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

Started May 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,256
Re: On bubbles.

Rriley wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

philosomatographer wrote:

windsprite wrote:

I don't know much about Canon, Sony, etc., but the general consensus from people who have actually owned both versions of Oly SHG and high-end Nikon "holy trinity" lenses seems to be:

- the 24-70/2.8 is the better workhorse lens than the 14-35/2 (faster AF, wider zoom range, more DOF control, etc.), while the 14-35 is better optically.

- the 35-100/2 is excellent, but the 70-200/2.8 VRII is better

- the 7-14/4 and 14-24/2.8 have different strengths and weaknesses, which balance out to make these two lenses about equal

The boring truth is that the high-end Olympus glass doesn't trounce that of the big boys in every possible way; on average it's probably only in about the same excellent class.

Ho hum!


I am sorry to burst your bubble, but your assumptions above are incorrect.

It is disappointing to find the bubble bursted, as it was such a pretty bubble.

The Olympus SHG lenses are not in "the same excellent class" - they are much better than comparable Canon/Nikon or off-brand lenses, with the exception of the Nikkor 14-24mm - which indeeds matches the 7-14mm except for distortion control.

You force me to post another full-size example (below) - an uncropped image from the 16MP OM-D (I don't own one, I just tried one out). This is the 14-35mm f/2.0 at the wide end (14mm) at f/2.8. f/2.8!! Please show my any full-frame lens that can do this across the frame at 28mm and f/2.8:

Even if you desperately cling to equivalence, I'd like you to show me the full-frame lens at 28mm and f/5.6 that can do this, right into the corners. Seriously, I will shut up about the superiority of these lenses when I see them matched in a sample image, across the frame - otherwise, I will maintain that all the posts that attack my claims are just trolling):

Quick example of the ZD 14-35 at f/2.8 on the OM-D

Apologies that you were forced to do anything, but let me say that the photo you posted is an impressive display for the 14-35 / 2.  That said, I would argue that any scene that is captured at 14mm f/2.8 1/4000 ISO 200 on mFT (4/3) could would not be an issue for FF at 24mm f/8 1/250 ISO 100 on FF, right?  You see, I have not even made use of Equivalence here.  And at such settings, here's what we have on FF:


The link immediately below.

which looks quite good, to my eyes, anyway, even better, if I dare say so, especially when one stops to consider that the Canon 6D + Tamron 24-70 / 2.8 VC costs less than the Olympus EM5 + Olympus 14-35 / 2.

options and portability
pretty tough to make 6D smaller

Aboslutely.  I can't speak to "options", but in terms of portability, mFT *kills* FF.  And, in my personal opinion, the IQ differences are not enough to "warrant" any IQ differences and/or options for shallow DOF for the vast majority of photographers.  That said, there are differences in operation that will lead people to overwhelmingly prefer one over the other.

So, what you need to do, in my very humble opinion, is to find an example of a scene where, for example, the 4/3 system yields a better result than the FF system.  A good example would be where the light is so low and motion in the scene is such that f/2 is desireable, so that FF would be "obligated" to open up to at least f/4.

If the 4/3 system produces the better photo, then, for sure, we can say that, under that particular circumstance, the EM5 + 14-35 / 2 is indeed, a superior setup to say, the Canon 6D + 24-70 / 2.8 VC.  Of course, I also take it that AF is not an important consideration.

thats like saying E5 AF is the same as E3 AF, which it isnt
or conversely 5D AF is the same as 6D AF

in which case, good luck with that

In this particular case, I was discussing neither the E3 nor the E5, but the EM5 that philosomatagrapher used for his example.  If we were discussing the E3 or E5, then the posted photo should have been from the E3 or E5.

The fact of the matter is, as we get access to higher-resolution sensors, the SHG lenses show undeniable optical superiority over the best that Nikon, Canon, and Zeiss/Sony have produces thus far. That's why they are so expensive, that's why they are so large in relation to the sensor, and that's why we put up with the limited, small sensors of this system.

I don't think anyone denies how good the SHG lenses are.  On the contrary, people are claiming that, when used on their respective systems of the same generation, the FF systems, overall, yield superior results.

i wouldnt say that
its pretty much on a lens by lens basis, but then when we commit to a system we are all stuck with the lens suite entire.

For a fact, we do have to take it not only on a lens-by-lens basis but on a body-by-body basis.  For example, whenever someone compares mFT to FF, the inevitably choose the EM5 when it is but one of the mFT bodies, but it is far from inevitable that they compare to the D800, which, again, is but one of the FF bodies.  As we all know, the body does contribute significantly, both in terms of IQ and operation, sometimes even moreso than the lens.

In any case, for sure, a meanigful comparison is for the particular system that one is considering and the particular types of photos one will be taking.

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