What Olympus actually promised:

Started May 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
boggis the cat Veteran Member • Posts: 6,329
Re: Not a mistake, but the 'theorists' didn't like it

Raist3d wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

erichK wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

erichK wrote:

For me, the appearance of the E-5, after all our doubts and hand-wringing, was a pleasant surprise. Experiencing all the small but very useful improvements that it incorporated was even more pleasant (as tends to be reflected in its retention of value.)

So, I remain optimistic.

- The appearance of the E-5 to me was proof positive the system had gone off rails. The E-5 came at a very high asking price in a competitor's market that had moved on with lacking performance - yes the sensor.  Lack of DR, lack of good high ISO performance and worst: terrible banding.

If that were true, then the E-5 would hardly be retaining its value as well as it has.

The price should drop on any remaining stock when the 'E-7' (or whatever) appears on the horizon.  The fact is that there is no better available option to use the FT lenses, unless you can make do with the limited AF from MicroFT bodies.

Also, it is worth noting that Olympus had supply issues with the E-5 due to heavier demand than expected.  (They didn't have such issues with the E-3, or E-1 before it.)

Olympus "supply issues" with the E-5 boil down to the amount of models they made and a press release. There's hardly any evidence to suggest the E-5 sold in droves.

I am simply pointing out that it sold better than Olympus expected.

It was out of stock, then back in stock, several times here.  This was also the case generally, with quite a bit of complaining about availability.

While the sensor could certain;y be better, its real market value tends to confirm my point that it is a capable photographic tool and about as effective an upgrade as Olympus could come up[ with the resources and sensor available to them.

I bought an E-5, and have had no issues with it.  You will get some blocking up in shadow areas where you have high DR shot (even at base ISO), but there is no 'banding issue' as could arise on earlier bodies such as the E-510 or E-620.

Actually there are serious banding issues with the E-5. This has been noted by several people at this point, not just me. It's pretty easy to see. Even a lot of Doug Brown's shot had them.

No, there are not.

You don't own an E-5, and have no experience with the results from it.  My testing only produced banding issues with severe under-exposure in low light -- the same conditions that cause banding issues on any camera.

Here are results from my own "torture tests" when I first got the E-5 and wanted to check the limitations:

Normal "worst case" banding

Banding due to severe under-exposure

The resolution is excellent for the pixel count, and I have not run into any problematic 'colour moire' issues, either -- another much touted 'theoretical issue' by those who have never owned an E-5.  (Strangely, now that all manufacturers have moved to very weak or no AA filters we don't see that issue discussed.)

Oh we can certainly discuss it. Surely you didn't hear that from me.

My point is that the "issue" (that I have not encountered) has mysteriously become a "non issue" now that the same strategy it is widely used by other manufacturers.

Also, recall that most of the "colour moire" problems noted could be resolved by not using poor demosaicing algorithms.

Raist just has an attitude problem when it comes to the E-5.

No, just facts.  Everything I said about the sensor is true- the DR is the same as the e-30/e-620 sensor.

No, it isn't.

The DR is about half a stop better than the E-620 (that I also have used extensively).

There's banding (let me know if you want me to post the images or prove it, it's rather easy).

Asserting something isn't proof.

I can give you far worse banding and colour-blocking issues from other bodies.  If you use a camera beyond its limitations then you may run into trouble.

High ISO performance is sub par with the market at the time the E-5 came out.

That is certainly true, particularly when compared to the D7000 and K5.

This was the main issue with the E-5 as it made indoor / low-light non-flash use difficult.  The main reason I bought the E-M5 and 45 f/1.8 was to have a solution for those situations.

It inherits the described by many reviewers as "design by committee" of the E-3 ergonomics.

The only ergonomic problems I have found are the rear panel buttons seem 'spongy' and the shutter is not as precise as I'd prefer, which can lead to inadvertent 'feathering' and thus re-triggering AF unintentionally.  (I also don't like the HLD-4 grip.)

Incidentally, the layout does appear to be nearly identical to the Canon 1D.

They now have - according to every objective test - a much better sensor available to them.

Ah, yes.  But if they put an 'old' sensor in an expensive flagship body then we will get a re-hash of the same arguments aimed at the E-5.  Baseless arguments, in my experience.  The E-5 was improved over the E-620, regardless of having 'the same sensor' -- not by a lot in DR and noise at high ISO terms, however, as it was effectively the same sensor.

The DR and ISO was pretty much virtually the E-30's.

Slightly better, but not a lot, compared to the E-620.

The question is not whether you have "the same sensor" but if that sensor is competitive in the market and asking price at the time of introduction with what the rest of the market is doing.

Well, the sensor is smaller than APS-C so it should always have a 2/3 to 3/4 'stop' disadvantage.

The E-M5 sensor happened to close that gap to virtually nothing until you got to very high ISO settings.  As newer sensors appear on APS-C the gap will open out again.

This is inevitable.

If you want to use ISO 6400 and up routinely then APS-C is presently better.  In a few years it will be ISO 25600 and up.

For the record: I did try the E-5 personally, it's hardly any "theory."   The camera itself was ok, but the sensor wasn't.  Nothing could have been made more clear on that point than the EM5 new sensor did.

Except that I recall your theorising that the E-M5 sensor was no different from the GX1, based on a lot of 'comparison' between entirely different shots.

Based on your record, I won't be paying much attention to similar theories WRT future cameras.

My guess would be that the 'E-7' would have a tweaked E-M5 sensor, and not show significant improvements over e.g. the E-P5.  So it comes down to whether it is worth the US$1700 cost to you or not when the E-P5 is under US$1000 (and, of course, competitive APS-C bodies and low-end 135 bodies are available if you are willing to change system).

I will certainly consider the upgrade from the E-5, but if they intend on releasing a high-end MicroFT body that will work properly with my HG lenses then that may be a more sensible option for me.  (I have an E-M5 and 12-50 plus 45 f/1.8 lenses, so now straddle the FT / MicroFT systems to some extent.  It would be good to be able to reduce down to one high-end body replacement every few years.)

It will be interesting to see how Olympus approach the FT and MicroFT systems in the next couple of years.  They could use FT as a 'DSLR' competitor or merge FT into MicroFT when they have a suitable PDAF solution.  (They need a C-AF solution for MicroFT in any case, so they are likely to pursue PDAF for that reason alone.)

 boggis the cat's gear list:boggis the cat's gear list
Olympus E-5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow