Reading mode: Light Dark

Pixel peep challenge fz200 and Olympus om de 5

Go to last post
L

Lola1234

Well-known member
Messages
144
Reaction score
23
I'm playing with both cameras wondering which one to keep. The Oly is a wonderful camera and has a great lens on it.

It seems like when I enlarge pictures from both cameras, they are either the same quality or the fz200 can go a bit higher in magnification.

Can this be true? I'm kinda surprised since the Oly and lens were pretty pricey. On top of that, the fz200 was much more user friendly. Seems everything used more often is easier to get to.

I can say that 90% of the time I use IA on both. So all the capabilities on the Oly are not used. Such a dilemma .
 
Lola1234 said:
I'm playing with both cameras wondering which one to keep. The Oly is a wonderful camera and has a great lens on it.

It seems like when I enlarge pictures from both cameras, they are either the same quality or the fz200 can go a bit higher in magnification.

Can this be true? I'm kinda surprised since the Oly and lens were pretty pricey. On top of that, the fz200 was much more user friendly. Seems everything used more often is easier to get to.

I can say that 90% of the time I use IA on both. So all the capabilities on the Oly are not used. Such a dilemma .
Click to expand...
I have the FZ200 and for a 12 MP 1/2.3" sensor agree it can have good IQ for it's genre.

Though I do not have the OM-D E-5, find it hard to believe that one is unable to see the IQ difference between the FZ200 and the much larger size 4/3rds sensor of the OM-D E-5; especially at higher ISO's.

I have the FZ1000 and can clearly see the IQ difference between the Fz1000 and the FZ200 doing 100% pixel peeping.

Below is a screen shot from imaging-resource.com Comparometer that allows one to do comparison of imaging-resource.com studio scene test shots by various cameras:

Click on link below to view original (full size)
Click on link below to view original (full size)

Not able to offer much help with your dilemma without posting your images from each camera with the EXIF data.

Can only guess at this time that the FZ200 may appear better due to the greater depth of field with the much smaller sensor. For some more info on this see DPR's What is equivalence and why should I care? article.

FYI: If you want to experience better overall IQ from any camera; instead of using camera's Full Auto mode learn how to use camera with Program mode and single center AF frame.
 
Why a pixel peeping challenge without providing any pixels to peep?

And if you want to pixel peep, why use iA mode?

Without samples we also have no idea what your comparing or how you're configuring the cameras. If you're shooting in good light at base ISO it could be difficult to find a big difference.

As to iA mode, I think you'll find that the FZ200 has many of the same controls as the OM-D. It's not just a Point & Shoot!

--
Bruce
You learn something new every time you press the shutter
 
Last edited:
Thankyou for the constructive comments. I guess I should keep them both for a while. You are all right about using the ia to compare shots. I am playing right now with the aperture priority. I am still waiting for my new laptop so I can download my pictures again and post some.

The difference between the fz200 and the fz1000 is amazing. It does not make the 200 very attractive does it, LOL
 
I also find it hard to believe that FZ200 has better quality than the EM5. I went from FZ150 to G6/GX7 and quality differences in monitor were quite big.

However, in cameras with interchangeable lenses, the lens is one of the most crucial parts of the system. If you are using a normal zoom lens (e.g. 14-42) and compare images at different focal lengths (e.g. 42(84)mm vs 600mm) there are possibilities that the FZ200 might show better results. What is the lens you are using?
 
Yannis1976 said:
I ajoylso find it hard to believe that FZ200 has better quality than the EM5. I went from FZ150 to G6/GX7 and quality differences in monitor were quite big.

However, in cameras with interchangeable lenses, the lens is one of the most crucial parts of the system. If you are using a normal zoom lens (e.g. 14-42) and compare images at different focal lengths (e.g. 42(84)mm vs 600mm) there are possibilities that the FZ200 might show better results. What is the lens you are using?

--
Yannis
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127079204@N06/
Click to expand...
I'm using a 14-150 ED Olympus lens 1:4-5.6. I think they are both great cameras. Specifically, I take pictures, get them on the computer, and see how far I can enlarge them before they fall apart. Aside from composition, that's what I enjoy. Every now and then getting a picture that has no limit. 90% of my pictures are of chickens, my models.

I would love to see a noticeably big difference in the quality between the two. I guess I need to put them on tripods and use some manual settings. My goal is to get a good "bug" picture. Macro.

I'm waiting to get my new laptop. I hope it comes tomorrow. Then I can post some pictures.

Does anyone worry about pixel loss while moving pictures around like from files to flicker to a flash drive to another laptop? Is it a big loss?
 
Lola1234 said:
I'm using a 14-150 ED Olympus lens 1:4-5.6. I think they are both great cameras. Specifically, I take pictures, get them on the computer, and see how far I can enlarge them before they fall apart. Aside from composition, that's what I enjoy. Every now and then getting a picture that has no limit. 90% of my pictures are of chickens, my models.

I would love to see a noticeably big difference in the quality between the two. I guess I need to put them on tripods and use some manual settings. My goal is to get a good "bug" picture. Macro.

I'm waiting to get my new laptop. I hope it comes tomorrow. Then I can post some pictures.

Does anyone worry about pixel loss while moving pictures around like from files to flicker to a flash drive to another laptop? Is it a big loss?
Click to expand...
I had a similar setup when I exchanged my FZ150 for a G6+14-140 lens and I remember myself being a bit disappointed in the beginning with the ILC system. The truth is that you can have much better quality with an ILC system but in a more complex way than with a compact camera.

For example you mentioned "macro". Forget macro with the 14-150 lens the way you know it from the FZ200. This lens is not a macro lens so you will never manage to achieve the same magnification as with the FZ200. Even if you try to crop you will notice the final result will lack sharpness and detail vs the FZ200. If you want quality macro shots on your EM5 you need a special macro lens either a cheap legacy one or a new m4/3.

Regarding the comparison with the FZ200, you do understand that the maximum tele end of your lens is 300mm whereas the FZ200 has 600mm. If you crop the EM10 image to an equal focal length you will probably find out that the final result is not better vs the FZ200 especially if you shoot jpeg.

And here comes the 2nd important thing I learnt when I made the transition from super zooms to ILC: RAW files! I am not yet convinced whether I am doing the most clever thing regarding my time, but processing the RAW file gives you many more opportunities and to be honest I really like playing with them in LR.

IF you have time, you may find these posts interesting:

m4/3...Is the learning curve steep?

Hi, After being for more than 10 years a Pany compact zoom user (FZ8, FZ28, FZ100, FZ150), I was debating whether to get the G6+14-140 or the FZ200. I finally ended with the G6 but after 3 months of using it I am still not totally convinced, mainly missing the long end of the lens and the...
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com


After 1,5 year I am still interested in fixed lens cameras like the new FZ300 or the G3X although I do consider the GX7 one of the best cameras I have ever used.
 
Yannis1976 said:
And here comes the 2nd important thing I learnt when I made the transition from super zooms to ILC: RAW files! I am not yet convinced whether I am doing the most clever thing regarding my time, but processing the RAW file gives you many more opportunities and to be honest I really like playing with them in LR.
Click to expand...
I guess I don't understand this one. First, you don't say why RAW files are the second most important thing and you also imply that it's an ILC benefit yet the FZ150, FZ200, FZ300, FZ1000 all support RAW...
 
Have owned both for > 1year. No comparison, the OMD E-M5 the clear winner, be it JPEG or RAW. The two cameras really distinguish themselves at higher ISOs and lower light.

I have both as I like the additional reach of the FZ200....and it is a great camera (in particular, love the fast lens and RAW capabilities).

Richard
 
Geekapoo said:
Have owned both for > 1year. No comparison, the OMD E-M5 the clear winner, be it JPEG or RAW. The two cameras really distinguish themselves at higher ISOs and lower light.

I have both as I like the additional reach of the FZ200....and it is a great camera (in particular, love the fast lens and RAW capabilities).

Richard

--
Current cameras: Nikon D750, OM-D E-M5, Panasonic G3, Sony RX100, Panasonic FZ200
Lenses: Oly 12-40 f2.8, Nikon 24-120, Nikon 18-35, Nikon 35mm f1.8 EX, Nikon 50mm f1.8, Panny 25 f1.4, Panny 35-100, Panny 45-150 and Rokinon 7.5 f3.5
Sold: Sony A7ii, Panasonic GF1, Canon S100, Oly XZ-1, Sony HX200V, Canon 60D
Returned: FZ1000
Click to expand...
Thankyou! Do you have enough cameras? Why did you return the fz1000?

Yannis,

I appreciate all the help. If I go to the lens that I want, a 12-60mm f2.8-4m Olympus, It's way too expensive for me, $7-800 bucks. I can't live without a zoom of some type. I'm not sure I do enough photography for that price even tho I frequently love taking pictures and seeing how well I did.

I have only compared the 2 at low iso's (100-400) and good light. My sole purpose in buying the OMD5 was that the auto was smarter than me. But from where I stand the fz200 auto is smarter than me as well. However, when I got the fz200, it was so much fun to use that I was trying all sorts of things. And close ups are pretty darn good. And the menu is pretty simple.
 
kkardster said:
Yannis1976 said:
And here comes the 2nd important thing I learnt when I made the transition from super zooms to ILC: RAW files! I am not yet convinced whether I am doing the most clever thing regarding my time, but processing the RAW file gives you many more opportunities and to be honest I really like playing with them in LR.
Click to expand...
I guess I don't understand this one. First, you don't say why RAW files are the second most important thing and you also imply that it's an ILC benefit yet the FZ150, FZ200, FZ300, FZ1000 all support RAW...
Click to expand...
 
Lola1234 said:
I'm playing with both cameras wondering which one to keep. The Oly is a wonderful camera and has a great lens on it.

It seems like when I enlarge pictures from both cameras, they are either the same quality or the fz200 can go a bit higher in magnification.

Can this be true? I'm kinda surprised since the Oly and lens were pretty pricey. On top of that, the fz200 was much more user friendly. Seems everything used more often is easier to get to.

I can say that 90% of the time I use IA on both. So all the capabilities on the Oly are not used. Such a dilemma .
Click to expand...
Although different cameras to yours, both have broadly the same capabilities. They are both beautiful photos of my parents, but from an IQ perspective the difference is rather striking wouldn't you agree? (NB the 2nd shot with the Sony was indoors in mixed lighting!)



FZ35
FZ35



Sony NEX 5R 35mm f1.8
Sony NEX 5R 35mm f1.8
 
Lola1234 said:
Geekapoo said:
Have owned both for > 1year. No comparison, the OMD E-M5 the clear winner, be it JPEG or RAW. The two cameras really distinguish themselves at higher ISOs and lower light.

I have both as I like the additional reach of the FZ200....and it is a great camera (in particular, love the fast lens and RAW capabilities).

Richard
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
chillgreg said:
Lola1234 said:
I'm playing with both cameras wondering which one to keep. The Oly is a wonderful camera and has a great lens on it.

It seems like when I enlarge pictures from both cameras, they are either the same quality or the fz200 can go a bit higher in magnification.

Can this be true? I'm kinda surprised since the Oly and lens were pretty pricey. On top of that, the fz200 was much more user friendly. Seems everything used more often is easier to get to.

I can say that 90% of the time I use IA on both. So all the capabilities on the Oly are not used. Such a dilemma .
Click to expand...
Although different cameras to yours, both have broadly the same capabilities. They are both beautiful photos of my parents, but from an IQ perspective the difference is rather striking wouldn't you agree? (NB the 2nd shot with the Sony was indoors in mixed lighting!)

FZ35
FZ35

Sony NEX 5R 35mm f1.8
Sony NEX 5R 35mm f1.8
Click to expand...




Nice pics! I think that indoor shot is really good , getting a nice clear clean picture with funky indoor lighting going on.
 
Lola1234 said:
Nice pics! I think that indoor shot is really good , getting a nice clear clean picture with funky indoor lighting going on.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top