Olympus OM-D E-M10 or Sony A6000?

Started Mar 5, 2014 | Discussions thread
blue_skies Forum Pro • Posts: 11,165
Re: Olympus OM-D E-M10 or Sony A6000?

tjuster1 wrote:

blue_skies wrote:

tjuster1 wrote:

captura wrote:

telefunk wrote:

The difference between an APS sensor and 4/3 are negligeable. Both are small compared to FF, which itself was considered small in the film days. I myself use even smaller for art galleries or magazine prints because there are certain advantages to each size.

NOT negligible. The FF sensor is 2X the surface area of the Sony APS-C sensor. The Sony APS-C sensor is 50% larger in area, than the M43 sensor.

Do the math.

Sigh. And the math says what about IQ? You know darn well it doesn't say a thing.

Sigh, who is perpetuating myths now?

Ok, I read your message, and by golly, did you get sensitive. You can (try to) shoot the messenger, but the message stays.

I will try to answer to your bullets as concise and factual as I can, because you are way off base here.

You and captura are. You're equating larger sensor size (which no one disputes) with commensurately better IQ (which everyone who's tested the cameras, or used both, refutes). Read the comments in this very thread from people who've used both cameras. You're trying to confuse the OP by implying that the much larger APS-C sensor will result in much better IQ. It doesn't.

Ok, we have heard for years that 'size does not matter'. Well, it DOES. Perhaps not in your ill defined logic and experience world, but in photography, sensor size is key - it dictates so many factors.

And good luck trying to convince anyone that a 16Mp m43 sensor can keep up with a 24Mp APS-C sensor. Go back and read the Nex-7 versus E-M5 threads. Sure, Oly cheats, by lengthening shutter time, overstating ISO, clipping highlights, over sharpens, and in the shots that I have seen side by side in this forum, the Nex-7 always delivered higher IQ. E-M10 and A6000 is just another deja vu of Nex-7 and E-M5 - with the A6000 probably having the same (or better?) RAW output but a better JPG engine with the Bionz-X processor. Perhaps some noise mitigation too.

Nothing's worse than when a newbie asks a reasonable question and the old guard--who knows better--perpetuates lies.

Not really, it is answers like yours that confuse the newbees and make people believe in myths.

Captura is right, the APS-C sensor is nearly twice the size, and check the DxOmark sensor ratings - it matters.

Now you're being deliberately dense, which is again consistent with my whole point. You know damn well that although the APS-C sensor is nearly twice the size it doesn't have nearly twice the IQ, by any measure. This point has made to you multiple times, in this forum and others, so unless you're a total moron (I doubt) or a total zealot (bingo!) you should have it down by now. Again, read the posts in THIS VERY THREAD from people who've used m43 an NEX and they say, over and over again, that the differences in IQ are slight. So, regardless of what DxOmark says, the differences are slight.

DxO has earned a lot of respect, and their interpretation is meaningful.

And math is math - nearly twice the size, with 1.5x the pixel count - come on, it must account for something?

I guess it might be a good time to remind you, once again, that I'm making this claim from experience as well, since I own both NEX and m43 cameras. Just like the other people who've chimed in on this thread with the same conclusion.

I don't doubt your experience at all. But I doubt that it is relevant. When I see m43 shots, I see many stopped down daylight shots, almost all with more DOF than is needed - it starts having this cell-phone or video look, and flattens out. But if that floats your boat, heck.

But once you go outside the 'equivalence box', the APS-C sensor simply gives you more. You get more control of DOF, more ability to push ISO, less prone to highlight clipping.

I am shooting with the A7 right now, but below is a shot that I took today, at ISO 1600. I simply don't see such shots from the m43 cameras, but I do get them from APS-C, see e.g. the shot below that.

A7 at ISO 1600

Nex-6 at ISO 1000

Yes the APS-C sensor is larger, but no it doesn't make much difference to IQ. The OP should feel free to corroborate that him/her self, since this is the SONY forum so the zealots will quickly rise to defend their brand and put down any other (especially m43).

So we are condemned for speaking up? On the Sony forum?

No, you're condemned for being deceitful, on any forum.

Isn't that the type of personal attack that gets you banned around here?

I am not deceitful at all - I back everything up with images. Where are yours in these discussions?

In fact, when m43 users post their images, meaningful discussions ensue. It is the ones that claim image-less what they claim, and you know what? They have ZERO credibility here.

As I've written many times, both on here and in the m43 forum, I own cameras from both systems and the images are, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable. By far the biggest factor is the lens on the camera. By far.

Sure, get the most expensive f/1.4 lenses to catch up with the very good f/1.8 lenses on the APS-C cameras. More money. Still, you only get 16Mp. The A6000 has 24Mp. But you conveniently forget that - after all it is only math.

Nice red herring. I was commenting about captura's bogus claim that the larger sensor produces a commensurate increase in IQ, which both he and you know is false. However, if you want to make the argument that the A6000 is better because it has more Mp, go for it. It does have more Mp, and there might be situations in which it's an advantage. To me, it wouldn't be worth it but go ahead and make the argument. You could start by pointing out that the gain is actually lot less than many think (as you undoubtedly know): 22% more pixels horizontally and vertically. And without good glass to resolve detail, all those Mp don't gain you anything anyway. You're not suggesting the Nokia camera phone with 41Mp has better IQ (nearly twice as good!) as the A6000 are you?

No, I am not - you are. This belief that a smaller sensor is as good as a larger sensor will ultimately have you end up with a cell phone camera. And even then you will not be able to see the evidence that we all point to around here.

22% linearly means that the 24Mp sensor adds one pixel for every two on the 16Mp sensor. That is an awful lot of detail to throw away. Or, if you print, you print at 200dpi or 300dpi. And you cannot tell the difference?

Again, math is math, you have a smaller sensor, with poorer high ISO performance, lack of shallow DOF (subject isolation), fewer pixels, but you keep saying: It does not matter, it does not matter, it does not matter, ....

I get it, for YOU it does not matter, because all your pictures look alike. Well, my APS-C images do NOT look like they came from an m43 camera. If you understand that, we can have a discussion.

Nex-6 at 1/4000th and shallow DOF

But if it makes you feel superior to have a bigger sensor, then go for it.

Per my math, larger sensor + more megapixels - sounds like a winner. Or, hasn't the Nex-7 reigned in IQ since its introduction? Or is that also only math?

No, it's a stupid and deliberately misleading argument because you're implying proportionality when none exists. Sure, all things being equal a larger sensor will produce better output than a smaller output. And more megapixels should, theoretically, allow you to resolve more detail. But--AND YOU DAMN WELL KNOW THIS--the differences in IQ that result from these differences in specifications are very small, and for most people, shooting under most conditions, will not be noticed. I make that claim because I've actually examined prints taken with my APS-C and m43 cameras, up to 16x24, and cannot see a difference. Others have found the same result. Have you?


If you claim that the difference is less than the geometric ratio - well, duh.... This is designed in by the camera manufacturers. But, like Captura mentioned, it is NOT INSIGNIFICANT. Why do professionals use FF equipment, even for video? Because it a very small advantage? Keep dreaming...

If you print equivalent images, then you may as well print cell phone images - stopped down, most formats can be exchanged. Heck, I have great (daytime, sunny outdoors) images from my P&S camera - with deep DOF. But it is NOT the same when I want shallow DOF, high ISO, low light, perspective, aspect ratio, there are so many non-equivalent factors. You toss all these away.

Below is a Nex-6 low light image, but with 1/800th shutter time! Look closely - these are FAST MOVING actors - IBIS would have destroyed this shot:

Nex-6 with SEL50 at f/2.2, 1/800th and ISO 800 -- try this with IBIS...

Math wins over myths, every time.

The OP should decide on his/her needs, and pick the format that fits. Making them equal sounds a bit like a stretch, on all accounts.

Equal in what? They're in fact very different cameras, and I certainly wasn't claiming otherwise. In my experience, the NEX is much easier to grip and is better for legacy glass. The m43 cameras have a much better native lens selection and IBIS is the cat's meow. What isn't very different, however, is the IQ they produce in images, and that was my point.


Only within your equivalence box - deep DOF, daylight conditions.

Out side this box, crop factor gets to be very meaningful, so does widest aperture. And frankly, how many m43 lenses do you have? See how many E-mount lenses I have? Plenty, and plenty of good choices. Oh, and the lenses that need OSS have it! Not all lenses need IBIS, not all scenes tolerate IBIS.

Check my images in this thread - these are not the ones that m43 camera favor - yet, my Nex-6 shines with such images, and I can't wait until I get the A6000 for such shots.

Like I said in my other answer - April is another month away - wait for reviews to come out, check the DxOmark sensor ratings when published, visit a store to compare. Forget the myths...

One more thing . . . if you have experience shooting with m43 and APS-C, please share your results with us. And if you don't please shut the hell up about criticizing the results by those who have, since you obviously don't know what you're commenting on.

SHUT THE HELL --- WTF ????????

Just again, who are you to take on this tone???????

I have shared more results than all you m43 cohorts combined. I have asked so many times for properly exposed high ISO shots, and I all get are grainy, highlight clipping, poorly focused test shots. Who is actually taking practical images with m43 at night and have them as keepers?

Sure, tripod shots with long exposures - hello, that is NOT what I am talking about.

I never said that m43 was bad. I said that the two formats are different, and best used differently. And I would say the same about APS-C and FF.

It is jesters like you who are grandstanding that one format can do all. Well, hello!!! If you are doing only a little bit, sure then one format suffices. But if you truly understand the differences between the formats you would agree with me.

Read my original answer to the OP - I stated that the E-M10 is an easier camera (lower barrier of entry) to get used to. The A6000 gives you more buck for the money - it has more specs and the ability to grow with you further as your skills get better. Either choice is fine, I have no horse in the race.

-- hide signature --


-- hide signature --


 blue_skies's gear list:blue_skies's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony a6000 Sony a5100 Sony Alpha 7 II Sony Alpha 7R II +35 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow