Hogan, Camera Critic, abandons long-time hiking partner Nikon DX in wilderness

Started Jan 1, 2013 | Discussions thread
CFynn Veteran Member • Posts: 5,224
Re: Makes sense to me

stuntmonkey wrote:

CFynn wrote:

The OM-D EM-5 gives you a smaller size, less weight, better "reach" and a nice selection of lenses with pretty much the same IQ.

Except the Nikon D7000 is $100 or more less than the Oly,

Well of course you pay more for a newer camera. The D7000 is now much cheaper than when it was released.

you get an extra stop of DR and one more stop of ISO,

APSC is about 1.64x the area of a 4/3 sensor (while FX is about 2.3x the area of APS-C) with similar sensor technology I'd expect the improvement in DR and ISO to more or less correspond. i.e. while there certainly is a difference, it is less significant than the difference between DX and FX.

and you get better motion tracking AF...

Certainly - but the OM-D EM-5 AF should always be accurate (for more static subjects)

This discussion started out about compromises, and like the RX100 against other compacts, the OM-D makes you pay extra for smaller size and packaging. That's a premium some are willing to make.

In this case Thom already has FX DSLRs with fast AF good DR and high iso. He was talking about preferring the OM-D over a DX DSLR for situations where he doesn't want to carry one of those FX systems. So size and weight are key factors in what he is saying.

He also mentions that Olympus also have some nice small lenses - for some of which Nikon don't really have DX equivalents.

When you buy a new system, think of the future too. The EVF, and auto-focus will get much better in succeeding models. The next generations of m4/3 sensors are bound to improve too.

Change that sentence to "the next generation of sensors are bound to improve". A rising tide floats all of the boats in the harbour. The OM-D is a hit because Oly finally adopted Sony sensors, at right at the time when Sony is pushing read noise down... technology that already showed up on the D7000 and D800.

True - but frankly current FX, and even DX sensors, have great high ISO and DR - I'm not sure I really need more than that in many situations. If 4/3 sensors catch up to this level in the next generation it would be great.

For those that need more DR and low noise high ISO, FX cameras at current prices look good

When you need a smaller lighter system (which is what Thom was talking about) the OM-D looks very good.

If you need a combination of smaller size and good DR, low noise, fast tracking AF, and good value, then a DX DSLR may be the best system.
Thom was talking about his use of the OM-D EM-5 as a second system alongside an FX system - I think it makes a lot of sense there. He wasn't really criticising DX - just saying that with an FX system on one side and the OM-D on the other,  DX DSLRs fall into a category he personally no longer finds much use for.

 CFynn's gear list:CFynn's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Nikon D800E Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC Nikon AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D ED-IF +14 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Mako2011
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow