V1/V2 vs OM-D E-M10 (take 2)

Started Apr 6, 2014 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
IVN Senior Member • Posts: 1,888
Re: Not to mention all those great fast M4/3 prime lenses

dougjgreen1 wrote:

No, I value size and especially light weight above all else - and I'm willing to sacrifice some level of image quality for size - which I do in Micro 4/3 as well as in Nikon 1. I use Nikon 1 for shooting action with continuous tracking AF. I use Micro 4/3 for most other things. I very rarely need to have extremely narrow DOF. When I do, I use a manual focus Samyang 85mm f1.4 lens on my Micro 4/3 bodies. But whenever I need to shoot action, then tracking AF performance becomes much more important than the depth of field - and that's where Nikon 1 excels, and Micro 4/3 is weak.

Well, this is a well balanced statement I can agree with.

D5200 and 85mm f1.8 AF-S. I already said so. BTW, a MUCH lower price.

So as an example you are using a cheap and discontinued DSLR model, to prove that your price argument is right? I bought the E-M10, and there is no way that I would ever consider an underspec'd DLSR, with a terribly tinny VF, like the D5200. If your point is to push the price as far down as possible, then why don't you use a cheapo mFT camera to compare it with? Add to that the cost of the Voigt 42.5 and see which one is better?

I'm using a mid-range camera with a current generation sensor that's significantly better in terms of DR than any sensor on Micro 4/3.

Well, that's good for you. It's nice that the tinny VF and limited controls don't bother you.

The only thing that would bother me about my APS-C systems was the size and weight of the system, especially the lenses. But if quality mattered to the max for me, and narrow depth of field was frequently of importance to me, I would put up with that size and weight in order to get the superior sensor of the D5200. But I knowingly sacrificed these for the small size of Micro 4/3 and Nikon 1. You did too, even if you are ignorant to that fact.

Except I didn't. I bought the V1 in the hope that Nikon would deliver a better camera and lenses which are patented (18.5/0.7, etc.). Nikon didn't do it, which is why I've decided to add a system which's mix of features is better suited to my needs.

You would be well advised not to presume to know much about the people you are discussing with.

The fact that you wouldn't consider it doesn't alter the fact that most reviewers and more end users disagree with you.

Unlike you, I can't speak for most reviewers, I can only point you to theDPReview's review of the E-M10. That doesn't sound like entry-level DSLRs are being recommended over an entry-level OMD.

I was referring to photography knowledgeable reviewers, not DPReview.

So DPReview is not photography knowledgeable?

Besides, the D5200 scored a statistically insignificant 1 point lower in DPReview - a completely meaningless differential.

The score is not as important as is the conclusion.

How about the SUBSTANTIAL difference in the sensor scores in favor of the D5200 at DxOMark?

The sensor is better, I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that the D5x00 series is mediocre at best. For me it doesn't really matter what sensor you put into a body like that.

Some people like to have the uber sensor, so that they can pixel peep and jerk off at the clean pixels, DR, resolution and what not. Since I really use my equipment for taking photos instead of w@nking and bragging, I value usability and functionality and a good feature set as much as I value IQ. If one or the other is compromised to a level which makes taking photos for me void of any fun, that camera is useless to me. And that is the case with the heavily crippled D5200/5300. I never want to look through such an excuse for a viewfinder again.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow