Why is an OM-D better than a Pentax K-5?

Started May 9, 2012 | Discussions
PerL Forum Pro • Posts: 14,024
Re: I got drawn in to this...

Henry Richardson wrote:

PerL wrote:

...because I answered a poster that said that the K5 was almost as big as an E-5. Then someone included the OM-D with a pancake compared to a big Sigma lens on the K5. So I answered that one - and then yours and so on...

I replied to the OP with his question about size. That is all. I don't know what other discussions with other people buried in this long thread you have had. I stayed out of those. I have held the E-M5 in my hands many times (don't own one yet though) and I have held the K-5 (and K-7) in my hands many times. The E-M5 and lenses are much smaller/lighter. Yes, Pentax has a few nice, small lenses, but those are the exception. The 1.5x APS-C sensor pretty much guarantees larger lenses then a 2x m4/3 sensor.

I never said anything about which camera is better or even whether smaller is better since that is a subjective view that different people can have different opinions about.

If you take the whole list of Olympus and Panasonic m4/3 lenses and compare them to the comparable Pentax ones (or, if necessary Sigma/Tamron) then in almost every single case the m4/3 lenses are smaller, usually much smaller though. I have held all the m4/3 lenses in my hand, including lenses such as the Voigtlander f0.95 25mm and I have held most of the Pentax, Sigma, Tamron lenses that are comparable. In almost every case there is no comparison when it comes to size.

Again, this has nothing to do with which one is better since I find that whole sort of argument childish.

But Pentax has an unique range of very small, compact, well built primes. The widget for comparision only includes a few of them.

Yes, I know. In 2010 I had a Pentax K-7. Very nice camera that was letdown by its sensor from around ISO 1600 on up. The K-5 has a great sensor though so, I know, that it is a very nice camera.

But since you know about the Pentax pancakes and other small primes, dont you think it is a bit miseading to pick a Sigma 28 1.8, a huge bulky FF lens, as a basis for comparision?

BTW I dont care which one is "best" either, I dont even own a K5 (but have shot with it).

I leave this thread now to those who need extra convincing by making unfair comparisons (I dont mean you).
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/

Henry Richardson Forum Pro • Posts: 16,012
Trying to do close to equivalent comparisons

PerL wrote:

But since you know about the Pentax pancakes and other small primes, dont you think it is a bit miseading to pick a Sigma 28 1.8, a huge bulky FF lens, as a basis for comparision?

Okay, you choose the Pentax lens that is equivalent 40mm f1.7. Which lens would that be? The Sigma 28mm f1.8 is equivalent 42mm f1.8 so that is as close as I could find. If you have a Pentax AF 27mm f1.7 you want to show me then please do. The Pentax 31mm f1.8 is the closest, I think, with an equivalent FL of about 47mm, but it is MF, not AF, so not a good comparison. I am trying to do close to equivalent comparisons.

I also showed the Olympus 9-18mm and the Sigma 10-20mm since they are fairly close in equivalent FLs. It is meaningless, IMO, for you to come up with cherry picked MF lenses that are not close to equivalent.

Here is a list of m4/3 lenses. Go through them and for each one tell me what the closest equivalent Pentax lens is and we can check out how the size compares:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=40938689

Here are the Pentax lenses that I am aware of:

http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses

Here is another comparison (if you have a different close to equivalent lens you want to use then tell me):

http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.97,187.178,ha,t

-- hide signature --

Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

PerL Forum Pro • Posts: 14,024
Re: Trying to do close to equivalent comparisons

Henry Richardson wrote:

PerL wrote:

But since you know about the Pentax pancakes and other small primes, dont you think it is a bit miseading to pick a Sigma 28 1.8, a huge bulky FF lens, as a basis for comparision?

Okay, you choose the Pentax lens that is equivalent 40mm f1.7. Which lens would that be? The Sigma 28mm f1.8 is equivalent 42mm f1.8 so that is as close as I could find. If you have a Pentax AF 27mm f1.7 you want to show me then please do. The Pentax 31mm f1.8 is the closest, I think, with an equivalent FL of about 47mm, but it is MF, not AF, so not a good comparison. I am trying to do close to equivalent comparisons.

But now you happend to pick a combo that showed the K5 in the worst possible light - a 20 1.7 pancake vs that huge Sigma that is not even a Pentax lens. How many Pentax owners, that often chooses Pentax for it compactness, would buy such a lens?

If compactness is the main goal a Pentax owner could pick a system of the 21, 40, 70 pancakes, the 15 WA or the limited series (they all have AF, BTW) 31 1.8, 43 1.9 and 77 1.8. These small lenses are one of the main attractions of the Pentax system.

I also showed the Olympus 9-18mm and the Sigma 10-20mm since they are fairly close in equivalent FLs. It is meaningless, IMO, for you to come up with cherry picked MF lenses that are not close to equivalent.

But that Sigma is also huge.

Here is a list of m4/3 lenses. Go through them and for each one tell me what the closest equivalent Pentax lens is and we can check out how the size compares:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=40938689

Here are the Pentax lenses that I am aware of:

http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses

Here is another comparison (if you have a different close to equivalent lens you want to use then tell me):

http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.97,187.178,ha,t

That is more reasonable. Here is another one, the Oly 45 1.8 vs the 77 1.8. Not exactly the same but close enough in purpose and FOV IMO.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.93,187.83,ha,t

-- hide signature --

Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

PhotoHawk Contributing Member • Posts: 841
Re: Why is an OM-D better than a Pentax K-5?

I have to be frank here. The OMD is not a replacement for the K5. In my very the K5 is a much better camera. In my view it is better than the D7000 and you might well ask that question to0 - is the OMD better than the D7000.
This is nothing more than a troll question and you should know better.

Boris
Boris Veteran Member • Posts: 9,257
Re: K5 lenses are HUGE!

K5 w/70f2.4 G2 w/45f1.8

Boris
--

http://public.fotki.com/borysd/

 Boris's gear list:Boris's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Ricoh GR Digital IV Ricoh GR Ricoh GR II Canon EOS 60D +40 more
Bart Hickman Veteran Member • Posts: 7,256
Re: Yes, flawed - here is a better comparision

20/1.7 in m43 is 30/2.3 in APS-C. I'm sure there's a Pentax prime sort of close to this. Yes, it'll still be significantly bigger, but it would be a more representative comparison at least. I'm not trying to exaggerate or minimize the differences in the systems. I'm just trying to get a realistic comparison.

Bart

Ben3D wrote:

I was trying to match focal lengths after crop factor. If you wanna stay in the 20mm 1.x size/speed, here ya go:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.30,187.122,202.128,ha,t

only a 24 avail for the E-5, but does it really matter?

-- hide signature --
 Bart Hickman's gear list:Bart Hickman's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony a6000 Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 +10 more
PerL Forum Pro • Posts: 14,024
The best post so far (nt)
Pete Berry Veteran Member • Posts: 3,486
Here's the evidence, PhotoHawk..

...in ultimate RAW IQ, where all the four 16mp m4/3's handily exceed that of the 16mp K-5. Now for BIFs and high-speed action shots, the C-AF of the K-5 should win out. Otherwise, I'll take my GH2, and possibly compliment it with the E-M5 if the GH3 falls short of expectations.

The K-5 is surprisingly soft in 100% crops - both at base and higher ISO's - compared to not only the E-M5, but the GH2, G3, and the little GX1 which shares the G3 sensor. The RAW clips shown here are entirely unmodified.

Pentax is obviously applying background NR to it's RAW files, increasing with ISO, and irreversibly degrading detail. For the base ISO image softness, an overly aggressive A-A filter?

Now I'm not going to cross-post this to the Pentax forum, as that would obviously be trolling, wouldn't it?

PhotoHawk wrote:

I have to be frank here. The OMD is not a replacement for the K5. In my very the K5 is a much better camera. In my view it is better than the D7000 and you might well ask that question to0 - is the OMD better than the D7000.
This is nothing more than a troll question and you should know better.

Pete Berry Veteran Member • Posts: 3,486
Images re-posted

cameron2 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,432
Re: Change! Technology Change

Sergey Borachev wrote:

History has shown that many who clung to old technology lose big time.
[..]
Ignore at your own risk.

This is silliness. Cameras are for taking pictures. The only "lose" is not being able to take a picture. The only "win" is taking a picture.

Go do some winning. Regardless of what supposedly loser technology you happen to be stuck with because you don't bother to upgrade your camera ever 12 seconds.
--
Sent from my iPhone 5

 cameron2's gear list:cameron2's gear list
Sony RX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Hasselblad X1D
Henry Richardson Forum Pro • Posts: 16,012
Re: K5 lenses are HUGE!

I would love it if you would show photos with all Pentax lenses and all m4/3 lenses so we can figure out if you managed to cherry pick or if what you have shown is generally true across the whole range. Also, is that a MF lens on the Pentax and an AF lens on the Panasonic? Also, do those 2 lenses have the same aperture and effective FL?

-- hide signature --

Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

Robertj_298 Senior Member • Posts: 1,293
Re: Images re-posted

Pixel peeping again? Now do the same post but use a crop of the queen of hearts face with the same settings lol

zxaar Veteran Member • Posts: 4,345
Re: Another biased one

Henry Richardson wrote:

PerL wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

Here is an example. E-M5 + 20mm f1.7 (effective 40mm) and K-5 + 28mm f1.8 (effective 42mm):

http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.30,187.133,ha,t

Yes, the size/weight difference is pretty substantial and that is appreciated by some people.

This is better:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.93,187.82,202.220,ha,t

Yes, that is a good one. Look how much smaller the E-M5 is than the K-5. Thanks for pointing that out. Unfortunately, you chose lenses that aren't all that comparable though. The 45mm f1.8 is an effective 90mm and the 43mm f1.9 is an effective 64mm.

By the way, since the subject of this thread is the E-M5 and K-5 I don't see any relevance to adding a third camera. Might as well make that one a Nikon D4 or Canon S95 since those two are off subject as well.

And here:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#289,187

Assuming the cameras are of equal thickness (not shown in this photo) then one might be fooled into thinking the two cameras are almost the same size. Sadly, once you take them off the flat computer screen and hold them in your hand you discover that they are 3-dimensional and not 2-dimensional so the difference becomes substantial again.

Yaa but the problem is biggest dimension. Both cameras are unpocketable. You have to carry both of them in either hands or in bag.

-- hide signature --

::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.

zxaar Veteran Member • Posts: 4,345
Re: Trying to do close to equivalent comparisons

Henry Richardson wrote:

PerL wrote:

But since you know about the Pentax pancakes and other small primes, dont you think it is a bit miseading to pick a Sigma 28 1.8, a huge bulky FF lens, as a basis for comparision?

Okay, you choose the Pentax lens that is equivalent 40mm f1.7. Which lens would that be? The Sigma 28mm f1.8 is equivalent 42mm f1.8 so that is as close as I could find. If you have a Pentax AF 27mm f1.7 you want to show me then please do. The Pentax 31mm f1.8 is the closest, I think, with an equivalent FL of about 47mm, but it is MF, not AF, so not a good comparison. I am trying to do close to equivalent comparisons.

I also showed the Olympus 9-18mm and the Sigma 10-20mm since they are fairly close in equivalent FLs. It is meaningless, IMO, for you to come up with cherry picked MF lenses that are not close to equivalent.

Here is a list of m4/3 lenses. Go through them and for each one tell me what the closest equivalent Pentax lens is and we can check out how the size compares:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=40938689

Here are the Pentax lenses that I am aware of:

http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses

the problem is you are looking at the lenses they are currently making. Many of the pentax users are using old pentax lenses too. 80% of my pentax lenses are old ones. And most of them are very compact. For example

50mm F1.2 is not larger than typical 50mm F1.4 or F1.8 lens. I carry it my times in my jacket pocket.
28mm M f2.8 is also very compact, slightly larger than pancake.

135mm M F3.5 is slightly larger than 50mm F1.2 I said (I believe it might be the most compact 135mm ).
takumar 105mm F2.8 is very compact for 105 mm

There are many more. All these lenses I listed are FF lenses.

The thing is you are not well informed like many here. And it is not your fault because I do not think you are really interested in pentax to know all this.

-- hide signature --

::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.

Melbourne Park Senior Member • Posts: 2,683
Re: Another biased one

zxaar wrote:

Yaa but the problem is biggest dimension. Both cameras are unpocketable. You have to carry both of them in either hands or in bag.

The OM-D without a lens does fit in a jacket pocket. So too a lens in the other pocket. The K is just too big I'm afraid - but lots of Pentax lenses will fit in the other pocket.

And you can use those lenses on the OM-D, and manual ones focus better on the OM-D than they do on the K. And the OM-D's IBIS is better too.

As far as sensors go, they are all excellent except for 5% of photos. Crop factor is a real difference though, but its not a very big one.

I have Pentax lenses too ... a fast 50mm prime amongst them. Tragically I had an excellent fish eye lens, that I had serviced (by a shop) and they sold it ... so they claimed ... But the, the 50 mm is very soft except for in the centre. Its bigger than the 45mm F/1.8 lens, which is sharp everywhere, and it doesn't auto focus. So I have purchased the 45 Olympus lens as well. Its a portrait type lens, and with the eye focus and tracking on, it will auto focus quickly and get great people shots.

And another thing ... the legacy K lenses are designed for film. The light bounces all around the camera's sensor due to the glass being designed for light absorbing film.

And I can hand the camera to anyone, and they'll use live view, and take picture by touching the screen. Zap will go the focus, focusing on the nearest eye of the person who was touched in the LCD. And fastest focus there is when doing that, and no phase distance errors either. It's as easy as that. And I can then grab the OM-D back, and take a video too, instantly. And wow about the video quality.

Its another world entirely. And handle an OM-D - they are way way smaller than they look. Note too, that Olympus have got a protrubing eye piece. If it was as flat as the K's, the camera would be much thinner statistically. But in reality, the eye piece does not take up extra room in a pocket. Beware of the stats - hold the camera. On paper, the X-Pro is even thinner than the OM-D. But use it, relatively its huge. So too its lenses.

And when one comes down to teles - things will change further. And with teles, the crop factor becomes a bigger advantage to m43. And how about wide angle? What has the K got to match the 14-28mm (FF) width of the 7-14 zoom?

 Melbourne Park's gear list:Melbourne Park's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-1 Olympus E-M1 Sony a7R II Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS +7 more
Everdog Veteran Member • Posts: 4,837
What a dumb comment

Robertj_298 wrote:

Pixel peeping again? Now do the same post but use a crop of the queen of hearts face with the same settings lol

The DPR staff has repeatedly stated that the queen of hearts is out of the focal plane in most shots. They said never use it to judge. Use subjects that are in the middle of the depth.
Please learn some about photography.

Pete Berry Veteran Member • Posts: 3,486
Re: Images re-posted

Robertj_298 wrote:

Pixel peeping again? Now do the same post but use a crop of the queen of hearts face with the same settings lol

Bravo, Roberto! Congratulations on finding one of the bugabears of PD-AF in DSLRs - innacurate focus calibration - in this case back focus, as only the playing card and the Kodak Grayscale are in sharp focus, with all the highly detailed items in the plane of the center focus targets on the soft side..

While you get superior AF-C with PD-AF, the two Canon and one Oly 4/3 I have owned all had front or back-focus issues to a greater or lesser degree. The E-30 had a built-in calibration routine which had to be done with each lens, if necessary.

A total non-issue with the contrast AF in all m4/3 cameras - lol!

Boris
Boris Veteran Member • Posts: 9,257
Re: K5 lenses are HUGE!

It is not the size difference for me but the weight difference...the GH2 with the Olympus 45mmf1.8 is light as a feather compared to the K5 with the 70mm f2.4 lens.
Boris
--

http://public.fotki.com/borysd/

 Boris's gear list:Boris's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Ricoh GR Digital IV Ricoh GR Ricoh GR II Canon EOS 60D +40 more
zxaar Veteran Member • Posts: 4,345
Re: Another biased one

Melbourne Park wrote:

zxaar wrote:

Yaa but the problem is biggest dimension. Both cameras are unpocketable. You have to carry both of them in either hands or in bag.

The OM-D without a lens does fit in a jacket pocket. So too a lens in the other pocket. The K is just too big I'm afraid - but lots of Pentax lenses will fit in the other pocket.

sorry but k-5 also fits the jacket without lens. It is not that big. Try that.

And you can use those lenses on the OM-D, and manual ones focus better on the OM-D than they do on the K. And the OM-D's IBIS is better too.

Adpater costs money, if it were for free i am game. Add that to cost of system.

As far as sensors go, they are all excellent except for 5% of photos. Crop factor is a real difference though, but its not a very big one.

I have Pentax lenses too ... a fast 50mm prime amongst them. Tragically I had an excellent fish eye lens, that I had serviced (by a shop) and they sold it ... so they claimed ...

But the, the 50 mm is very soft except for in the centre.

Which 50mm you are talking about?? Only FA version lacks the contrast. Shoot 50mm F1.2 at f1.8 and compare it with 45mm at 1.8 the difference would not be much. Probably the F1.2 version might be sharper seeing that it is very usable at F1.2. Their takumar F1.4, F1.8 are also very good lenses and so is F2 version.

Its bigger than the 45mm F/1.8 lens,

FA version is not much bigger than 45mm F1.8 and so is takumar version. You are simply wrong here.

which is sharp everywhere, and it doesn't auto focus. So I have purchased the 45 Olympus lens as well. Its a portrait type lens, and with the eye focus and tracking on, it will auto focus quickly and get great people shots.

Good for you but it does not make other lenses useless.

And another thing ... the legacy K lenses are designed for film. The light bounces all around the camera's sensor due to the glass being designed for light absorbing film.

Have been using them on cameras for years. Haven't noticed problems. Here is one shot in bright day light.

Here is another one from soft 50mm

And when one comes down to teles - things will change further. And with teles, the crop factor becomes a bigger advantage to m43. And how about wide angle? What has the K got to match the 14-28mm (FF) width of the 7-14 zoom?

Pentax Q holds that advantage much much more than OMD do over APC cams.

-- hide signature --

::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.

Jeff Tokayer Veteran Member • Posts: 6,287
Re: A parameter called build quality

PerL wrote:

Ben3D wrote:

Wow, that combo makes it only twice as heavy as that E-M5 setup.

Yes, you are right that the K5 is heavy for its size - about 250 g more than other compact DSLRs. It is because the amount of steel and magnesium that give it a pro level build. The OM-D with its built in EVF is 30 g heavier than a consumer E-P3, which is metal plate over a plastic chassis I believe.

Magnesium alloy keeps the camera light, while making it stronger. Rubber seals don't weigh much, but keep moisture out. No comparison to the E-P3.

I have a lot of respect for the K-5 and Pentax as a brand, but I believe that the 10 years old Olympus 4/3 vision is now mature. Pentax's Q product will vanish, just like the 110 SLR dream.
--
My nickel, since the penny is being discontinued...

Jeff.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads