-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
D800 vs Olympus OM-D E-M5
- Thread starter m_appeal
- Start date
Sosua
Senior Member
Getting Bokeh on headshots with M43 is a piece of cake... 25 1.4 / 45 1.8 / 75 1.8 could all do that easily.
There is supposedly a Panasonic 42.5 1.2 on the way as well.
Its the shallow DOF / wide where FF really comes into its own.
MUCH harder to replicate a 35 1.4 on FF.
www.samwaldron.co.nz
There is supposedly a Panasonic 42.5 1.2 on the way as well.
Its the shallow DOF / wide where FF really comes into its own.
MUCH harder to replicate a 35 1.4 on FF.
www.samwaldron.co.nz
LOL, not nice because it proved you wrong? It's not fake at all.
In the high res the hair in front of the eye is super sharp and everything behind it is blurry.
The OMD can focus pretty close and I had the camera right up in her face.
The reality is that the OMD may not have the super shallow dof that a ff camera does, but with the right lenses it's usually plenty. As I said earlier, the OMD is not a replacement for the nikon for me in some situations, but it's a super capable camera that is great for any non professional shooter. Most of the disadvantages I see posted above are hogwash.
In the high res the hair in front of the eye is super sharp and everything behind it is blurry.
The OMD can focus pretty close and I had the camera right up in her face.
The reality is that the OMD may not have the super shallow dof that a ff camera does, but with the right lenses it's usually plenty. As I said earlier, the OMD is not a replacement for the nikon for me in some situations, but it's a super capable camera that is great for any non professional shooter. Most of the disadvantages I see posted above are hogwash.
Midnighter
Senior Member
I know the Nikon 14-24 lens is brilliant, I have worked with RAWs from it. Amazing glass.
On the MFT platform the Panasonic 7-14mm lens is also da-snitz... even with software aberration correction.
Understand, for aficionado's of wide angle the 7-14 in MFT is held in the same reverence as the 14-24 Nikon.
Those would be the two lenses I would love to see go up against one another and if I had access to each... that's exactly the test I would do.
However, if I had the Olympus 9-18 there is just no way I would ever bother doing a test like this, never, partly because the mm range is not a match but mostly, mostly because the 9-18 is NOT in the same class as the 7-14, not at all, which is not unreasonable since its a lot cheaper than the 7-14.
Thus I am disappointed.
On the MFT platform the Panasonic 7-14mm lens is also da-snitz... even with software aberration correction.
Understand, for aficionado's of wide angle the 7-14 in MFT is held in the same reverence as the 14-24 Nikon.
Those would be the two lenses I would love to see go up against one another and if I had access to each... that's exactly the test I would do.
However, if I had the Olympus 9-18 there is just no way I would ever bother doing a test like this, never, partly because the mm range is not a match but mostly, mostly because the 9-18 is NOT in the same class as the 7-14, not at all, which is not unreasonable since its a lot cheaper than the 7-14.
Thus I am disappointed.
I have the nikon 14-24. Fantastic lens. Until I got my 24 PCE it was my money maker.
I do not have the panasonic 7-14 yet, but wondering why you are disappointed about having the option to buy what is supposed to be a really good lens???
I do not have the panasonic 7-14 yet, but wondering why you are disappointed about having the option to buy what is supposed to be a really good lens???
Midnighter
Senior Member
I am not disappointed that way, I am disappointed that the test used what I would consider to be unequal class glass, both in terms of quality and zoom range.
Look, its always going to be apples Vs oranges but if I was to compare, say, a feline to a canine and I sat a puma and a wolf next to one another I would call it that a balanced comparison, but if I replaced the wolf with the fluffy Maltese on my balcony and proceeded to compare it to the puma I would not be doing canines justice IMO.
Look, its always going to be apples Vs oranges but if I was to compare, say, a feline to a canine and I sat a puma and a wolf next to one another I would call it that a balanced comparison, but if I replaced the wolf with the fluffy Maltese on my balcony and proceeded to compare it to the puma I would not be doing canines justice IMO.
Wellington100
Forum Pro
After the FZ200 there is the Fuji F800 compact superzoom with a 25-500 lens and amazing DR. Thats going to be my next camera and then I am sure I will be truly happy.
I just got my cheap $17 adapter from Amazon yesterday. That's when I took that pic of my coworker i posted above with my old 90mm 2.8 Elmarit and I also tried my 35mm ASPH Summicron. The OMD is so easy to focus with the electronic viewfinder, I was shocked! I found it as easy as manual focusing my lenses on my D800. That pic above is just a quick snap and the raw file was brought through lightroom 4 using the default settings. The OMD retains all metering too, so what you see in the VF is what you get, just like with other lenses. Aperture is controlled via the ring on the lens, obviously. The OMD disables the aperture dial when the leica lens is attached.
I honestly have no idea why anyone is wishing for focus peaking. Maybe if you are using the rear lcd to compose/shoot?
I honestly have no idea why anyone is wishing for focus peaking. Maybe if you are using the rear lcd to compose/shoot?
olyflyer
Forum Pro
I completely agree. The NEX solution is excellent for MF.
olyflyer
Forum Pro
Don't confuse bokeh with DOF. Bokeh is the quality of the OOF area hand has little to do with the format. The DOF is on the other hand a product of aperture, focal length and distances as well as format. You need quite some distances between subject and BG/FG to get a half body portrait with OOF BG.
...is equivalent to 50/2.8, so you will never be able to produce narrower DOF than that lens would. In other words, easy to beat with the 50/1.4, and even the cheapo 50/1.8 on an FX.
...is equivalent to 90/3.6, so you will never be able to produce narrower DOF than that lens would give. In other words, easy to beat it with the 90/2.8 with more than a stops extra DOF on an FX.
...is equivalent to 150/3.6, so you will never be able to produce narrower DOF than that lens would give. In other words, easy to beat it with the 150/2.8 with more than a stops extra DOF on an FX. Besides, it is just too long focal length for a half body portrait, you must be very far from the model and that excludes the use of it for that purpose in many situations.
Rumor or facts? Anyway, once again, it would only match an 85/2.4 and will/would cost a ton of money. Even the cheap 85/1.8 beats it hands down in terms of DOF. Maybe not in terms of bokeh, but like I said, don't confuse bokeh with DOF.
The above is just basic math. I am surprised that this is not understood on this forum... :-(
No, FF stands in its own with any fast lens, but of course, only if you compare the same AOV. Of course, you can come near, but it is very difficult to match, especially the focal length range useful for portraits. Not only that, but the biggest problem they have is that those fast, nice MFT/FT lenses are extremely expensive and heavy and also as large as the FF counterparts, and even larger in some cases.
Of course.
No, there is no way you can convince me that MFT/FT is an alternative if narrow DOF is what you like. Every system has some advantages, but narrow DOF is not on the list of advantages for the FT/MFT system. Yes, possible to get narrow DOF with it, but you have to struggle more than you have to with any camera with larger sensor, including DX.
Last edited:
olyflyer
Forum Pro
Sorry I hurt your feelings. Anyway, what proved me wrong? Your images? Forget about the emotional part, just do the math and you should see. You claim you have D800 as well, do some tests if you don't believe me.
Exactly. Go close and you get narrow DOF. That's what all the FT/MFT fanboys do over on the FT/MFT forum whenever narrow DOF is discussed. They move close and say: "Look, FT/MFT can do narrow DOF as well." What a surprise... (to you) but like I said, take a half body portrait and there comes the next surprise (for you)...
What is your definition of "hogwash" in what I said especially considering your images you have used as examples? The hogwash is when some people start demonstrating that the system can do narrow DOF and then they show colse ups and macros of cats, flowers, bugs and half head shots with large distance behind. In this thread I only discussed DOF, and there is no hogwash in anything I said unless I missed something, which you failed to point at.
Yes, LOL indeed. :-D
B
Bajerunner
Guest
Lovely shot, but for shallow DOF and sharpness, plenty of impressive images like that abound on Flickr with NEX and MF Lenses.
NEX seems fairly good at mid-high ISO's too, APS-C after all.
NEX seems fairly good at mid-high ISO's too, APS-C after all.
olyflyer
Forum Pro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dof.shtml
I include three you should spend your time with. Also a lot of truth in them which you should be familiar with if you are discussing DOF.
olyflyer
Forum Pro
I did not post any image, did I?
Yes. Anyway, I think you answered to the wrong post because I don't get your message. Sorry.
I'll say it one more time since you seem to have comprehension issues.
m43 does have the ability to do shallow dof if you know what you are doing. It's not as easy as FF, but it's possible. You've admitted it yourself several times agreeing with me, yet you still seem upset enough to continue arguing about it. If all variables are exactly the same, the difference will be obvious. But a real photographer knows how to make the changes needed to achieve the desired result. And when it's still not possible, you choose a different tool from the tool box.
m43 does have the ability to do shallow dof if you know what you are doing. It's not as easy as FF, but it's possible. You've admitted it yourself several times agreeing with me, yet you still seem upset enough to continue arguing about it. If all variables are exactly the same, the difference will be obvious. But a real photographer knows how to make the changes needed to achieve the desired result. And when it's still not possible, you choose a different tool from the tool box.
olyflyer
Forum Pro
No I did not.
That's not my image, it is an image picked from the OP's gallery as an example to show the OP what the MFT can not do. This was clear for the OP.
Other than that, the NEX was not a subject, so I did not comment a lot on that.
Red G8R
Senior Member
Why not have both? Ming Thein uses the D800E and OM-D for his professional shoots.
These two cameras are actually not that close in noise performance either. Have a look a DxOMark where the the EM-5 scored around 800 ISO and the D700 around 1160 ISO.
The D800 is in a whole other league.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum