Funny, from your posts, it is obvious who has the "hurt ego".
The same way as on the E-5. Fixed under warranty, the same way.
.Thank you for this.goblin wrote:
I strongly disagree with the statement about the build quality being different.
The PERCEIVED quality might be, as those are different cameras. The naturally tight controls of the my E-5 would be ill placed on my EM-5, as they would require different buttons. The small buttons on the EM-5 go with light controls.
Quality wise - build here, build there - they are both not perfect:
- The paint on my tank like sledgehammer like whatever like E-5 faded, revealing shiny metal, at all the edges, within an year (Olympus replaced all covers under warranty).
- The condenser on my E-5 onboard flash died with a loud pop (warranty).
- My E-5 memory card cover has popped open just by rubbing on my jacket, at least once (under heavy snow).
- The paint on my EM-5 faded... Guess
- Screen on my EM-5 died under warranty.
Just as the E-5, the EM-5's build quality is second to none. Not the reliability, the build quality.
Proof ?
Just came back from vacation. Last Tuesday I spent a day at the waterpark, with heavy splashes all over the camera - no problem at all.
On Friday morning, I managed to dump the camera in the pool (4ft). Took me a good few seconds to retrieve it.
- Water in memory card compartment. A little.
- Water in the battery bay. Again - a little.
- Sensor area is dry. Lens<>camera seal held tight. The 12-50mm lens is an amazing little devil. I just wiped it, took it off, put it on my other m43 camera and it carried on working.
- Trashed the battery, resisted the urges to turn on the camera till yesterday morning. It works
Still sleeping in a silica gel bed for another day or two, just to stay on the safe side, but all in all - it survived.
I would not, I repeat - NOT put the E-5 through the same test, but I doubt it would fare better. Neither do I think it will fare worse.
"The winner" meaning what, exactly?
If the scene you are shooting has a wider DR than you can capture, then obviously it will.
In your cherry-picked partial sentences above.Where did I lie or misquote?Actual quote:
Even in JPEG mode, all nine lines of our chart are accurately described by the E-5 up to approximately 2600Lph, which represents excellent performance.
From further up:
Considering its relatively modest pixel count,at ISO the E-5 is capable of describing an extraordinary amount of detail, both in JPEG and RAW files.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse5/6
The RX100 has a higher pixel count, at 20.2 MPixels v 12.3 MPixel, but a smaller sensor.Year old P&S: The RX100 is capturing detail comfortably beyond 2600 lph
OK, yeah, it's fun to think the E-5 has more detail and such, but silly sites like Dxo and DPR have to go and ruin everything!
What DPR actually said:
The RX100 is capturing detail comfortably beyond 2600 lph, which is the sort of figure you'd expect of a camera with 3648 vertical pixels.
...
Now, why did you feel the need to lie by mis-quotation?
It is an example of a lie through misdirection. There are two important parts there, the second of which you have removed from the quote. Here both sentences are again, with my emphasis on the important considerations:
It is a lie by omission, given that what they said was:
We don't agree about any such thing. You have deliberately distorted DPR's reviews by carefully quoting partial sentences, then are making an unsubstantiated claim based on those.
I don't see how your post relates to what the OP was saying.
Your persistence is inspiring.
Or maybe your lens' USM focusing motor spontaneously died as two of mine did when I was using the system. Or perhaps your 5D got wet and short-circuited? ;-)
I don't see the point of your post in this discussion. Of course I would upgrade tomorrow if a similar professional body with a much better sensor is released, but only if it does not compromise on the other (usability, photographic performance, viewfinder, etc) aspects of the E-5 that continue to be great, regardless of sensor.
You know, that's a great idea - I've never tried one (never seen one in a shop). Would be an interesting comparison indeed.
So you are going to buy a Nikon D800 tomorrow!?
I believe that "splashproof" is the key definition here, and Olympus chose it very well.
) :
SAY WHAT??? It will tell you which sensor/body will give you better DR, less noise, etc. (Agree on lenses)
No, not at all - you misunderstand. My f-mount lenses (yes, I shoot Nikon!) are used on film only. Nikon has so very few lenses that can compare to the Zuiko Digital SHG lenses (some would say "none") and I am not only heavily invested in the Olympus system, but also completely spoilt by the qualities of these lenses.
Ah yes, there is nothing like the sound of a tube amplifer and a phonograph. Digital CDs can't compete....the good old days.
You know, it hasn't been demonstrated. If I'm in error on that point, please link me to the photos where the E5 system put the other systems "to shame".philosomatographer wrote:
Your persistence is inspiring.
There are only one or two SLR ultra wide angle lenses in the world that competes with the ZD 7-14mm lens. There are very few systems that can create an image encompassing an undistorted 114 degrees angle of view (7mm) with anywhere near the same evenness of resolution, contrast, and freedom from flare - one that will look great in a 1-metre print.
Let's suppose that the only two reasonable contenders in SLR-land are:
Both of these will, under optimum conditions, exceed (quite comfortably) what the E-5 + 7-14mm can do. By no means because the lenses are better in absolute terms, but because - stopping them down, and having a sensor with four times the area, more-than compensates to produce a better end-result (and that is all that counts). Howver, practically nothing else can compete (if you disagree, please provide alternatives).
- FF Nikon (20MP+, the 12MP models are much softer than the E-5) with the 14-24mm lens
- FF Canon with the Zeiss Distagon 15mm f/2.8
From these prepositions, we can conclude that my statement - "puts most other systems to shame" - is in fact reasonable. Luckily, now having seen the results of large prints, I do not have to construct logical arguments to prove this point to myself - my eyes did it for me
I have always maintained that this argument holds for the other Olympus Super High Grade lenses also - e.g. the 14-35mm, and the 35-100mm. These lenses have no equal in the world of SLRs (as can be - and has been - demonstrated.
Uh, OK.
Likely because I don't think my lenses are the best in the world.
Except I don't say that my system "puts other systems to shame".
For the times I want photos sharp across the frame, I have no difficulties getting such photos. For the times I want photos with shallow DOF, I have no difficulty getting such photos.I think you're just upset that you have to stop your lenses down to render a sharp image across the frame, and the only comfort you have is "shallow depth of field"
I've never had a lens fail.
But if your system puts other systems "to shame", I imagine your photos are much better than anyone else's. I'd like to see some examples, 'cause the ones you posted above look like they could be done on most any system.
Todays story from the rumor mill site is that this is on the way.
What he is saying is the Oly lenses are really good, and it is a real shame there is no DSLR better than the E-5 to put them on.
