Olympus OM-D E-M10 or Sony A6000?

Started Mar 5, 2014 | Discussions thread
Ttriple Forum Member • Posts: 55
Re: Olympus OM-D E-M10 or Sony A6000?

NowHearThis wrote:

Jkim7 wrote:

Hey guys,

I'm trying to decide between these two mirror less cameras that have recently been announced. I'll be buying the camera mid-april and I was wondering which camera you guys would buy. I'm a beginner photographer so I thought I'd ask reddit.

Both seem to be at the exact same price point. The A6000 seems to have better specs while I guess the M43 system has more lens? I heard that E mount has enough lens and a wide variety also that there will be everything I need at similar prices to M43 lens, with similar quality.

Thank you!!

First, Both cameras are capable of taking great photos, be wary of anyone who says differently. As far as lenses, both systems have more lenses then you'll likely ever be able to afford, or want to carry around with you.

Olympus has a very nice selection of Primes: 12/2, 17/1.8, 25/1.8, 45/1.8, 47/1.8 (Panasonic has a few nice ones as well). Olympus zooms (except the 9-18 and new 12-40/2.8) aren't my favorite, but they're OK. The only real issue I have with Olympus is that they don't have an electronic (first curtain) shutter like the Sony Nex/Axxxx series do. I nearly bought an E-PL1 but the shutter shock issue at many shutter speeds prevented me from doing so. While I haven't looked into the newer Pens yet, I know that they have a 2 sec delay option, but that won't work for me in some instances. Regardless, I would probably try before you buy. Take a series of shots at 1/80, 1/100, 1/125, 1/160, 1/200 sec and see how much (if any) blur you can see, take the shots with the lenses you'd likely uses now and purchase within 1-2yrs time.

As for the Sony, this is what I'll probably end up getting. (I was also looking at the Fuji X-A1.) Sony also make some very good lenses, 10-18/4, 16-70/4, SEL18-200 (my copy was great), 24-70/4, 70-200/4 (probably), 24/1.8, 35/1.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.8, 55/1.8. The 20/2.8, 55-210 are pretty good too. The only weakness IMO is the kit lenses, 16-50 and 18-55, I wish they were a little better, but for most things they'll probably be fine - at least until you upgrade.

The choice, ultimately will have to be yours; I like the Sony, they're the first Mirror-less ILC maker that has come up with my ideal walk-around lens (16-70/4), I just wish it was a little cheaper.

-- hide signature --

while ( ! ( succeed = try() ) );

The OP needs to understand the advantages of having a larger sensor size. To me that is more important than how many lenses are currently available in each camp. Sony doesn't have as many lenses as m4/3 at the moment but it has more than enough for you to enjoy photography and you can use ALL of Sony's lenses on the E-mount and even legacy lenses with the right adapter. What m4/3 cannot compete with APS-C cameras is the sensor size. The larger the sensor in the camera, the better the image quality. APS-C sensors will give you better dept of field, lower noise, and more dynamic range. M4/3 tend to have a flatness to them that I noticed due to the sensor size. That is something that cannot be changed even if you have the best lens available on the market for the m4/3. I would go for APS-C sensor and then Fullframe later on once the price and technology in Sony's FF E-mount cameras had improved.

 Ttriple's gear list:Ttriple's gear list
Sigma DP1s Sony RX100 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow