMD had focus peaking I would get one tomorrow and I am a m4/3 user as well.
All the best, but we are not all the same.
Danny.
...........................
Birds and macro. NEX and m4/3
http://www.birdsinaction.com
Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.
MR is trying out the OMD, just as he has for anumber of other cameras. He hasn't said that he has switch from NEX7 to OMD.
firefox23508
Leading Member
I believe MR has actually switched from the NEX 7 to the OM D. The NEX 7 was his walk about and travel camera previously. It seems clear he is now using the OM-D for that purpose.
RussellInCincinnati
Veteran Member
Surprising that it's so obvious, since you aren't able to point out which part of my statement was untrue. Is it untrue that focus peaking helps with almost every photo taken with non-autofocusing lenses? Or is it untrue that stabilization is only helpful when you are not happy using fast shutter speeds...AND is only useful in that further subset of scenes where your subjects are moving so little that fast shutter speeds aren't required anyway?
So with an Olympus E-M5, you "need" stabilization even when there's plenty of light for really fast shutter speeds? That's odd, because have found no need for stabilization to get clear photos with any other camera, when shutter speed is high.
Or do you mean to say that the Olympus stabilization even takes care of the problem of subject movement ?
Doubt you mean to say either of those things.
Hey, am sure the expensive Olympus camera is a great picture taking machine. But when thinking about manual focus lenses, it's silly to not acknowledge that the Oly's lack of focus peaking is going to adversely affect the camera handling more often than another camera's lack of in-body stabilization. Hmm enough discussion of a non-Nex camera in a Nex-specific forum
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum