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

Started May 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,575
Re: Clarification

philosomatographer wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

This is all absolutely fine, of course.  The point on the IQ end of the matter, is to demonstrate the reasons for your particular choice via photos.  I have asked the OP time and time again to demonstrate his claims with photos that would make one system the obvious choice over the other, and if photos like the link above are examples that is using to support his opinion, well...

There are very few systems that are an "obvious choice" over any other. Take a look at my Flickr photostream:

(not too many images posted there, but you get an idea from my style)

About hald of those images are with the E-5 + Zuikos, the other half is film - from grainy 35mm on my Leica M3, to 4x5in, with 6x7cm in-between.

At web sizes, you won't see much of an appreciable difference between images - which is the point.

It's interesting that you say this.  John King, in his posts above, says that you won't see an appreciable difference, or any difference at all, in terms of resolution, between 5 MP and 12 MP, for a 17 x 22 inch print.

A photographer can express his vision with any camera.

Agreed, and an increasing number of professionals are producing successful works with cell phones.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, images like this one at f/2.0, are a great deal better when the lens resolves exxceptionally well across the frame. It provides a subtle depth that really comes out in the large print size:

It's ironic, don't you think, that you produce the photo below, that does not have the whole of the scene within the DOF, and present it at 950 x 575 pixels, to make a point about "exceptional resolution across the frame" at f/2.

How long until they are gone?

I could have shot this same image with my Linhof Technika 4x5in and my Nikkor-T*ED 720mm f/16 to achieve a very similar look (and the same depth-of-field) but the E-5 is somewhat better for moving subjects

Digital has less noise than film, so for equivalent photos (same DOF and shutter speed), digital will be less noisy than film.

So, the OP began with a discussion between the operation between mFT and DSLRs, and concluded with an opinion on the IQ difference between the E5 and "most other systems".  Many have posted contrary opinions in this thread to the OP's opinions on operation, I have posted a contrary opinion on the basis of IQ.

I made no such conclusion - this thread started about build quality, and I augmented it with a tale of me (and a professional printer) being very impressed with the output in very large prints.

Here's what you said (from the OP):

The E-5 produces 1m-wide prints that easily put most other systems to shame for detail/contrast, and this will not change for as long as the camera works.

Specifically, what are the "most other systems" that the E5 "puts to shame" for 1m wide prints?

The more I see samples of "most other systems" - i.e. crop-sensor DSLRs with kit lenses, and Tamron 24-70mm lenses on those or on full-frame, the more adamantly I shall stand by my statement, however.

So, for example, Steve Huff's enthusiasm about the D600 + Tamron 24-70 / 2.8 VC is misplaced?

He would have been more impressed still with the E5 + 14-35 / 2 which would have put his system "to shame for detail/contrast"?  Especially as the two systems cost and weight about the same?

Have I missed the photos you posted demonstrating that claim, or was it just your opinion, like saying "Vanilla ice cream is by far the best dessert" and to be taken in the same manner?

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