OM-D E-M5 vs E-5 (build quality)

Started May 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,512
Re: Actually, I agree...

philosomatographer wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

The equivalence equation balances in my favour for my needs.

Well, it depends on what your specific needs are.  For example, if we're talking the Tamron 24-70 / 2.8 VC and Tamron 70-200 / 2.8 VC on a D600 compared to a 14-35 / 2 and 35-100 / 2 on an E5, I'm curious how the equivalence equation balances in your favor.

The Tamron is a C-grade optic that needs stopping down to f/5.6 to even approach the resolution of the ZD 14-35 at f/2.0, and simply never reaches the contrast or colour fidelity, that's how. LOL - comparing the two is quite a funny proposition Thanks for the laugh.

Hmm.  What's your souce on that?  I was thinking:

If you work with Canon camera body and you are looking for a “sport reportage” zoom then there are two that float to the surface as good choices to make: The Canon EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II USM or the Tamron SP 70-200mm f2.8 Di VC USD Canon. The Canon has a slight edge in sharpness and is more consistent across the range but it is much more expensive. The Tamron lens is very good and while it isn’t cheap it is exceptionally good value. If on the other hand your gadget bag contains Nikon or Sony cameras; and assuming that the performance of this very accomplished lens is similar in the Nikon and Sony versions to the results we achieved for the Canon version, then the decision should be much easier: Tamron all the way.


This telephoto zoom from Tamron certainly delivers. Sharpness is excellent from maximum aperture through much of the zoom range, plus chromatic aberrations and distortion are kept well in check. The suggested retail price may come as a shock for many, who may be expecting this lens to be considerably cheaper than lenses from camera manufacturers. Even so, the performance of this lens is on a par with those lenses, and suggested price at launch is rarely the price a lens will eventually retail for.


Roger's Take

Roger Cicala

President of

I call this one The Napoleon – it’s a bit short (of 200mm) but still kicks butt. The Tamron is very sharp throughout the zoom range, autofocuses much, much quicker than the older Tamron superzooms did, and the Vibration Control is excellent.

Is it as good as the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II? No, not quite. The Canon is one of the best zoom lenses ever made. But it’s close to that and less expensive. I don’t find it quite the great value for Canon shooters that I do for Nikon shooters, though. The price difference isn’t as great and the IS II is a bit better lens than the VR II. Still, the Tamron can save you some money and you won’t be disappointed in it, it’s excellent.

If you prefer a smooth but bland and mushy high-megapixel image, that's your business. I prefer an ultra-sharp, contrasty, vivid image at a lower resolution. With lots of PP and downscaling you could make your image look like that too, but I made a different choice.

So what comparison photos did you see that led you to that opinion?

This is all reminiscent over the outrage over how "poor" the images coming out of the Leica M9 is. Yet, when you actually print well-processed images from that camera, the image quality is spectacular, and the detail is usually superior to most prints made from most DSLRs.

Um, OK.  Is there anything other than your opinion to go with that "analysis"?  Or do we just invoke "the Leica Look" and leave it at that?

Why? Because of superior lenses. Yet the M-system gets as much crap from Canon/Nikon owners as the Four Thirds people do. Oh well...

I'm not sure how this conversation got shifted to Leica vs Canon, but, OK...

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