Reading mode: Light Dark

D800 vs Olympus OM-D E-M5

Go to last post
m_appeal said:
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-d800-vs-olympus-om-d-e-m5-comparison-20255

Yep, apples and oranges obviously, but E-M5 looks really good.. as good as APS-C. I'm thinking of selling D800, because I don't enjoy the bulk and want a compact/portable system with good IQ.
Click to expand...
If you...
  • Don't need that high resolution
  • Never track moving subjects
  • Only shoot in good light
  • Only shoot JPGs (FF DSLRs have a lot of raw headroom that I miss whenever I use my APS-C camera)
  • Don't care about depth of field/prefer deeper depth of field
  • Never go on long photo shoots (so no worries about battery life, or don't mind carrying around tons of spare batteries)
  • Are willing to give up the optical finder to use only live view (either through the EVF or the rear screen)
then you probably wouldn't mind switching to the E-M5, and enjoy how compact/portable that camera is.

You might also want to look around and see how much image quality you're willing to trade off for portability. The Panasonic FZ200 also does pretty well in good light, and is more flexible and portable than the E-M5. It might actually be a very good alternative for you. If you get that camera, you'll enjoy:
  • Light weight
  • Smaller size
  • No trouble with interchangeable lenses, which can be bulky/heavy and difficult to keep organized
  • Decent image quality in good light, because you won't have to boost the ISO often with the f/2.8 lens
  • Lower price
  • Still having lots of access to manual controls
Compact cameras and superzoom cameras these days are actually pretty decent in terms of IQ as long as you're in good light and not making enlargements or cropping. Think about it - the FZ200 or another compact or superzoom could be a great option.
 
I don't really want a compact, because I still want to retain IQ as high as possible. I also don't want to be stuck with one lens. So mirrorless would be best for me
 
if anything I find it easier to manually focus with EVF and I actually always want more DOF as I find for me the DOF on full frame is ridiculously shallow.
 
m_appeal said:
m_appeal wrote:

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-d800-vs-olympus-om-d-e-m5-comparison-20255


Yep, apples and oranges obviously, but E-M5 looks really good.. as good as APS-C. I'm thinking of selling D800, because I don't enjoy the bulk and want a compact/portable system with good IQ.
Click to expand...
...you can forget about images like this. You will need a 42mm f/1.1 lens to take that image and you would still struggle because of the high ISO you are using.

Yes, it's apples and oranges but it is you who decides which one is best.
 
Last edited:
Actually, in that shot I wanted more DOF than anything. One eye was in focus and the other one was not. More often than not I find that need to step down because DOF is incredblly shallow on full-frame and focusing at 1.4 is difficult.

I find it hard to believe that m4/3 won't give at least decent subject isolation with a fast prime. I'm not really obsessed with totally OOF backgrounds anyways
 
Last edited:
Tbirdas said:
Tbirdas wrote:

Or spend some time with Topaz Lens Effects to achieve the background blur...

(just saying...)
Click to expand...
Good luck with the fake bokeh and DOF. :-P
 
m_appeal said:
m_appeal wrote:

Actually, in that shot I wanted more DOF than anything. One eye was in focus and the other one was not. More often than not I find that need to step down because DOF is incredblly shallow on full-frame and focusing at 1.4 is difficult.
Click to expand...
...but then, why not stop down more and raise the ISO even more?
m_appeal said:
I find it hard to believe that m4/3 won't give at least decent subject isolation with a fast prime. I'm not really obsessed with totally OOF backgrounds anyways
Click to expand...
Believe me... been there, done that... it won't work. If narrow DOF is what you want stay with FF or move to MF, not the other way round.
 
Last edited:
This one shot with the 12-35 panny 2.8.

8198990906_b6803ea3c4_o.jpg







And this one shot with the Leica 90mm Elmarit from about 10 ft away.

20121120-_B200455.jpg











--
Nikon D800 | Olympus OM-D E-M5
 
d2mini said:
d2mini wrote:

Then the OM-D should be perfect.

NEX are too much like using computers for my taste. I like my cameras as analog as possible (ie M9 or dslr) and the OM-D does a pretty good job of that. It has separate dials for shutter speed and aperture and I assigned ISO to one of the fn buttons. Something else to think about is the huge lens selection for m/43. And then you can get cheap adapters (like i did for my leica glass) for using other lenses you may have or want to try out.
Click to expand...
 
d2mini said:
d2mini wrote:

This one shot with the 12-35 panny 2.8.
Click to expand...
Looks very much like fake DOF to me. Sorry, it's not nice at all.
d2mini said:
And this one shot with the Leica 90mm Elmarit from about 10 ft away.
Click to expand...
That's much better, but OK, now try moving back another 10 feet to get a half body portrait and see what happens to that car...



d2mini said:
20121120-_B200455.jpg
Click to expand...






There is no reason to start this here as well, enough of that going on over on the Oly forum. For narrow DOF the larger sensor is better. Period. If you really have a D800 you should know this as well.
 
How do the M lenses work with it? I have a Summicron 35, full mechanical still.
d2mini said:
d2mini wrote:

Then the OM-D should be perfect.

NEX are too much like using computers for my taste. I like my cameras as analog as possible (ie M9 or dslr) and the OM-D does a pretty good job of that. It has separate dials for shutter speed and aperture and I assigned ISO to one of the fn buttons. Something else to think about is the huge lens selection for m/43. And then you can get cheap adapters (like i did for my leica glass) for using other lenses you may have or want to try out.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You're better off with a NEX for any manual focus lenses because focus peaking makes them enjoyable to use. Manual focus with "zoom assist" (which is what pretty much every other mirrorless system offers) is pretty awful.
 
m_appeal said:
I don't really want a compact, because I still want to retain IQ as high as possible. I also don't want to be stuck with one lens. So mirrorless would be best for me
Click to expand...
How much IQ do you actually need? The D800 (and other FF DSLRs from this generation) offer IQ that's pretty much state of the art.

On the other hand, if IQ isn't that much of a concern, and portability/compactness is a concern, compact cameras really should be considered. High end compacts still deliver pretty good image quality in good light, and offer a raw mode so you do have some room to tweak the image in post processing.

I've tried a small sensor compact in raw mode before. While it was a bit slow (totally adequate for anything except sports shooting), I had no complaints about IQ at base ISO from a well processed raw file. In good light, if you're not looking really, really closely or lifting shadows, there's not a huge difference in noise/resolution performance between DSLRs and compacts.

Also, if you get a superzoom compact, being stuck with one lens isn't really a problem.
 
chlamchowder said:
chlamchowder wrote:
chlamchowder said:
I don't really want a compact, because I still want to retain IQ as high as possible. I also don't want to be stuck with one lens. So mirrorless would be best for me
Click to expand...
How much IQ do you actually need? The D800 (and other FF DSLRs from this generation) offer IQ that's pretty much state of the art.
Click to expand...



I don't really need per se. It's a "want". As good as I can get in as compact of a package as possible. It doesn't have to be P&S small, just small enough for travel.


chlamchowder said:
On the other hand, if IQ isn't that much of a concern, and portability/compactness is a concern, compact cameras really should be considered. High end compacts still deliver pretty good image quality in good light, and offer a raw mode so you do have some room to tweak the image in post processing.

I've tried a small sensor compact in raw mode before. While it was a bit slow (totally adequate for anything except sports shooting), I had no complaints about IQ at base ISO from a well processed raw file. In good light, if you're not looking really, really closely or lifting shadows, there's not a huge difference in noise/resolution performance between DSLRs and compacts.

Also, if you get a superzoom compact, being stuck with one lens isn't really a problem.
Click to expand...



I don't regard superzooms well... I also want better low light performance than compact cameras and *some* control over DOF. if I were to buy a compact, it would probably be the RX100, but it's way too expensive as such... and I see no reason to buy one when a micro 4/3 with a pancake is equally portable and offers more flexibility.
 
m_appeal said:
I don't really need per se. It's a "want". As good as I can get in as compact of a package as possible. It doesn't have to be P&S small, just small enough for travel.
Click to expand...
I see. In that case, the E-M5 would be a decent option. You could also look at other mirrorless systems, like the Sony NEX or Samsung NX system (larger sensor).
m_appeal said:
I don't regard superzooms well... I also want better low light performance than compact cameras and *some* control over DOF. if I were to buy a compact, it would probably be the RX100, but it's way too expensive as such... and I see no reason to buy one when a micro 4/3 with a pancake is equally portable and offers more flexibility.
Click to expand...
I don't think superzooms are that bad. I've actually tried an older superzoom, and it's possible to reduce a lot of the noise in raw mode.

But yes, m4/3 would offer better low light performance than compacts. Keep in mind, though, that all mirrorless systems offer fairly poor battery life and poor AF tracking performance. If you're ok with that, go right ahead...
 
chlamchowder said:
But yes, m4/3 would offer better low light performance than compacts. Keep in mind, though, that all mirrorless systems offer fairly poor battery life and poor AF tracking performance. If you're ok with that, go right ahead...
Click to expand...



That's true about AF tracking. NEX-6 / 5R hybrid phase detection aF supposedly improve in this area. I don't expect them to match DSLRS, but that feature makes me lean towards NEX after strongly considering the OM-D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top