-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Olympus EM1 vs Nikon D800 systems
- Thread starter Photo Pete
- Start date
Big Ga
Forum Pro
There is no such thing as a fully flaw free (ultra)wide zoom from any manufacturer as far as I know.
While you have specifically mentioned you've bought an EM1 at the start of the post, you then seem to be expressing your comments in terms of the whole MFT system. This is often an erroneous thing to do. You might find for example that your opinion of the 7-14 dramatically changes if you were to use it on a Panasonic body.
Big Ga
Forum Pro
Its a good lens, but its not perfect, there is a little PF and it does flare.
I don't know why you insist on callling the Oly fisheye 'fairly small and light'. As fisheyes go, its a blobby monster, dwarfing even 35mm FF offerings!!
In many ways, it is. MUCH better.
It's really quite a trivial modification to fit the rear filter holder from the Panasonic 8mm fisheye, allowing one to restore the UV filtration to the level of the Panasonic bodies. At which point the 7-14's greater contrast an much higher build quality makes it quite attractive (even) for users of Olympus bodies.
Photo Pete
Veteran Member
I titled my post about the 'systems' rather than the bodies, but maybe I should have been clearer.
I gave the 7-14 a whirl on a Panasonic body and it did seem to improve dramatically. I didn't think my post implied otherwise? It is a little worrying for Panasonic and Olympus though that one of the great strengths of micro 4/3s is the pooling of lenses and accessories between brands. If they start to diverge and lose compatibility it will weaken their marketability. Panasonic have already stated that their current advanced focus system will only fully work with Panasonic lenses and Olympus lenses will not be fully accommodated.
I looked into this modification once I realised the extent of the problem on the Olympus bodies. It isn't something I felt comfortable doing to a new £900 lens, so I decided to 'fill in' with the 9-18mm and wait for the Olympus 7-14. Of course there is always the chance that the Olympus 7-14 turns out to be a dog, but I doubt it.
EarthQuake
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 3,080
- Solutions
- 9
- Reaction score
- 2,726
Paul Kersey Photography
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 387
- Reaction score
- 229
alcelc
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 21,044
- Solutions
- 77
- Reaction score
- 10,752
alcelc
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 21,044
- Solutions
- 77
- Reaction score
- 10,752
Pentax has the best implementation in the industry.
First in manual mode one can use exp. compensation.
Second, in auto ISO one can bias the sensitivity toward fast or slow shutter speeds (from -2 to +2 in 1 increments, 0 being the default).
Third, in auto ISO one can override the chosen ISO using the dial (front or rear, it's selectable). To go back to auto ISO simply press the green button.
Since the Pentax K10D it's been like this and it was back in 2007!
I still don't understand why no other manufacturers have copied Pentax's ergonomics.
I used Pentax, Nikon, Olympus and Fuji cams and nothing gets even close to Pentax in usability.
My dream system: Fuji lenses and sensor, Olympus body with Pentax ergonomics
thxbb12
Senior Member
That's incorrect. I've shot Pentax for several years, my last Pentax camera was the K5.
The Pentax implementation allows for exposure compensation when both aperture and shutter speed are set by the user. Pentax doesn't call this mode M, but TAv. The terminology doesn't matter, it's effectively M with the ability to use exposure compensation.
Here is why exposure compensation is badly needed in M mode.
Say you are shooting birds with the great Olympus 50-200. You're shooting at 200mm f/3.5, but want to make sure to freeze action, so what do you do? You must use M mode where you can set the aperture to f/3.5 and the speed to 1/2000. You can't use A because you then have no control over the shutter speed and conversely you can't use T because you won't control the aperture. What you want here is to get proper exposure at a given aperture and speed combination.
Now, the birds you're trying to shoot may fly over a bright sky or in some darker areas. Regardless of the background the camera will meter to grey which means on a bright sky the bird would be totally black. Conversely, on a dark background, the bird will be overexposed.
What do you do then? You use exposure compensation to bias the metering algorithm to suit your need, exactly like you would in A or T! Why is it so difficult to understand? If you don't use it or don't like it, fine, just leave it at 0.
Both Nikon and Pentax implement exposure compensation in M mode (Pentax calls in TAv). The MFT world somehow still doesn't seem to realize how important this feature is... Go figure....
--
Florent
http://capturedbyflo.com
http://flickr.com/photos/thxbb12/
Last edited:
alcelc
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 21,044
- Solutions
- 77
- Reaction score
- 10,752
thxbb12
Senior Member
Manual ISO is fine with static subjects where nothing moves or lighting doesn't change.
However, when conditions change, changing ISO on the fly is too slow and too error prone which leads to sub-optimal IQ. In such situations, nothing beat auto ISO with EC.
I see absolutely no need for manual ISO as long as I get a clever auto ISO implementation.
biza43
Forum Pro
As a recent EM1 purchaser, I fully understand where you are coming from. I am a prime lenses guy, and I got the EM1 plus 17 1.8 for my travel and documentary photography (waiting on the 75 1.8 to arrive). I am not a stranger to smaller camera systems, having tried before Fuji X, for example.
However, there are some types of photography where I still need to use my Canon 6D (in itself light and small) with the Zeiss 21 mm lens: landscapes, night photography, are some instances. The FF sensor is still king in those applications, compared to 4/3 or APSC.
The EM1 will serve me well for all the rest, which is great.
However, there are some types of photography where I still need to use my Canon 6D (in itself light and small) with the Zeiss 21 mm lens: landscapes, night photography, are some instances. The FF sensor is still king in those applications, compared to 4/3 or APSC.
The EM1 will serve me well for all the rest, which is great.
jim stirling
Veteran Member
If as you {and many others } are happy to sacrifice the image quality to save weight mFT is an excellent choice with many great lens options and especially good video on the Panasonic side.
The D800 works spectacularly well, as hundreds of thousands of images clearly demonstrate .As with all mass manufactured devices there are faulty models with issues be it the D800 or EM1 { I have both cameras}. Honestly with regard to "nailing focus on static subjects" any camera on the market can do that.
The difference between the Panasonic 7-14 and 14-24 regarding resolution is very clear if you do not see it then you most certainly do not need the advantages that the D800 offers.The 7-14 also has more distortion, much higher Chr. aberration and manages to have as much vignetting on mFT as the Nikon has on FF . It is also a full stop slower in nominal aperture and a full 3 stops slower in actual effect { AOV,DOF total light gathered}
Loading…
www.dxomark.com
The Olympus lens is not better built it has had its share of issues . IS is a great benefit for those static subjects { in low light } you mention above
for moving subjects it offers no help nor if you choose to use any kind of camera support for your static subject.You are also not comparing like to like the Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 needs a 12-35mm F1.4 to match it { AOV,DOF, total light gathered } . The final image is of course constructed by sensor + lens , and for this final image even very low end inexpensive kit lenses { at their best settings} on the D800 will out resolve the best mFT pro zooms{ at their best settings} .
Loading…
www.dxomark.com
If flash is important to you Nikon does have an excellent system
If you are happy with the image quality of mFT the system offers a number of advantages over other mirrorless options { wide selection of native mount lenses many of which are very good, excellent video on the Panasonic side etc } .
My personal gripe is not high ISO which I nearly never use, but rather low ISO maximum image quality , where , shadow noise and low resolution sensors { relatively speaking] impact the results. My hope is for a higher resolution mFT sensor preferably optimized for low ISO shooting with a genuine 50ISO base but alas it will never come as the camera companies seem convinced that most people shoot over 3200SISO on a constant basis
thxbb12
Senior Member
Mirrorless (speaking of MFT and FujiX here) blows every single DSLR in the water when it comes to nailing focus on static targets. Note that I'm talking about focus accuracy, not focus speed on moving targets. PDAF is just not accurate enough, especially when shooting at wide apertures such as f/1.4. Yes, you can use micro-adjustments which is just a broken solution to the inherent problem that AF sensors are never perfectly aligned with the imaging sensor. Plus, with zoom lenses you need different micro adjusts at different focal lengths which is something Nikon doesn't even implement.
On my D800 with my 70-200 VR, I was able to get perfect focus at 70mm while 200 was off. I could tune it to have perfect focus at 200mm, but then 70 would be off. Great isn't it? And this doesn't even include focusing distance into account which may introduce even more discrepancy. Furthermore, tuning every lens with FoCal is quite a pain and FoCal even recommends re-tuning a lens every other year. Woohooo!
Now that I switched to mirrorless this inaccuracy business is totally over and I can enjoy shooting at f/1.2 or f/1.4 with perfect accuracy. 100% focus hit. It was a revelation! Suddenly the lenses appeared to be so much sharper. The DSLR technology really feels archaic and outdated in comparison.
Funny how DSLR people go on and on about how fast their AF is, but they just don't realize how much more accurate CDAF really is.
Of course the D800 needs to be manually adjusted for some lenses or else it will not nail focus. I am sure you are familiar with the Lens Rentals tests showing CDAF is more accurate. I know many DSLR owners do not like to admit it, but it is true that unless you have micro adjusted your camera with every lens, you may not "nail focus".
There are different IS modes available and some work very well for panning with fast moving objects. For example, IS improves a pan of fast moving race car and allows for a sharper image with a slower shutter speed.The difference between the Panasonic 7-14 and 14-24 regarding resolution is very clear if you do not see it then you most certainly do not need the advantages that the D800 offers.The 7-14 also has more distortion, much higher Chr. aberration and manages to have as much vignetting on mFT as the Nikon has on FF . It is also a full stop slower in nominal aperture and a full 3 stops slower in actual effect { AOV,DOF total light gathered}
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...4-ASPH-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1___813_792_536_909
The Olympus lens is not better built it has had its share of issues . IS is a great benefit for those static subjects { in low light } you mention above
The key to your claim is that the 36MP camera will out resolve a 16MP camera which is true but has nothing to do with the lens. Dxo tests do not compare lenses directly and one cannot make the claim that one lens out resolves the other.
Also, you cherry picked your parameters and ignored exposure. Obviously the larger sensor will give you a shallower DoF, but that is why these are different tools. Sometimes we take pictures and want a shallow DoF and other times we take pictures where we are forced to use it (Possibly due to needing that wide aperture in lower light).
If flash is important to you Nikon does have an excellent system
If you are happy with the image quality of mFT the system offers a number of advantages over other mirrorless options { wide selection of native mount lenses many of which are very good, excellent video on the Panasonic side etc } .
My personal gripe is not high ISO which I nearly never use, but rather low ISO maximum image quality , where , shadow noise and low resolution sensors { relatively speaking] impact the results. My hope is for a higher resolution mFT sensor preferably optimized for low ISO shooting with a genuine 50ISO base but alas it will never come as the camera companies seem convinced that most people shoot over 3200SISO on a constant basis
Day Hiker
Forum Pro
Your comments are EXACTLY why I left the DSLR world in 2011. Olympus could not resolve the inability of the E-5 to focus consistently and accurately with my $2500 35-100 f/2 zoom. Whenever I put the E-5 into Live View and focused (slowly!) there, that zoom was amazing. After weeks of focus tuning and testing with PDAF, Olympus finally, after supplying two bodies and two zooms & confirming my test results, gave up trying to help me and admitted outright in writing that there was no precise PDAF solution!!! I was unwilling to have a $2500 lens performing like a $400 lens, so here I am.
You will get lots of blow back from DSLR users about your comments, but you are 110% correct.
CDAF and (maybe) PDAF-on-chip are the solutions.
Summit County, Colorado, USA
You will get lots of blow back from DSLR users about your comments, but you are 110% correct.
CDAF and (maybe) PDAF-on-chip are the solutions.
Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
stevedigiphoto
Leading Member
Very interesting post and I agree with the vast majority of it too.
I switched over gradually from a D800E/14-24/24-70/80-400VR set-up to the E-M1, 7-14/12-40/40-150/75-300 kit plus a couple of lightweight primes 25f1.8/45f1.8 and could not be happier.
I loved the D800E but hated carrying it around with the lenses and after running several side by side comparisons shooting both Olympus and Nikon I found more and more I preferred the Olympus shots.
The 5-axis stabilisation is really excellent and the AF system rarely misses. I have also found with a combination of settings advised to me on Dpreview that the continuous AF performance is perfectly acceptable for the vast majority of my shooting requirements.
I have been amazed by the high quality results possible with the 40-150 and 75-300 bearing in mind the low cost relative to full frame equivalents and would agree the 12-40 is superb and at least the equal of the Nikon 24-70.
The Panny 7-14 the vast majority of the time works superbly on the E-M1 with the purple flare issue only occasionally cropping up for me - but I wilol look at the new OLY 7-14 when available and definitely want the 40-150f2.8!
Anyway, thanks again for posting.
I switched over gradually from a D800E/14-24/24-70/80-400VR set-up to the E-M1, 7-14/12-40/40-150/75-300 kit plus a couple of lightweight primes 25f1.8/45f1.8 and could not be happier.
I loved the D800E but hated carrying it around with the lenses and after running several side by side comparisons shooting both Olympus and Nikon I found more and more I preferred the Olympus shots.
The 5-axis stabilisation is really excellent and the AF system rarely misses. I have also found with a combination of settings advised to me on Dpreview that the continuous AF performance is perfectly acceptable for the vast majority of my shooting requirements.
I have been amazed by the high quality results possible with the 40-150 and 75-300 bearing in mind the low cost relative to full frame equivalents and would agree the 12-40 is superb and at least the equal of the Nikon 24-70.
The Panny 7-14 the vast majority of the time works superbly on the E-M1 with the purple flare issue only occasionally cropping up for me - but I wilol look at the new OLY 7-14 when available and definitely want the 40-150f2.8!
Anyway, thanks again for posting.
That's what he said, didn't he? You can compare lens +sensor in DXO. Comparing only lens have no proctical value.Of course the D800 needs to be manually adjusted for some lenses or else it will not nail focus. I am sure you are familiar with the Lens Rentals tests showing CDAF is more accurate. I know many DSLR owners do not like to admit it, but it is true that unless you have micro adjusted your camera with every lens, you may not "nail focus".
There are different IS modes available and some work very well for panning with fast moving objects. For example, IS improves a pan of fast moving race car and allows for a sharper image with a slower shutter speed.The difference between the Panasonic 7-14 and 14-24 regarding resolution is very clear if you do not see it then you most certainly do not need the advantages that the D800 offers.The 7-14 also has more distortion, much higher Chr. aberration and manages to have as much vignetting on mFT as the Nikon has on FF . It is also a full stop slower in nominal aperture and a full 3 stops slower in actual effect { AOV,DOF total light gathered}
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...4-ASPH-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1___813_792_536_909
The Olympus lens is not better built it has had its share of issues . IS is a great benefit for those static subjects { in low light } you mention above
The key to your claim is that the 36MP camera will out resolve a 16MP camera which is true but has nothing to do with the lens. Dxo tests do not compare lenses directly and one cannot make the claim that one lens out resolves the other.
No one is ignoring exposure. However exposure does not exist is isolation to IQ. This is where Jim is correct- you can open FF lens and open u43 lens to the same aperture but it does not mean you get the same IQ in low light (or in good light for that matter).
If flash is important to you Nikon does have an excellent system
If you are happy with the image quality of mFT the system offers a number of advantages over other mirrorless options { wide selection of native mount lenses many of which are very good, excellent video on the Panasonic side etc } .
My personal gripe is not high ISO which I nearly never use, but rather low ISO maximum image quality , where , shadow noise and low resolution sensors { relatively speaking] impact the results. My hope is for a higher resolution mFT sensor preferably optimized for low ISO shooting with a genuine 50ISO base but alas it will never come as the camera companies seem convinced that most people shoot over 3200SISO on a constant basis
Similar threads
- User review
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum