real d800 vs em5

Started Mar 23, 2013 | Discussions
OP Adventsam Veteran Member • Posts: 4,983
Re: real d800 vs em5

Rocky ID Olympian wrote:

Rocky ID Olympian wrote:

I see that the person who wanted to compare this, is trying to get a "real life situation" and getting the same DOF.

At the condition above, ever photographer would use lowest ISO. It wouldn't make sense is D800 use ISO 200.

To get the same DOF, OM-D uses 2 stop brighter aperture (f4 compared to f8 in D800).

Fair enough comparison for that sense, I think.

Maybe my previous post wasn't clear. For f/8 and 1/200 on D800, the exposure on EM5 should have been f/4 and 1/800 instead of 1/1600, for equal exposure and DOF.

That is true if using the same ISO. The photos shown the D800 shot is using ISO 100 whileE-M5 use ISO 200.

both are base.

tt321
tt321 Forum Pro • Posts: 13,552
Re: D800 vs EM5 Image Comparison: proves what exactly?
2

tgutgu wrote:

joe talks photography wrote:

Comparing the output of D800 with EM5 proves what exactly? I say, not much at all. The EM5 produces images of a decent quality...for what it is. Isn't that enough? The D800 is in a different league entirely (and I netiher own one nor am I a shill for any manufacturer).

It proves that cameras like the D800 are overkill in terms of size and weight, because the difference of the results are irrelevant for most applications.

But it's very nice indeed and there is an observable advantage, if you can afford the cost, size and weight.

OP Adventsam Veteran Member • Posts: 4,983
Re: D800 vs EM5 Image Comparison: proves what exactly?

tt321 wrote:

tgutgu wrote:

joe talks photography wrote:

Comparing the output of D800 with EM5 proves what exactly? I say, not much at all. The EM5 produces images of a decent quality...for what it is. Isn't that enough? The D800 is in a different league entirely (and I netiher own one nor am I a shill for any manufacturer).

It proves that cameras like the D800 are overkill in terms of size and weight, because the difference of the results are irrelevant for most applications.

But it's very nice indeed and there is an observable advantage, if you can afford the cost, size and weight.

Only with the 36mp chip, with the 24mp chip its difficult to see from most samples I have. I think what people see with FF in general is the 9 bladed optics and the very smooth bokeh and easier-soother image separation to the eye. For landscape am not sure there is any advantage. Like you say, its your money if you prefer it go for it, but in mind now, 24mp aps-c is no better than m43, which is interesting to say the least.

marike6 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,088
Re: D800 vs EM5 Image Comparison: proves what exactly?
2

tgutgu wrote:

joe talks photography wrote:

Comparing the output of D800 with EM5 proves what exactly? I say, not much at all. The EM5 produces images of a decent quality...for what it is. Isn't that enough? The D800 is in a different league entirely (and I netiher own one nor am I a shill for any manufacturer).

It proves that cameras like the D800 are overkill in terms of size and weight, because the difference of the results are irrelevant for most applications.

Most applications? I can only think of a few that a D800 would be overkill for, perhaps street photography or travel.

But if those fairly dramatic differences are irrelevant for you, then of course, you could choose either camera and be happy. But you simply cannot argue that such dramatic differences are irrelevant for the everybody.

And even in this isolated test of only one image, the advantages in IQ (color depth, sharpness) are fairly dramatic. The OP meant intended to make his case for the EM5, but actually ended up making a great case for the D800.

So if some shoots stock or sells prints or is a hobbyist, why wouldn't they want the camera that produces the very best IQ that they can afford?

A wedding photographer who wants gorgeous shallow DOF detail shots, or bitingly sharp portraits with beautiful soft backgrounds and fantastic high ISO ability for the ceremony would most certainly not think a D800 is overkill.

For a portrait photographer a D800 most certainly would not be overkill.

For street photography or travel photos, I would agree. But then for street photography, even an EM5 is overkill. A Ricoh GRD can do the job as well as any camera.

I play the saxophone, and when I was a young saxophone student my parents tried to get me the best instrument they could afford. And like in the camera world, with musical instruments, money gets you quality (quality of workmanship, materials, tone). The D800 and to a certain extent the EM5 give you just that: quality. To argue that one camera is valid and but the other is overkill is just not a winnable argument to make.

What is also true is that Nikon offers hundreds of lenses from UWA to super telephoto. Even an amateur or hobbyist can find all kinds of used lenses for dirt cheap that work perfectly on the D800 (Keep in mind that on all Nikon professional grade cameras, all Nikkors except some pre-AI lenses work perfectly and AI lenses even give you an AF confirm light).

As far as weight, when I go out specifically to shoot landscapes, I always have with me my tripod which of course does the heavy lifting (not that I consider a camera that weighs 2 lb (1 kg) heavy, and I only weight 165 lb soaking wet. And actually the larger, more robust camera actually feels better in my hands than a smaller camera like my GH2, which is so tiny it's actually cumbersome to change settings, and the small grip actually get more tiring to handhold.

Anyway, I'm sure the OP could post dozens of great images from both cameras, but side-by-side is not doing the EM5 any favors of making a good case for the OP.

By the way, perhaps this forum will try some more realistic comparisons. All these OMD comparisons with the best of the best FFs don't make much sense a crop sensor cameras, even APS-C ones are pretty far away from the best FF. How about the D5200 or D7100? That might make more sense.

Cheers, and happy shooting, Markus

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Nikon D800 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4G ED VR +7 more
MoreorLess Veteran Member • Posts: 4,650
Re: real d800 vs em5

Mjankor wrote:

MoreorLess wrote:

Really this strike me as a case of someone desperately trying to poorve a point using little or no sharpening on the D800 shot and massive amounts of sharpening on the EM-5 shot.

The result is masses of artifacts on the latter (including a horrible looking sky that really didnt need to be sharpened) and still ultimately a real lack of detail compaired to the D800.

I'm sure the EM-5 used properly provides enough resolution for most people but if I was looking to print these at say 30 by 20 inches believe me the difference would be clear.

At 30 by 20 your at about 150dpi.

You'll need to print bigger than that.

You don't think the difference between around 150 DPI and 250 DPI on a D800 would be noticble? depends on your standards I spose.

This is obviously just one test with the methodology somewhat questionable but to me it shows not just a resolution advanatge with the D800 but a general IQ advanatge, the sky for example is much cleaner, the colours/contrast much smoother and indeed the weaknesses of the lens exposed less at the boarders.

To be clear I'm not saying that the EM-5 couldnt produce a good quality 30 by 20 inch print but I do think the differences between it and a D800 would be clearly noticble when viewed reasonabley closely.

OP Adventsam Veteran Member • Posts: 4,983
Re: D800 vs EM5 Image Comparison: proves what exactly?

marike6 wrote:

tgutgu wrote:

joe talks photography wrote:

Comparing the output of D800 with EM5 proves what exactly? I say, not much at all. The EM5 produces images of a decent quality...for what it is. Isn't that enough? The D800 is in a different league entirely (and I netiher own one nor am I a shill for any manufacturer).

It proves that cameras like the D800 are overkill in terms of size and weight, because the difference of the results are irrelevant for most applications.

Most applications? I can only think of a few that a D800 would be overkill for, perhaps street photography or travel.

But if those fairly dramatic differences are irrelevant for you, then of course, you could choose either camera and be happy. But you simply cannot argue that such dramatic differences are irrelevant for the everybody.

And even in this isolated test of only one image, the advantages in IQ (color depth, sharpness) are fairly dramatic. The OP meant intended to make his case for the EM5, but actually ended up making a great case for the D800.

So if some shoots stock or sells prints or is a hobbyist, why wouldn't they want the camera that produces the very best IQ that they can afford?

A wedding photographer who wants gorgeous shallow DOF detail shots, or bitingly sharp portraits with beautiful soft backgrounds and fantastic high ISO ability for the ceremony would most certainly not think a D800 is overkill.

For a portrait photographer a D800 most certainly would not be overkill.

For street photography or travel photos, I would agree. But then for street photography, even an EM5 is overkill. A Ricoh GRD can do the job as well as any camera.

I play the saxophone, and when I was a young saxophone student my parents tried to get me the best instrument they could afford. And like in the camera world, with musical instruments, money gets you quality (quality of workmanship, materials, tone). The D800 and to a certain extent the EM5 give you just that: quality. To argue that one camera is valid and but the other is overkill is just not a winnable argument to make.

What is also true is that Nikon offers hundreds of lenses from UWA to super telephoto. Even an amateur or hobbyist can find all kinds of used lenses for dirt cheap that work perfectly on the D800 (Keep in mind that on all Nikon professional grade cameras, all Nikkors except some pre-AI lenses work perfectly and AI lenses even give you an AF confirm light).

As far as weight, when I go out specifically to shoot landscapes, I always have with me my tripod which of course does the heavy lifting (not that I consider a camera that weighs 2 lb (1 kg) heavy, and I only weight 165 lb soaking wet. And actually the larger, more robust camera actually feels better in my hands than a smaller camera like my GH2, which is so tiny it's actually cumbersome to change settings, and the small grip actually get more tiring to handhold.

Anyway, I'm sure the OP could post dozens of great images from both cameras, but side-by-side is not doing the EM5 any favors of making a good case for the OP.

By the way, perhaps this forum will try some more realistic comparisons. All these OMD comparisons with the best of the best FFs don't make much sense a crop sensor cameras, even APS-C ones are pretty far away from the best FF. How about the D5200 or D7100? That might make more sense.

Cheers, and happy shooting, Markus

I made the comparisons with APS-C, D5200 and 24mp FF, OMD is better than aps-c 24mp d5200 and on a par with a FF D600, all the way to iso 6400

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/51143577

Martin.au
Martin.au Forum Pro • Posts: 13,248
Re: real d800 vs em5

MoreorLess wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

MoreorLess wrote:

Really this strike me as a case of someone desperately trying to poorve a point using little or no sharpening on the D800 shot and massive amounts of sharpening on the EM-5 shot.

The result is masses of artifacts on the latter (including a horrible looking sky that really didnt need to be sharpened) and still ultimately a real lack of detail compaired to the D800.

I'm sure the EM-5 used properly provides enough resolution for most people but if I was looking to print these at say 30 by 20 inches believe me the difference would be clear.

At 30 by 20 your at about 150dpi.

You'll need to print bigger than that.

You don't think the difference between around 150 DPI and 250 DPI on a D800 would be noticble? depends on your standards I spose.

This is obviously just one test with the methodology somewhat questionable but to me it shows not just a resolution advanatge with the D800 but a general IQ advanatge, the sky for example is much cleaner, the colours/contrast much smoother and indeed the weaknesses of the lens exposed less at the boarders.

To be clear I'm not saying that the EM-5 couldnt produce a good quality 30 by 20 inch print but I do think the differences between it and a D800 would be clearly noticble when viewed reasonabley closely.

Got a loupe?

I'm curious about what happened to the OM-D image. Looks pretty bad.

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 +7 more
Future user Forum Member • Posts: 66
Kind of expected

There'd be something wrong if the d800 shot wasn't better than a 2.25x upscaled shot from a 4x smaller sensor. That said,you'd have to print really big to find noticeable differences between both.

BTW, as tiny 1/1.7 sensors are catching up the much bigger first MFT sensors, I'd like to see this kind of comparison again in a few years. I mean, a 2017 MFT camera against the today's fantastic D800...

jtan163 Senior Member • Posts: 2,265
Re: real d800 vs em5

Are these out of camera JPG or post processed?

If OOC have you tweaked the in camera JPG settings?

I'm curious because I have a D7000 and an EM-5 and I usually prefer the EM-5 jpgs, but in this case I like the D800 image better.

Adventsam wrote:

Yes the d800 is better, but not enough imo! (not my images btw)

 jtan163's gear list:jtan163's gear list
Nikon D750 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Nikon D4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:1.8 +7 more
dpreviewreader Contributing Member • Posts: 506
Re: real d800 vs em5
1

Adventsam wrote:

Rocky ID Olympian wrote:

Rocky ID Olympian wrote:

I see that the person who wanted to compare this, is trying to get a "real life situation" and getting the same DOF.

At the condition above, ever photographer would use lowest ISO. It wouldn't make sense is D800 use ISO 200.

To get the same DOF, OM-D uses 2 stop brighter aperture (f4 compared to f8 in D800).

Fair enough comparison for that sense, I think.

Maybe my previous post wasn't clear. For f/8 and 1/200 on D800, the exposure on EM5 should have been f/4 and 1/800 instead of 1/1600, for equal exposure and DOF.

That is true if using the same ISO. The photos shown the D800 shot is using ISO 100 whileE-M5 use ISO 200.

both are base.

This equalizes the brightness but not the exposure. As a result the EM5 image has more noise and looks worse.

MoreorLess Veteran Member • Posts: 4,650
Re: Kind of expected

Future user wrote:

There'd be something wrong if the d800 shot wasn't better than a 2.25x upscaled shot from a 4x smaller sensor. That said,you'd have to print really big to find noticeable differences between both.

BTW, as tiny 1/1.7 sensors are catching up the much bigger first MFT sensors, I'd like to see this kind of comparison again in a few years. I mean, a 2017 MFT camera against the today's fantastic D800...

I'm guessing that the rate of progress we've seen over the last decade or so isnt going to continue indefinately as physical limates start to be reached, espeically with reguards to lens performance.

dpreviewreader Contributing Member • Posts: 506
Re: Kind of expected

Future user wrote:

There'd be something wrong if the d800 shot wasn't better than a 2.25x upscaled shot from a 4x smaller sensor. That said,you'd have to print really big to find noticeable differences between both.

BTW, as tiny 1/1.7 sensors are catching up the much bigger first MFT sensors, I'd like to see this kind of comparison again in a few years. I mean, a 2017 MFT camera against the today's fantastic D800...

I have compared the DPR studio shot raw files for both after upsizing the EM5 image. At 100% the D800 images looks slightly better. At a display size of 24x32 I do not see any difference between the two.

Paco 316
Paco 316 Senior Member • Posts: 1,151
Re: real d800 vs em5
3

It's pretty obvious that the "real" reason the EM-5's file has more "noise" is because the file has been upsize from it's original resolution. It would've been more fair to downsize the Nikon's file. Color is off on the EM-5 other then that, they are pretty much the same, even dynamic range is similar.

I'm glad we have these two options neither is better than the other, simply different. Although, in hand, D800 is boring compared to the EM-5.

 Paco 316's gear list:Paco 316's gear list
Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 40D Olympus E-3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 +12 more
thxbb12 Senior Member • Posts: 1,986
Re: real d800 vs em5

I this size, there won't be any meaningful differences. The difference we see here is mostly due to white balance. I'm sure the Oly one could be processed to look exactly like its D800 counterpart.

You'll see difference when displaying images at higher resolution and/or in difficult situations.  In bright day light and at this size, even a photo taken with a point and shoot will be indistinguishable from one shot with a D800 or medium format for that matter.

Adventsam wrote:

Yes the d800 is better, but not enough imo! (not my images btw)

 thxbb12's gear list:thxbb12's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +11 more
thxbb12 Senior Member • Posts: 1,986
Never mind my previous comment...

as I didn't see you posted high resolution images!

Looking at 100% we can see quite a bit more details from the D800 as well as a cleaner image. It's all expected, but the difference is not as big as one might have thought.

It would have to be printed very big to really see a difference.

Nice comparison, thanks for sharing!

 thxbb12's gear list:thxbb12's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +11 more
pyrula1 New Member • Posts: 2
Re: real d800 vs em5

Hmm, I do own D800 and this picture doesn't seem very sharp... Try different lens, I guess this one was an old 14/2.8 D, try D800 with 14-24/2.8G and you'll be amazed...

Rens
Rens Senior Member • Posts: 1,799
Re: D800 vs EM5 Image Comparison: proves what exactly?
1

I made the comparisons with APS-C, D5200 and 24mp FF, OMD is better than aps-c 24mp d5200 and on a par with a FF D600, all the way to iso 6400

This is nonsense.  Whatever its strengths, my OMD doesn't get anywhere near my D700 above ISO 1600.  I don't believe the D600 is so much worse than the D700 at high ISOs

-- hide signature --

--

Rens
There are optimists and there are realists

 Rens's gear list:Rens's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Panasonic GX850 Canon EOS RP
OP Adventsam Veteran Member • Posts: 4,983
Re: D800 vs EM5 Image Comparison: proves what exactly?
1

Rens wrote:

I made the comparisons with APS-C, D5200 and 24mp FF, OMD is better than aps-c 24mp d5200 and on a par with a FF D600, all the way to iso 6400

This is nonsense. Whatever its strengths, my OMD doesn't get anywhere near my D700 above ISO 1600. I don't believe the D600 is so much worse than the D700 at high ISOs

From studio samples, iso 6400, d600 left, em5 right

Above, d5200 left em5 right, iso6400

OP Adventsam Veteran Member • Posts: 4,983
Re: real d800 vs em5

pyrula1 wrote:

Hmm, I do own D800 and this picture doesn't seem very sharp... Try different lens, I guess this one was an old 14/2.8 D, try D800 with 14-24/2.8G and you'll be amazed...

d800 is with the 14-24 2.8, these are not my images just checked on exif and it is that lens!

OP Adventsam Veteran Member • Posts: 4,983
Re: New EM5 version, even closer!

Seems you need to add sharpening at the end! some double sharpening going on, so as a result looks much better, I think.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads