Olympus OM-D E-M10 or Sony A6000?

Started Mar 5, 2014 | Discussions thread
NowHearThis Veteran Member • Posts: 3,199
Re: Olympus OM-D E-M10 or Sony A6000?

Ttriple wrote:

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.

Not to play Devils Advocate, but the smaller 4/3rds sensor has advantages too, most notably getting a long telephoto reach from a small 5-6" lens. Without resorting to adapters you can get a 600mm reach on M43 right now, in Sony E mount: 320mm is your max. That'll matter to some amateur wildlife photographers.

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.

That statement is too broad. My old Nikon D40 gets beat in every way from every new M43 camera out there, even the Sony RX100 MK2 out performs it. (check DXO). Many M43 sensors perform better than Canon's larger APS-C sensors.  It's safe to say most of the Olympus and Panasonic can take every bit a good photo as any APS-C camera out there.  And any differences between them are getting smaller and smaller.

APS-C sensors will give you better dept of field, lower noise, and more dynamic range.

And looking again at DXO, comparing something like the EM5 to the A5000, they are pretty close. Less than 1/3rd of a stop diff in ISO performance, only 1 bit difference in Color, and .7EV difference in DR. That's pretty miniscule, and that's coming from a Sony guy.  Me being a landscape photographer means I want a larger DOF most of the time anyway, the smaller sensor would help with that, but many of Sony's lenses seem their sharpest at F8 anyway so that works out for most things.

M4/3 tend to have a flatness to them that I noticed due to the sensor size.

I just don't see that.  I see a shutter shock issue at certain speeds (but haven't tested the new cameras to see if it's still there) but I've taken some great looking shots using the 12/2 and 45/1.8.  I've got a shot of a cherry red Ducati that is just mind popping, if I can find it I'll post it.  No flatness to that image.

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.

To each his/her own, the last thing I would ever want is FF.  They cost too much, There's nothing wider than 24mm in mirrorless right now in FF - and if there ever is, it'll still costs too much.

  • A6000 + 16-70/4 = $1650
  • A7 + 24-70/4 = $2900
  • A6000 + 50/1.8 OSS = $950
  • A7 + 55/1.8 = $2700
  • A6000 + 35/1.8 OSS = $1100
  • A7 + 35/2.8 = $2500

If you want FF, and have the money for it, great, go for it.  Me, I'd pocket the savings and use the cash to towards a trip where I can use my new gear.

Another thing, even if in the future, if FF prices drop, so will APS-C and M43.  However, the thing that most people forget is that lens prices don't seem to drop that much and (some actually increase).

-- hide signature --

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

 NowHearThis's gear list:NowHearThis's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Panasonic Leica 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Panasonic Lumix G 42.5mm F1.7 Panasonic Lumix G 25mm F1.7 ASPH
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow