So... I finally come to a decision to go with the OM-D... Is there any big hand users out there?

Started Mar 13, 2013 | Questions thread
NZ Scott
NZ Scott Veteran Member • Posts: 4,789
Re: E-M5 ergonomics are not great

Anders W wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:

Anders W wrote:

NZ Scott wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Randell Tober wrote:

Thanks... Probably won't get to touch one b4 purchasing it due to my rural locale. I still haven't ruled the GH3 out either- although I feel I'm still 80% in favor of just going with the OM-D. I have a hard time going with anything else after looking at all of the data- feedback etc... I've received some feedback claiming that the OM-D is a full stop off from other cameras in the ISO tests- that's why it looks so much better in comparison...

That feedback is technically incorrect and can safely be ignored. DPReview has made it clear that this is not the case. Anyone who makes this claim is mistaken.

This is debatable at best.

I've read the links that you provided earlier in this thread and Dpreview's stance on this matter applies only to jpegs. If you shoot RAW then you will find that the E-M5 is one stop worse than it should be.

Could you please spell out precisely what you mean when you say the E-M5 is one stop worse than it should be.

"Should be" according to what standard?

One stop worse with regard to what?

I can think of two answers to this:

You didn't answer the question of what norm or standard the phrase "should be" implicitly refers to.

I think I did below.

1) One stop worse when compared with other cameras. For example, if you set a new OMD and an old Nikon D40 to ISO 800, the D40 shoots at ISO 705 and the OMD at ISO 394. That's not quite a full stop in difference, but it's close.

When you say the D40 is shooting at ISO 705 and the OMD at ISO 394, what exactly do you think those numbers mean? And in what sense is it worse to be shooting at 394 than at 705?

It's worse to be shooting at ISO 394 because the data needs to be pushed in order for the exposure to look normal. This means that it can't be pushed much more.

2) One stop worse when using metering guidelines. For example, the "sunny 16" guideline.

Are you suggesting that the E-M5 meter works differently with the camera set to for example ISO 800 than, say, the meter of the D40 with that camera set to the same ISO? If not, what are you suggesting?

I'm not suggesting the meter works differently. I'm suggesting that the camera deliberately underexposes and then pushes the data to make it appear correctly exposed. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it means that Raw data from that camera will not be as useful as Raw data from the other camera, because Raw data from the other camera has not already been pushed.

I'm thus far not too sure what to think about that. I'm hoping the full test on the GH3 comes out fairly soon. I'm thinking about buying glass first and then the camera... Hoping to get a little more info- news and maybe run into a price point as well Enjoying all of the feedback and reading. Thanks to all!! :?)


-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
 NZ Scott's gear list:NZ Scott's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic G85 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +12 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow