Nex-5N vs OM-D, D300 user

[revstat]

I currently have a Nikon D300 with various fast glass (85 1.4, 50 1.4, 70-200 2.8, 17-55 2.8). I will keep this setup but looking to go smaller/lighter and gain a little better high ISO performace.

I typically shoot portrait in studio (probably still use D300) and sports action (tennis, vball).

Looking at Olympus OM-D and Sony NEX-5N

Would appreciate comments about Olympus vs Sony along with D300 vs either of these....Thanks.

 

[SkiHound]

I'm really happy with the E-M5 BUT I'm not sure it's the best choice for stuff like tennis and volleyball. I get some use out of continuous autofocus tracking but it's not like a good pdaf continuous AF. S-AF is very fast and generally accurate. If you're doing manual focus on anticipated locations it'll be fine. And it'll shoot at around 9 frames a second. As much as I like the camera, if I was doing serious sports photography I'd probably opt for an SLR reputed to have a very good tracking AF system. I have no idea how the NEX is with respect to these issues.

 

[papillon_65]

revstat wrote:

I currently have a Nikon D300 with various fast glass (85 1.4, 50 1.4, 70-200 2.8, 17-55 2.8). I will keep this setup but looking to go smaller/lighter and gain a little better high ISO performace.

I typically shoot portrait in studio (probably still use D300) and sports action (tennis, vball).

Looking at Olympus OM-D and Sony NEX-5N

Would appreciate comments about Olympus vs Sony along with D300 vs either of these....Thanks.

I had the 5n and now have the E-M5. The only reason I'd take the 5n over the Olympus is for shooting legacy lenses using focus peaking. You can get some great results on the 5n doing this. However, the E-M5 spanks it in pretty much every other department. Lens choices, speed of operation, accuracy and speed of focusing etc etc. The E-M5 is a much more "serious" camera than the 5n, which is more aimed at P&S upgraders. The 5n is a great little camera for what it is but the E-M5 is outstanding IMHO.

 

[fripfrops]

I own both the Nex-5N and E-M5, and a selection of lenses for both. They have their pros and cons.

5N: Better high ISO, more comfortable stock handling (before you add a grip to the E-M5), longer battery life. Better video, both in terms of quality and framerate/bitrate settings as well.

E-M5: Size advantage, both in body and lenses, EVF, one additional (useful) external dial for controls, much wider selection of lenses. Way better defaults for jpeg output, if that matters to you. Faster focus if you use the right lenses, otherwise it's just as slow as the 5N.


Despite the 5N not having the extra dial, I did find it very easy to use, and the menu system, while not great, is still better than the E-M5 (although that's not saying much).

The two cameras are so completely different that it's hard to compare them. I really did enjoy my 5N until I bought my E-M5, and the only real reason I leave it behind these days is that it's simply too big to fit in my pocket. The E-M5 with a small prime or pancake is so easy to take along everywhere.

Both have terrible continuous AF, in response to someone else's question above.

 

[slimandy]

revstat wrote:

portrait in studio (probably still use D300) and sports action (tennis, vball).

For your purposes I'd suggest sticking with the D300. I just sold mine and bought an OMD but I still have a Nikon D700. For sports action the OMD (and presumably any MFT camera) won't match your DSLR. My OMD has an electronic viewfinder, not as nice with moving subjects as the one on my Nikon DSLR's. The focussing will be quicker with your Nikon, particularly with a 70~200 f2.8, and it will track focus much better.
I bought the OMD for when I want to travel light and because it is much, much easier to carry multiple lenses, but specifically for the tasks you mentioned I would keep the DSLR.

 

[tt321]

slimandy wrote:

revstat wrote:

portrait in studio (probably still use D300) and sports action (tennis, vball).

For your purposes I'd suggest sticking with the D300. I just sold mine and bought an OMD but I still have a Nikon D700. For sports action the OMD (and presumably any MFT camera) won't match your DSLR. My OMD has an electronic viewfinder, not as nice with moving subjects as the one on my Nikon DSLR's. The focussing will be quicker with your Nikon, particularly with a 70~200 f2.8, and it will track focus much better.
I bought the OMD for when I want to travel light and because it is much, much easier to carry multiple lenses, but specifically for the tasks you mentioned I would keep the DSLR.

The OP is keeping the D300.

However, their desire of improving sports shooting with mirrorless is a bit difficult, as the DSLR should be better in most cases, unless they are looking at higher DoF to cover wider action and not worrying about critical focus. In this case, there is very little difference between the two choices. Maybe focus peaking in the NEX will make it easier to use existing Nikon lenses.

 

[slimandy]

tt321 wrote:

slimandy wrote:

revstat wrote:

portrait in studio (probably still use D300) and sports action (tennis, vball).

For your purposes I'd suggest sticking with the D300. I just sold mine and bought an OMD but I still have a Nikon D700. For sports action the OMD (and presumably any MFT camera) won't match your DSLR. My OMD has an electronic viewfinder, not as nice with moving subjects as the one on my Nikon DSLR's. The focussing will be quicker with your Nikon, particularly with a 70~200 f2.8, and it will track focus much better.
I bought the OMD for when I want to travel light and because it is much, much easier to carry multiple lenses, but specifically for the tasks you mentioned I would keep the DSLR.

The OP is keeping the D300.

Sorry, of course he is, but if he is only asking how it would cope with the tasks he mentioned I would keep just the DSLR and not get MFT as well.

 

[DLBlack]

revstat wrote:

I currently have a Nikon D300 with various fast glass (85 1.4, 50 1.4, 70-200 2.8, 17-55 2.8). I will keep this setup but looking to go smaller/lighter and gain a little better high ISO performace.

I typically shoot portrait in studio (probably still use D300) and sports action (tennis, vball).

Looking at Olympus OM-D and Sony NEX-5N

Would appreciate comments about Olympus vs Sony along with D300 vs either of these....Thanks.

For the two mirrorless system you are thinking about I would go with the E-M5 because of the lenses available for mft. For sports the only mirrorless that is really good is the Nikon System 1, which seems to be equal to their high end dslr for C-AF.

Dave

 

[rockygag]

I decided to get rid of the D300 and keep the OM-D.

To me, most of the "not for sports" threads devolve into well OK, if it's only your kids up to the high school level, and you have good technique, then the OM-D will work just fine. BUT no PRO would ever use one. Since my kids are 9 and 11, and I don't shoot pro sports, and most of the output ends up on the web anyway, the OM-D is just fine. Fair enough if one of the kids moves on to year book photographer 5 years from now, I may need to revisit!

For my studio work, the OM-D and the 9-18, 25 Panasonic, and 45 Oly are a good replacement for the D300 and the Tokina 12-24 and the 24-70. The newer gen sensor coupled with the bit higher MPix make things work out well for me.

The fly in the ointment is that I also have the Fuju X-Pro, and it's way better than either in the studio the lack of AA filter just gives things a bite, and as I often vignette the corners anyway, LR is just fine for raw processing.

As soon as the 10-24 comes out, I'll be set, OMD for zooms/walk around, Fuiji for studio.


None of the above touch the Phase One/Mamiya that I sold at the same time.

Best;

Dave

 

[robertro]

I went down a similar road to yours, photographing my 9 and 10-year olds in hockey and indoor/outdoor soccer. Because I was not shooting in well-lit pro sports arenas, I used Canon DSLRs with 70-200/2.8 L lens. With the current generation of M4/3 bodies and lenses, I finally felt comfortable switching.

The OM-D (and E-PM2) have improved high ISO performance to a level that I can comfortably shoot ISO1600 at 75/1.8 and 1/500th of a second, usually sufficient for even the worst hockey stadiums or gyms. S-AF has been sufficient with even the last generation of bodies - PM1, G3, etc... but the recent image quality updates have put the IQ performance over the edge for my uses. I had a NEX-5N, but didn't feel that the lenses available supported my usage, and found the interface clunky compared to the OM-D and PM2.

My Canon equipment is now almost all sold (only one Sigma 50-150 f2.8 lens left - if only it fit M4/3, I'd be thrilled!), and I couldn't be more pleased with my choices.

rockygag wrote:

I decided to get rid of the D300 and keep the OM-D.

To me, most of the "not for sports" threads devolve into well OK, if it's only your kids up to the high school level, and you have good technique, then the OM-D will work just fine. BUT no PRO would ever use one. Since my kids are 9 and 11, and I don't shoot pro sports, and most of the output ends up on the web anyway, the OM-D is just fine. Fair enough if one of the kids moves on to year book photographer 5 years from now, I may need to revisit!

For my studio work, the OM-D and the 9-18, 25 Panasonic, and 45 Oly are a good replacement for the D300 and the Tokina 12-24 and the 24-70. The newer gen sensor coupled with the bit higher MPix make things work out well for me.

The fly in the ointment is that I also have the Fuju X-Pro, and it's way better than either in the studio the lack of AA filter just gives things a bite, and as I often vignette the corners anyway, LR is just fine for raw processing.

As soon as the 10-24 comes out, I'll be set, OMD for zooms/walk around, Fuiji for studio.

None of the above touch the Phase One/Mamiya that I sold at the same time.

Best;

Dave

 

[Jason Elander]

I'd think the NEX-6 would be more comparable to the OM-D, to be honest. The Nex-5N is definitely a step down.

 

[seminolewind]

Last month I bought both-with upgraded zooms. After all the reading I did, I opted not to even open the box on the Nex. I'm sure they are both quality cameras, and both take excellent pictures. However, after reading that the menu is very lengthy in the Nex, and the Oly gave you more buttons for customizing, and so much of the menu comes up live, after sharpness of pictures, ease of a menu is important to me.

I love this OM-D, and find that it's pretty user friendly.

 

[revstat]

Thank you for all the input, going to pull the trigger on OM-D and a few lenses.....give it a whirl.

 

[Just Having Fun]

The EM5/OMD and NEX5n are virtually equal at most higher ISOs which is what DxO reports.

The EM5 has IS on every lens AND that IS is better than what Sony provides in a hand full of lenses.

The E-M5 has a touch shutter. You tap anywhere on the screen and that is where the camera focuses and snaps the pic in the same instant.

The E-M5 focuses faster indoors and is more reliable getting the focus right. They are both very fast outdoors.

The EM5 has the super control panel UI (which many people don't know about or how to use). DPR says, "Super Control panel, one of our favorite interfaces, and one made better when combined with a touch-screen and lens dial". Basically it displays almost every setting setting and all you have to do is tap on one to change it. Things that NEX burries deep in menus can be changed by a simple tap and then button push.

Most important of all is the better lens selection for the EM5. This is not even close.

 

[Brian Caslis]

Just Having Fun wrote:

...

The EM5 has the super control panel UI (which many people don't know about or how to use). DPR says, "Super Control panel, one of our favorite interfaces, and one made better when combined with a touch-screen and lens dial". Basically it displays almost every setting setting and all you have to do is tap on one to change it. Things that NEX burries deep in menus can be changed by a simple tap and then button push.

...

FYI, the NEX-6 has the equivalent of the SCP. It doesn't have a touchscreen, but you can select any of the shooting options and change them easily without going into menus.

 

[Just Having Fun]

Brian Caslis wrote:

Just Having Fun wrote:

...

The EM5 has the super control panel UI (which many people don't know about or how to use). DPR says, "Super Control panel, one of our favorite interfaces, and one made better when combined with a touch-screen and lens dial". Basically it displays almost every setting setting and all you have to do is tap on one to change it. Things that NEX burries deep in menus can be changed by a simple tap and then button push.

...

FYI, the NEX-6 has the equivalent of the SCP. It doesn't have a touchscreen, but you can select any of the shooting options and change them easily without going into menus.

The NEX 6 was designed to use with a touch screen but doesn't have one. Sony trys to sell you apps to load on it too, but still no touchscreen. There is a reason why Apple killed Blackberry despite Blackberries have lots of buttons and a control wheel.

 

[tt321]

slimandy wrote:

tt321 wrote:

slimandy wrote:

revstat wrote:

portrait in studio (probably still use D300) and sports action (tennis, vball).

For your purposes I'd suggest sticking with the D300. I just sold mine and bought an OMD but I still have a Nikon D700. For sports action the OMD (and presumably any MFT camera) won't match your DSLR. My OMD has an electronic viewfinder, not as nice with moving subjects as the one on my Nikon DSLR's. The focussing will be quicker with your Nikon, particularly with a 70~200 f2.8, and it will track focus much better.
I bought the OMD for when I want to travel light and because it is much, much easier to carry multiple lenses, but specifically for the tasks you mentioned I would keep the DSLR.

The OP is keeping the D300.

Sorry, of course he is, but if he is only asking how it would cope with the tasks he mentioned I would keep just the DSLR and not get MFT as well.

Apparently the smaller sensor cameras he is investigating have better high ISO performance than the D300, which is one of his points.

 

[Brian Caslis]

Just Having Fun wrote:

The NEX 6 was designed to use with a touch screen but doesn't have one. Sony trys to sell you apps to load on it too, but still no touchscreen. There is a reason why Apple killed Blackberry despite Blackberries have lots of buttons and a control wheel.

Umm, no. I was designed without a touchscreen. I guess you are implying that it needs a touchscreen or it's worthless. Whatever. I was merely correcting your statement that you need to use the menus to change items on a NEX, this isn't true on the NEX-6. In any case, I don't want to get into a long winded discussion since facts don't really seem to be an issue with you.

 

[mario GTI]

fripfrops wrote:

I own both the Nex-5N and E-M5, and a selection of lenses for both. They have their pros and cons.

5N: Better high ISO, more comfortable stock handling (before you add a grip to the E-M5), longer battery life. Better video, both in terms of quality and framerate/bitrate settings as well.

E-M5: Size advantage, both in body and lenses, EVF, one additional (useful) external dial for controls, much wider selection of lenses. Way better defaults for jpeg output, if that matters to you. Faster focus if you use the right lenses, otherwise it's just as slow as the 5N.

Despite the 5N not having the extra dial, I did find it very easy to use, and the menu system, while not great, is still better than the E-M5 (although that's not saying much).

The two cameras are so completely different that it's hard to compare them. I really did enjoy my 5N until I bought my E-M5, and the only real reason I leave it behind these days is that it's simply too big to fit in my pocket. The E-M5 with a small prime or pancake is so easy to take along everywhere.

Both have terrible continuous AF, in response to someone else's question above.

I just wonder if 5N is better than nex6 in high ISO department because my nex6 was pretty noisy at higher ISO. I could even spot some noise at 100 ISO in some darker areas. My D5100 was better than the nex6 IMO. This is the main reason I returned otherwise nice and small nex6 and waiting for the OMD em5 to arrive. Now, it is little scary to hear that someone says that 5N is better that E-M5 as far as noise goes, since 5N and nex6 are similarly performing cameras. Any thoughts ?

 

[Just Having Fun]

Brian Caslis wrote:

Just Having Fun wrote:

The NEX 6 was designed to use with a touch screen but doesn't have one. Sony trys to sell you apps to load on it too, but still no touchscreen. There is a reason why Apple killed Blackberry despite Blackberries have lots of buttons and a control wheel.

Umm, no. I was designed without a touchscreen. I guess you are implying that it needs a touchscreen or it's worthless. Whatever. I was merely correcting your statement that you need to use the menus to change items on a NEX, this isn't true on the NEX-6. In any case, I don't want to get into a long winded discussion since facts don't really seem to be an issue with you.

DPR has it it right, "Quite oddly, though, for a camera that makes an obvious effort to accommodate smartphone owners, Sony has removed the touchscreen operation found in recent NEX-5 iterations...We do find some questionable decisions, the most obvious being the lack of a touchscreen..."

It is a real shame Sony left this off the NEX6. Features like the EM5 touch shutter make it so much more easier to use, when the NEX 6 is stuck with the poor menu driven interface that has so much burried several levels deep. Even the Alpha interface that is now also on the RX100 would have been a big improvement.