Has anyone compared a OMD to the original Canon 5d?

On dxomark they look like similar cameras. In real world conditions, other than DOF, whats the deal?

I have both. They're about the same 75% of the time. The other 25% is the roughly 2db higher SNR is slightly noticeable at base iso, so that the files clearly have less noise. It really only matters to me with pushed files. At high iso, noise is about the same (or there's enough noise that differences are harder to recognize), but the 5Dc has better color reproduction.

All of this is pretty clear at DxO, I think.

I still almost invariably take my E-M5 out rather than the 5Dc. The size difference is just too much. FF only comes out when I specifically am thinking about narrow DOF with wide and normal lenses. That's where μ43 lacks. The telephoto end is not a problem. And wide and normal narrow DOF is a bit of a niche, too.

Somewhere in the DPR archives there may be a photo or two I took with it c. 2006, though I think I was mostly XREFing to my then website.

Anyway...it's hard to say how much of the difference I've experienced between the 5D and OM-D5 comes down to the cameras and how much to the lenses. But comparing photos taken of the same subject matter with both cameras, using lenses that provide similar FOVs, it's obvious to me the Oly images are crisper. This is most pronounced with the Oly/12mm (f/2) compared with the 5D/24mm (f/1.4, first version). The 12 is a terrific lens, right up there with the 75mm IMO. The Canon 24 is a very versatile lens but it doesn't match the 12 in terms of sheer clarity. I see similar results with other FOV matchups.

Dynamic range with the 5D was very impressive at the time, and I imagine still good by current standards. I'd say the Oly matches but doesn't surpass that DR. Keep in mind I'm judging photographs...I have no idea how the two cameras measure up in the lab.

I still have the Canon 70-300mm DO, a lovely character lens that seems to be mostly overlooked these days, but the rest of my Canon gear is long gone. At some point Canon will hopefully make an EF-mount camera I genuinely want to own...then I can put the lens to good use again.

-Dave-

zenpmd said:

zenpmd wrote:

On dxomark they look like similar cameras. In real world conditions, other than DOF, whats the deal?

Click to expand...

Well, not directly, with test shots and such, but I had a 5D and a GX-1, and the 5D seemed clearly superior. I then got the EM-5, which narrowed the difference to the extent that the size/weight of the 5D became difficult to justify. I ended up getting 6D, which represents a major improvement from the 5D. It's the camera I take with me when I want the best quality. I still have the EM-5, which arguably has the most optimal size/weight/IQ tradeoff.

Bob

If I was looking to upgrade to a more professional camera I would get a used Canon 5D over a new EM-5. The price is lower and the edge in picture quality and third-party accessories goes to the 5D. If I was looking to upgrade as an enthusiast I'd get the Oly. The difference in size would outweigh the difference in IQ.

Why, what is the point in comparing.

Pure, unadulterated curiosity, of course.

Alumna Gorp said:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

Why, what is the point in comparing.

Click to expand...

Well you can pick up a used 5d for £450 now. Add £500 or so for a decent lens or 2 and you are shelling out a similar amount of money you would on an OMD so the comparison is valid if size and weight are not important.

I still use my 5d and find it performs on a level with my Sony NEX 5N in all except high iso where the 5N is a bit better at iso3200. Would I swap the body for an OMD body? No, I wouldn't. FF is hard to beat when it comes to portraiture and the 5d is one of the cheapest and best routes into FF. I don't do enough portraiture to justify more expensive FF alternatives so I think I'd regret the swap.

Do I want an OMD? Sure, I'd love one along with a couple of pancake lenses for street work. It's just tantalisingly out of my budget at the moment..

normanjay said:

normanjay wrote:

normanjay said:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

Why, what is the point in comparing.

Click to expand...

Well you can pick up a used 5d for £450 now. Add £500 or so for a decent lens or 2

Click to expand...

For £500 you can get a nifty fifty plus a nice Rokinon 85mm 1.4 and almost have enough left over for third lens like a medium-length macro or a 28mm wide or a third-party like a f/2.8 zoom. Even the outstanding 40mm 2.8 STM is dirt cheap. That would be a pretty capable kit.

The older 35mm f/2 can be had for $220 rather regularly & the 50mm 1.8 for $50 on Canon's refurbished webpage.

$220 + $50 + $250 (Rokinon) = $520.

Perfect.

Thanks for your interesting thoughts guys.

The reason for the question is that I am still trying to work out what the solution is for the best camera system for me to work with.

I own the x100s which is my carry everywhere camera. For that, I don't feel the need for interchangeable lenses.

The OMD is small but not pocketable, therefore my thinking was if I can get better IQ or cheaper lenses (both potentially possible) or greater versatility (eg a fast zoom on FF, which at, say 2.8 still gives great DOF control, whereas the Panasonic 2.8 does not), then, even though a 5d is bigger, it could make sense to get the 5d, especially as they are quite good value now.

I have to admit, my question was also getting at, despite any theoretical scoring, whether FF, other than a potentially shallower DOF and better low light performance, offers any intangible benefit on things like skin tones, colour, metering, etc. Or, does it behave, basically as DXO mark suggests, almost exactly the same as the OMD...

Thanks

The original 5D was my primary camera for about 5 years. I sold it after I bought the OMD. My conclusion was that, while there may be minor difference that will show up in testing, for any practical purpose (that is, prints up to 15x20 and web images) the 5D had no discernible image quality advantage over the OMD. In fact, the OMD with a good lens seemed to produce 15x20 prints that were slightly sharper than those from the 5D. For the past couple of years I owned it, I'd left the 5D at home when traveling in favor of smaller, lighter cameras such as the EPL-2. When the OMD basically matched the 5D's image quality, I didn't see the point of owning it any longer.

Is it post processing then, that we need to consider? I find the OMD's jpgs, for example, quite "digital looking" with the 45mm, which is my only experience of the camera. Images I always see from a 5d have a slight softness to them which is really nice and the metering seems to come across beautifully.

zenpmd said:

zenpmd wrote:

The OMD is small but not pocketable, therefore my thinking was if I can get better IQ or cheaper lenses (both potentially possible) or greater versatility (eg a fast zoom on FF, which at, say 2.8 still gives great DOF control, whereas the Panasonic 2.8 does not), then, even though a 5d is bigger, it could make sense to get the 5d, especially as they are quite good value now.

I have to admit, my question was also getting at, despite any theoretical scoring, whether FF, other than a potentially shallower DOF and better low light performance, offers any intangible benefit on things like skin tones, colour, metering, etc. Or, does it behave, basically as DXO mark suggests, almost exactly the same as the OMD...

Click to expand...

...go for the 5D. For me, in 2013, those two factors are total deal killers.

I doubt you'll get better low-light performance with the 5D, or at least not significantly so. Sensor tech has come a long way in the past few years. Note also that color performance & tonality have a lot to do with your choice of RAW converter if you shoot RAW. As for metering Canon's evaluative system drove me up the wall, to the point where I switched to a combo of semi-spot and center-weighted. Too much emphasis on the point-of-focus for my taste. YMMV.

I got the 5D in the first place because there were certain Canon lenses I liked. In the digital era my philosophy has been: go with the glass you like and treat the bodies as commodities.

-Dave-

zenpmd said:

zenpmd wrote:

Is it post processing then, that we need to consider? I find the OMD's jpgs, for example, quite "digital looking" with the 45mm, which is my only experience of the camera. Images I always see from a 5d have a slight softness to them which is really nice and the metering seems to come across beautifully.

Click to expand...

Metering is actually incredibly frustrating. Also the AF is bad, too. If AF matters to you, the OM-D is what you want, not the 5Dc. As for the "digital looking" files, I can't speak to that. Mine don't look any more digital than my 5D. But then, I only shoot RAW for both. I never touched the jpegs for either of them.

LincolnB said:

LincolnB wrote:

For £500 you can get a nifty fifty plus a nice Rokinon 85mm 1.4

Click to expand...

One lens that barely AF's, and another razor thin DOF yet pure MF... on a camera where even the (optional) precise focus screen is f2.8 representative, with no 100% review after the shot, and no LV = a recipe for headaches. It is enough trouble with the 5D2 (and lenses that properly AF) + AF-calibration to get shallow DOF portraiture, enough so that I drop to Liveview when I have the time to do it right. Going back to PDAF after months with m43 makes the success rate drop-off all the more frustrating. A FF camera is better than m43 for DOF control, but owing to the difference in technologies, the less money you spend the more focus placement becomes the Achilles heel.