What can't the Olympus OM-D Em5 do as well as a DSLR/SLT camera?

Started Feb 3, 2013 | Questions thread
dprstevie Junior Member • Posts: 29
Re: You don't actually own one, so how can you answer?

ljfinger wrote:

rbattsall wrote:

You also compared a pro SLR and didn't feel it an unfair comparison to not have included the grip for the e-m5 or include a further comparison without grips and a pancake prime fitted.

I showed what DPReview has on their review. Doesn't adding the grips pretty much eliminate the stated advantage of compactness?

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

No, because you can make an OM-D big enough for days when you are wanting better ergonomics, and remove the grip when you want a portable travel friendly kit. You simply cannot do that with a DSLR - it's always a tank, never a mini.

To the OP I would say that you need to work out what you will be shooting, and when, and then use that to make a choice.

The only time I'd favor a big DSLR is if you were a professional, or if the majority of your time is spent shooting sports or fast moving subjects.

For your average enthusiast, taking pictures of friends and family, kids, landscapes, still life etc the OM-D will be more than perfect for the job.

Personally I have a decent DSLR and selection of lenses, and also lots of small pocket-able compacts - the problem is I never take the DSLR out, it's just too darn big and goofy looking. Sure, it gives great results, but taking that out on a family trip is just a pain in the ass, and makes me feel like a paparazzi.

I do laugh when going to the beach, zoo, theater etc and seeing guys with their monster sized equipment - it is so overkill most of the time.

However, the problem with pockatble compacts is that they just do not satisfy me on a technical level.

But now, we have the OM-D and for me that fills the gap perfectly. It's discrete, understated and portable - but gives images that can be as good as my DSLR.
Someone earlier mentioned carrying 5kg worth of kit around Disney - that, to me, is complete and utter madness. I'd much rather have something small, be able to play with the kids and run about etc. So heavy lenses and intrusive cameras may give better results (in certain situations) but the tradeoff isn't worth it.

I honestly find people are also a lot more relaxed around smaller cameras - so if portraiture is your thing, that is another benefit.

I think for most, a smaller camera is more likely to be picked up

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow