Dilemma: A99 vs new Olympus E-M1

Started Sep 4, 2013 | Discussions thread
josseee Regular Member • Posts: 385
Re: Seriously? You would pay $1500 Olympus E-M1 (body only) ?

EarthQuake wrote:

josseee wrote:

EarthQuake wrote:

oklaphotog wrote:

007peter wrote:

Are you serious? is this a joke, the 2 camera isn't even comparable. Why on earth would anyone in their right mind pay $1500 for an Olympus e-M1 (body only) with a very tiny sensor?

According to Wikipedia:

  • M43 sensor = 225 mm² surface area
  • Full Frame = 864 mm² surface area
  • 220/864 = 26% So a M43 has just barely 1/4 (25%) the surface area of a Full frame sensor

I'm not saying sensor size is everything, but $1500 is simply too much to ask for with a tiny sensor that is 1/4 area of FF. Search the web deal, you can readily find a FF Canon 6D (Body Only) going between $1600 ~ $1499.

Well considering that the A99 is only a stop better than the EM5 at most noise wise, and the EM1 is supposed to be even better than the EM5.... Throw in the fact it will focus the ZD 4/3 lenses fast and the HG and SHG ZD's are best glass out there.... It's much smaller and likely built better.... it looks like a pretty good deal @ $1500

Its amusing to me how caught up people are getting about the sensor size in M43rd cameras here, but somehow think APS-C is soooo much bigger/better.

Guess what, the Canon 7D? 329 mm surface area, only 38% of FF. Is that a tiny worthless sensor too? The 7D retailed at what, $1900 when it came out, still at $1500 or so many years later? Anyone care to guess what the 7DII will cost?

There is more to a camera (or camera system) than sensor size. M43rds is an excellent balance of quality vs size and weight, and is by far the most mature mirrorless camera system, including cameras, lenses, accessories and overall system performance. Sure Fuji and Sony's APS-C mirrorless sensors are a little better, but the camera performance from those systems is decidedly not, especially if you take into consider AF performance and IBIS where Olympus M43 cameras have a big lead over the competition.

Though if Sony gets IBIS into their nex lineup, and some better lenses designed for mirrorless cameras (not like hte 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 which are A mount "easy choice" ports with a much higher price tag), it might turn into an interesting system.

I get the "FF is way better than M43" notion in theory, especially when you compare it to Canon and Nikon's latest FF DSLRs. But the A99? The A99 is only a stop better than the OMD. The D800 is a full stop better than the A99 if you want to talk high ISO performance. So the A99 isn't really that compelling of an argument for FF superiority.

FF is not only about high ISO

its also about much better DOF control, higher dynamic range and color depth.

The difference is much bigger than youre trying to prove

go ahead and compare...


I realize the DOF difference and posted about it previously in this thread. I shoot both with the E-M5, the A580 and A900 and am well aware of the differences in DOF for a given aperture and equivalent focal length.

The A99 does have a good deal more dynamic range than the EM-5, but I haven't claimed otherwise. I was responding to people who claim the EM5 is useless for low light, ie: high iso. The link you've posted shows a 1 stop difference in iso performance, which is what I've said in most of my responses here.

I can't see in this part of the thread anyone talking about high ISO.

007peter posted specifications of sensor sizes and oklaphotog with you started bashing him with the "only one stop ISO" bla... ignoring the other useful and much more obvious advantages

 josseee's gear list:josseee's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony a7R II Sony a7R III Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Sony FE 35mm F2.8 +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow