Do I need an OM-D E-M5

Hi all, I have been reading a bit about these cameras and checking them out in the shops etc, seems like Olympus has done a great job with them, at the moment I have an E-5 and love it, seems like the OM-D is the way of the future though,

Have many of you got got an OM-D that have an E-5 as well and are you happy with it, I like the idea of a smaller camera that takes great pictures as the E-5 is a big rig, any feed back would be appreciated

If you have invested in the zuiko lenses, then stick with the E-5. It can make full utilization of their capabilities, and no need for an adapter.

If the E-5 is not too big for your hands, keep it. If you have a collection of Pro and Top Pro lenses, hang on to it. It is the best body so far for these lenses and Oly are developing a successor.

Cheers!
--
Hans H. Siegrist
http://hhsiegrist.zenfolio.com/
Nature Photo Blog: http://hhsiegrist.wordpress.com

I have an E30 and I bought an OMD and I can't afford to keep both so one needs to go... yes, the OMD is a better camera but do I need that extra performance? It hasn't been a clear cut decision...

First thing is what lenses do you already have? Personally my normal pack would consist of E30+14-54 and 9-18 and 40-150 so the weight advantage is not that large as the 9-18 and 40-150 are pretty small anyway. The 12-50 is actually a pretty decent performer if a little slow so the extra stops of light from a 14-54 or 12-60 would make up for the sensor improvements in the OMD.

EM5 wins:
AF Speed/Accuracy
High ISO
Higher FPS
Macro mode (12-50)
Weight
Screen Quality
Video
Primes
Weather Sealing

E30 wins:
1/8000 sec
ISO 100
OVF (EVF takes a second to appear when you old it to your eye)
14-54+HG Zooms
Price
Full articulated screen
Battery life
Lens hoods
Startup Time
Tripod Plate (OMD is too small for mine)

In my rough-and-ready tests I'd say that EM5 ISO6400 == E30 ISO1600 and EM5 ISO12800 is slightly worse than E30 ISO3200.

I have found the OMD a little fiddly, and I would really miss the 14-54...

The EM5 is a great camera with excellent image quality. And the small size is addictive - it is hard to pick up the big stuff once you've gotten used to the small stuff.

But here are some things to think about:

• it is expensive and not as durable as the E5; lenses are expensive and they aren't as versatile, so you end up needing/wanting more lenses

• the EM5 can't do some things as well as the E5 - birds in flight, running dogs/children, etc. Controls are not as fast/convenient to use. Maximum shutter speed is 1/4000. No built in flash and sync speed depends upon the flash being used.

• the electronic viewfinder is very nice, but there are still times that optical is better (harsh bright sun, moving subjects, etc.)

• lenses - expensive, mostly not as good as 4/3, mostly slower than 4/3, lack of versatility, some lenses don't exist yet (fast long tele or any t/c, e.g.) - you have to choose between convenience/price (slow mediocre zooms) and speed/optical quality/price (good primes). Even the expensive Panasonic 12-35 is not quite as good or versatile as the 12-60. Only 2 weather sealed lenses so far.

My advice is to get the EM5, but hold on to your E5 and lenses until you know whether you'd still have need for them.

--
Roberto M.

You don't NEED an E-M5. Neither did I.
But I did get one and I do not regret it.
If you can spare the money and feel the itch, you could give it a try.

But I would not consider it a full replacement for an E-5.

There are times and circumstances where the E-M5 is certainly more convenient. It may even be just better for certain things. But I know that I still turn to my E-5 for other things. They are just different, and that is good.

--
Roel Hendrickx

lots of images : http://www.roelh.zenfolio.com

my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

I think this owuld depend upon what sort of pics you take. If you use your 50-200mm zoom (or similar) often then it will e a hard move cause apart from the slow 75-300mm Oly or 100-300mm Pany there isnt really anything unless you dont mind long AF times.

Apart from that the EM5 blows the E5 out of the water in many ways. I was using both on the weekend and i would have to say that the "only" reason i am keeping the E5 is because of the AF speed with the four thirds lenses.

Lenses on the m43 are getting better, so much so that some (in particular the 75mm f1.8) would match or out do the best four thirds. The 12-35mm comes to mind as well (I have not used this one) cause going by some reviews it will be as sharp and even sharper than the 12-60mm, but CA is an issue compared to the 43 lens.

A m43 lens that matches or betters the 50-200mm would sell me over completely.

But keep in mind, they are likely to bring out an e7 or similar soon which will no doubt have the SOny sensor and EM5 IS which would be a huge gain to four thirds.

If you regularly use C-AF or larger/longer lenses then I wouldn't bother.

The advantage of the EM-5 is the great DR, lack of noise and the small native lenses.
If you like to travel light then I would say get it

The EVF is great and in my opinion better/brighter than my E3 viewfinder in low light but not as good in bright sunlight or for colour accuracy

Thanks everyone, maybe I don't need one of these just yet, I have been looking at them and can see the appeal, great little camera but they do cost money!!

I should just stick with the E-5 and be happy, it blows me away sometimes and is much better than me, this Olympus thing is a whacky thing to be involved with and like the rest of you on this forum,I like Olympus gear for some strange reason, thanks again...

Great post and thank you, my kit at the moment is a 14-54, 9-18, 50-200, 50mm, 70-300 and a FL50R so I haven't got bucket loads invested, but enough to be happy with the E-5, the OM-D on the other hand is a nice bit of gear

blohum said:

I have an E30 and I bought an OMD and I can't afford to keep both so one needs to go... yes, the OMD is a better camera but do I need that extra performance? It hasn't been a clear cut decision...

First thing is what lenses do you already have? Personally my normal pack would consist of E30+14-54 and 9-18 and 40-150 so the weight advantage is not that large as the 9-18 and 40-150 are pretty small anyway. The 12-50 is actually a pretty decent performer if a little slow so the extra stops of light from a 14-54 or 12-60 would make up for the sensor improvements in the OMD.

EM5 wins:
AF Speed/Accuracy
High ISO
Higher FPS
Macro mode (12-50)
Weight
Screen Quality
Video
Primes
Weather Sealing

E30 wins:
1/8000 sec
ISO 100
OVF (EVF takes a second to appear when you old it to your eye)
14-54+HG Zooms
Price
Full articulated screen
Battery life
Lens hoods
Startup Time
Tripod Plate (OMD is too small for mine)

In my rough-and-ready tests I'd say that EM5 ISO6400 == E30 ISO1600 and EM5 ISO12800 is slightly worse than E30 ISO3200.

I have found the OMD a little fiddly, and I would really miss the 14-54...

Click to expand...

the bluesman said:

.....,I like Olympus gear for some strange reason, thanks again...

Click to expand...

You do need an OMD

If you want something smaller, one of the cheaper Pens would probably do fine. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot to like about the OMD and it has definite advantages over the Pens that came before it but unless you definitively need any of those advantages (water proof, killer IS or greater DR in the shadows spring to mind), need would perhaps be a bit of a strong word to use .

--
Regards
J

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jasonhindleuk
Blog: http://jasonhindle.wordpress.com



Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jason_hindle

Gear in profile

Have E-5, really like it, but now use EM5 instead.
--
F. S. Szalay
http://fredszalay.zenfolio.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fredszalay/sets/

after looking it over carefully, and playing around with it a bit, I came to the conclusion that it's not for me. It's a neat little camera and I wouldn't mind having one. My original idea was that I could use it for a travel camera along with my 9-18,14x54 MK II and my 40x150. That's the kit I use for traveling now along with my E-30.

However I simply didn't like the EVF (although it's the best I've seen) I didn't like that the LCD is not fully articulated and I didn't like the way my 14x54 focused on it, and I have to assume the other E system lenses would fare equally poorly.

I'll just keep my E-30 and E-5 and wait for the E-7. M4:3 maybe someday, but not yet.
--
BJM

the bluesman said:

Have many of you got got an OM-D that have an E-5 as well and are you happy with it,

Click to expand...

Have both, love both, use both.

My $0.02 is - if you are asking yourself the question - don't get it. When the OM-D was first announced I just knew I want it the second I saw it, was probably the first to order it or almost (ordered on Amazono at 12 zero something AM the night it became available for preorder), and never regretted it for a second.

Side to side - the E-5's viewfinder will simply make the EM-5's viewfinder cry bitter tears, if you swap from one to the other. If you forget the E-5 for a second and use the EM-5 extensively - you'll be ok, but get both to a very bright place (say - on the beach), and you will see how good the E-5's viewfinder really is.

Try focusing on a plane with your EM-5 + 75-300mm combo, and you will remember all the "bzzzttt-bzzzt-bzzzt" days of your E-620 + 70-300mm struggle. Switch from that to the E-5 + 50-200mm + EC-14, and you will be in pure heaven.

Then, get both in the city, and try to get that discreet shot of that funny situation with your E-5 + 50-200mm + EC-14 combo. Once you're done explaining to the cops why you were taking pictures of this or that with your huge camera - get the EM-5 + 75-300mm combo, put it at your waist or belly level and just start take pictures by touching your screen.

Long story short - you need both. But if you need to take any action zoom shots, dont expect to get the performance of an E-5 + 50-200mm SWD lens, even with native m43 zoom lenses. Think more like "E-620 + 70-300mm, a bit faster".

Your back into "really fast" territory with the 12-50mm, but it's a different story picture quality wise (although it's a very, very nice lens which I love a lot).

the bluesman said:

Great post

Click to expand...

Thanks

the bluesman said:

and thank you, my kit at the moment is a 14-54, 9-18, 50-200, 50mm, 70-300 and a FL50R so I haven't got bucket loads invested, but enough to be happy with the E-5, the OM-D on the other hand is a nice bit of gear

Click to expand...

Still, I would consider that enough HG lenses to sway me towards keeping the E5... if you only want a small backup camera remember that Photokina is only a few weeks away where it looks like they'll announce some new Pens which will likely have the new sensor... might be worthwhile seeing what happens there first before making a decision.

Thanks again for all the replies on this topic, I just wanted to see if many of you have both and or have moved on from your DSLRs like the E-5 to a OM-D, all the replies have been an interesting read and I can see the appeal of both types of cameras, I'd love to have both but really should hang on to my money or just buy a pro lens for the E-5 like a 150mm, then again it kind of worries me that this system is dead, maybe I will wait for the E-7, seems like cameras like the OM-D are the future for Olympus though...

Thanks again for all the replies on this topic, I just wanted to see if many of you have both and or have moved on from your DSLRs like the E-5 to a OM-D, all the replies have been an interesting read and I can see the appeal of both types of cameras, I'd love to have both but really should hang on to my money or just buy a pro lens for the E-5 like a 150mm, then again it kind of worries me that this system is dead, maybe I will wait for the E-7, seems like cameras like the OM-D are the future for Olympus though...

no text