Lots of comparisons, GX7 just seems better than EM-1

Started Nov 1, 2013 | Discussions thread
David Kieltyka
David Kieltyka Veteran Member • Posts: 4,854
Re: IMO neither is "better"...they're different

marike6 wrote:

You'd be the only one I know, other than fans on this forum, who would choose the EM-1/50-200 over a D800/80-400 VR. More robust and quieter AF, great optics and F-mount would make the 80-400 VR a much better investment.

Sorry, I'm not a fanboy. I own the 80-400mm (though I currently don't have a Nikon D-SLR to mount it on...but it works on my m43 cameras via Novoflex adapter). My friend Bruce has one too and uses it with his D800e. He actually bought two of 'em, couldn't see any difference in performance between the two & so I bought one of 'em from him just in case I ever have a reason to use Nikon SLRs again (or future F-mount mirrorless cameras). I like Nikon stuff, from the classic 1950s rangefinders up to now.

Although the 50-200mm looks imposing with the lens hood attached, it's shorter physically than the 80-400mm and also weighs one-third less. And the lens is simply a better performer.

This is not true at all. DxOMark tested the Nikon 80-400 VR writing "score of 22 makes this the best super-zoom yet tested: 4 points above its predecessor."

Whatever. I don't care about DxOMark. I care about my own real-world results. The Nikon is a very good lens, though actually not much different in optical performance than its predecessor (I own one of those too, for now, and used it extensively in the mid-2000s). Put it in front of a higher-res sensor than the E-M1's and of course you'll get more spatial detail. I don't care about that either...I've had enough spatial detail for the largest print I make, or am interested in making, since 2005 or so. The Oly 50-200mm, in both my & Bruce's opinion, has a sparkle & clarity to it that the Nikon doesn't match. The Oly performs less like a zoom and more like four primes (50/100/150/200mm) in the same package.

I care about the overall system, and in addressing my need for a primarily handheld camera/lens combo the E-M1 + 50-200mm is (for me) the better choice. The lens renders beautifully and can give the sensor all the info, spatially & tonally, it can handle. Note that smaller & lighter matter a lot to me in this context. I've got other gear for tripod use and mega-resolution. Compactness & portability may not matter as much to you, nor do they have to. But different people have different wants & needs, and the same person can have different wants & needs in different contexts. It's the way things are. Why should what I do & enjoy doing prevent you from doing & enjoying what you do?


 David Kieltyka's gear list:David Kieltyka's gear list
Leica M8.2 Leica M9-P Sony Alpha a7R II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 +6 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow