Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

Started Mar 30, 2013 | Discussions
mring1 Senior Member • Posts: 1,163
Re: I think you just answered your own question....
7

You like Nikon, and they make really good gear.  90% of what anyone "likes" about a camera is between their ears.  If the camera works for for a person, that what they should use. Nikon works for you.  You're already familiar with the system, so I'd say go with what you like.

The only area where I think there's a real difference is in the weather resistance of an E-M5/12-50 kit.  I do a lot of hiking and that's a big deal for me.  Also like the small size, although that's a very idiosyncratic element.

The dirty little secret is that Nikon, Canon, Oly, Pentax and Fuji...OK....I'll include Sony...ALL make very good cameras.

 mring1's gear list:mring1's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 OIS Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +1 more
Martin.au
Martin.au Forum Pro • Posts: 13,127
Re: I think you just answered your own question....

mring1 wrote:

You like Nikon, and they make really good gear.  90% of what anyone "likes" about a camera is between their ears.  If the camera works for for a person, that what they should use. Nikon works for you.  You're already familiar with the system, so I'd say go with what you like.

The only area where I think there's a real difference is in the weather resistance of an E-M5/12-50 kit.  I do a lot of hiking and that's a big deal for me.  Also like the small size, although that's a very idiosyncratic element.

The dirty little secret is that Nikon, Canon, Oly, Pentax and Fuji...OK....I'll include Sony...ALL make very good cameras.

What he said.

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ +7 more
SirSeth
SirSeth Veteran Member • Posts: 9,962
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
1

Have you tried them in person? If not, that is what you are missing. I visited a very large camera shop this week and tried all the cameras I was interested in. It changed my perspective greatly in ways I didn't expect. You can't do this just by thinking about it and reading what other people have to say.

Of course, both cameras are very good but very very different. Much more different than the specs seem to indicate imo. (User experience that is. IQ is closer than talk on forums would seem to indicate imo).

-- hide signature --

What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?
--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com

 SirSeth's gear list:SirSeth's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-M1 Fujifilm X-T1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5 +5 more
Sergey Borachev Veteran Member • Posts: 4,527
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

You have a lot of requirements, from landscape to family, children's sport to travel, and IMO, as a very happy E-M5 owner who have switched from a DSLR, the D5200 is clearly what you should choose.

For family shots, your main needs, a flash is very important, parties, school activities and birthdays, and here is where Nikon is better than any other when you need an external flash.  A built-in flash is also convenient.

For children playing and sports, continuous AF is very important, and any DSLR is better than the E-M5. High ISO performance is also important, and although the E-M5 is good, the D5200 is better.

For landscape, you want good DR performance and again, the D5200 is better.  M43 has a good range of lenses, but Nikon has even better overall.

For portraits, the D5200 is better, as it has a better sensor, 24.2 colour depth in DXO scores.

What the E-M5 is good at, apart from the size and weight, is its EVF, big, full of shooting data, its IBIS, which is very effective and I think better, and its weatherproofing, which is however not so essential.  If these do not bother you, and they should not, then get the D5200.  Have fun with it.   M43 has a good range of lenses, but Nikon has even better.

You sound like you are young and should not be bothered so much by weight or by a viewfinder that is not as bright or big.  I think the D5200 is great for you.  So, have fun with your D5200.

Sergey Borachev Veteran Member • Posts: 4,527
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

SirSeth wrote:

Have you tried them in person? If not, that is what you are missing. I visited a very large camera shop this week and tried all the cameras I was interested in. It changed my perspective greatly in ways I didn't expect. You can't do this just by thinking about it and reading what other people have to say.

Of course, both cameras are very good but very very different. Much more different than the specs seem to indicate imo. (User experience that is. IQ is closer than talk on forums would seem to indicate imo).

I agree.  Don't trust anyone, even DPReview, when it comes to ergonomics. Try it with your own hands.  We all have different ones and also different dexterity, etc.

Go to the camera shop if possible and try it yourself, and, while you are there, just bring some ear plugs and ignore the salesman's opinions.

boggis the cat Veteran Member • Posts: 6,329
Either go Nikon, or spend some time weighing up the pros and cons
1

gbhwc wrote:

I am ready to upgrade from an older fixed lens camera and looking for a versatile camera for:

  • Misc. Family Activities
  • Kids sports – outdoors
  • Travel
  • Backpacking & landscapes

Note: The above use list is in descending order of expected use.

From your list, the two potential areas where the 5200 should be better (depending on the lenses, to some extent) would be "kids sports" due to C-AF superiority over the OM-D and landscapes where the 3:2 aspect ratio is likely to be better in many cases than the 4:3.

If you can get hold of the best lenses for the Nikon you should also get a resolution advantage for landscape due to the extra pixels (24 MP v 16 MP) and the wider aspect ratio.  I would opt for the Nikon for landscape work.  The only problem would be the 'backpacking' part, where the Nikon kit will inevitably be bulkier and heavier -- you may have to compromise on the lenses to keep the weight down.

Further on lenses: I have the OM-D (and the E-5 and some HG lenses) and find it a good camera, but the native (Micro FourThirds) zooms available are a bit limited and the standard FT lenses I have do not work well on it.  Nikon should offer you far more options at this point and if you are careful and do your homework you should be able to find better 'bang per buck' than you will get from MicroFT at this point.

I currently have a Nikon so I am partial to them.  The Nikon 5200 has caught my attention.

It looks like an excellent value.  There are a lot of features missing, unfortunately ('standard Nikon practice' to pull features from lower end bodies), but as a basic camera it should be fine.

COMPARING THE NIKON 5200 to the OMD

Size is obviously important and the OMD wins there.

Weigh is also important and the OMD body is 4.6 oz. lighter.  Now sure about zoom lenses but a 4.6oz difference seems minor.

Perhaps you should set aside the cameras at this point and look at lenses.

Does MicroFT offer suitable lenses?  What are the trade-offs for size / weight and cost?

Environmental sealing is a nice feature.

There are only three sealed MicroFT lenses that I am aware of.  The 12-50 f/3.5-6.3 (relatively poor optically), and the expensive 12-35 f/2.8 and 35-100 f/2.8.

If you want sealed lenses on APS-C then Pentax looks like a better option.

There are a few things I like about Nikon that is better:

-       Low light focusing

-       Built in flash

-       Optical viewfinder

Check out the OM-D EVF in person.  I found it to be -- surprisingly -- better than I was assuming.

The optical VF in my E-5 is far better in some ways, of course, but I could live with using the OM-D EVF.

-       Better feel/comfort unless I add optional power battery holder / grips which reduce the weight / size advantage.  (I wouldn’t bring these backpacking and probably not traveling).

-       NOTE: I just compared the reviews from this website and the OMD received a higher rating on ergonomics and handling.  Does this make sense?

Well, maybe if you also buy the HLD-6 two-part grip.  The E-M5 is very flexible with that grip as an option.

But, the 5200 should be fine once you get used to peculiarities such as button placement.

-       What else am I missing?  What do you think?

My advice would be either go with Nikon, as you appear comfortable with that; or, if you really want to consider other options, then put the Pentax K-30 and possibly a NEX in the mix along with MicroFT.  The Pentax system could be a better solution than Nikon -- but do check the C-AF capability and flash system differences out.

Also, as some have already suggested, the G5 is a possible contender for an "SLR-like" body.  It is less expensive than the OM-D, has a sensor not hugely worse, but the lack of IBIS could be a major issue.

 boggis the cat's gear list:boggis the cat's gear list
Olympus E-5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +7 more
SDPharm Regular Member • Posts: 229
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
1

But when equivalent lenses do exist in both systems, such as the 35-100 / 2 on 4/3 vs the 70-200 / 4L IS on 35mm FF, the lenses for the larger sensor systems are  usually lighter <

I'm not sure what world you live in, but here's a real world example of the 'equivalent lens' comparison:

Panasonic 35-100/2.8: 360 g

Canon 70-200/2.8 II: 1490 g

Both are expensive, excellent lenses.  The FF lens is more than 4x the weight.

 SDPharm's gear list:SDPharm's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Olympus Tough TG-4 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +4 more
Martin.au
Martin.au Forum Pro • Posts: 13,127
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

SDPharm wrote:

But when equivalent lenses do exist in both systems, such as the 35-100 / 2 on 4/3 vs the 70-200 / 4L IS on 35mm FF, the lenses for the larger sensor systems are  usually lighter <

I'm not sure what world you live in, but here's a real world example of the 'equivalent lens' comparison:

Panasonic 35-100/2.8: 360 g

Canon 70-200/2.8 II: 1490 g

Both are expensive, excellent lenses.  The FF lens is more than 4x the weight.

Not quite. Forpetessake is an equivalence troll. This means that he's using a very specific meaning of equivalence, to browbeat anyone he can. Not sure why, as he also uses small sensor mirrorless (APS-C Sony).

Anyway, true equivalence requires that the image taken by both systems is equivalent, with same amount of light captured, same depth of field, etc.

So, if a shot was taken on 35mm, 1/100, f4, ISO100 on m4/3s, on FF the equivalent image would be  70mm, 1/100, f8, ISO 400. Theoretically these images should end up being the same with similar noise levels, etc. In practice, it's not quite so clear cut.

So, the "equivalent lens" would be a 70-200 f5.6.

His argument only works if:

1) You consider equivalence theory to be important, rather than what it really is - a useful comparison tool across camera systems.

2) You are happy to compare m4/3s lenses with FF lenses that don't exist.

Best thing to do is just ignore him. I think he's just compensating (look at his gallery :D).

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ +7 more
forpetessake
forpetessake Veteran Member • Posts: 4,892
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

SDPharm wrote:

But when equivalent lenses do exist in both systems, such as the 35-100 / 2 on 4/3 vs the 70-200 / 4L IS on 35mm FF, the lenses for the larger sensor systems are  usually lighter <

I'm not sure what world you live in, but here's a real world example of the 'equivalent lens' comparison:

Panasonic 35-100/2.8: 360 g

Canon 70-200/2.8 II: 1490 g

Both are expensive, excellent lenses.  The FF lens is more than 4x the weight.

How many times should the equivalence be explained here that people may finally learn? The equivalent lenses result in the same image on different size sensors. You are again comparing apples and oranges. If you want compare Panasonic 35-100/2.8 to equivalent FF lens then find 70-200mm/5.6. Nobody does such lens, because FF lenses traditionally much faster, but it's not difficult to understand that such lens wouldn't be any heavier than its m4/3 equivalent.

B.t.w. I provided educational links, it makes sense to read them, otherwise people keep rehashing the same misinformation again and again.

rrr_hhh Veteran Member • Posts: 6,022
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
1

forpetessake wrote:

PC Wheeler wrote:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

Lenses, once you start building up a collection, your compact dslr is no longer compact.

DSLR lenses are generally much larger and heavier than CSC lenses.

Exactly! Lenses *must* be considered. If you want quality lenses with long reach (say 200-600 mm, full-frame equivalent) DSLR lenses are large and massive.  Compare the Panasonic 100-300 lens (200-600 equivalent) to a DSLR lens reaching to 600mm.

He can get 100-300mm lens for his DSLR, which are the same size and weight and crop it. The image won't be any worse than from Panasonic. There are many great DSLR telephoto lenses, there aren't any good m43 telephoto lenses. I've been there, and that's not only my opinion, but also a professional opinion, here is Roger Cicala : "I was so unhappy with everything over 150mm in m4/3 format I sort of lost interest. I use the m4/3 cameras as SLR alternatives but when I did side-by-side comparisons there was nothing even equal to the Canon 100-400. In fact I got more detail with 5D3 at 400mm than with OM-D at 300mm (600mm equivalent)."

The main objection is that then you are nomore in compact DSLR category, to say the least : remind us how much weight the  100-400 ?  And then the 5D3 ?  This isn't what the OP is after. Further I don't think that he even need such a long lens for the kind of pictures he wants to take.

As for AF : the SAF is very good and very fast on the E-M5 whether in good light or low light. Only CAF and tracking is really better on DSLR, further don't forget thate try level DSLRs won't be as good as middle range or high end DSLRs.

When it comes to the finder on the one on the E-M5 is very good, once you get an E-VF you don't want to go back : you can see your picture in the E-VF at the time you take it, you know before taking it whether it would be blown out or not.. Etc.. You can even make your picture in camera with the new creative tools available on the Olympus camera .. Yes there is a little draw back : the E-VF will be a fraction of a second later than in real life, but you can adapt to that for action shooting..the other advantages of an E-VF weight higher for me. Ofcourse this is not the ideal camera for action photography..

You have to weight the advantages against the disadvantages depending way the respective weight of the different kind of pictures you will take..

-- hide signature --

rrr_hhh

 rrr_hhh's gear list:rrr_hhh's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EOS 6D Sony Alpha a7R Olympus E-M5 II Sony Alpha a7R II +5 more
Martin.au
Martin.au Forum Pro • Posts: 13,127
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

forpetessake wrote:

SDPharm wrote:

But when equivalent lenses do exist in both systems, such as the 35-100 / 2 on 4/3 vs the 70-200 / 4L IS on 35mm FF, the lenses for the larger sensor systems are  usually lighter <

I'm not sure what world you live in, but here's a real world example of the 'equivalent lens' comparison:

Panasonic 35-100/2.8: 360 g

Canon 70-200/2.8 II: 1490 g

Both are expensive, excellent lenses.  The FF lens is more than 4x the weight.

How many times should the equivalence be explained here that people may finally learn? The equivalent lenses result in the same image on different size sensors. You are again comparing apples and oranges. If you want compare Panasonic 35-100/2.8 to equivalent FF lens then find 70-200mm/5.6. Nobody does such lens, because FF lenses traditionally much faster, but it's not difficult to understand that such lens wouldn't be any heavier than its m4/3 equivalent.

B.t.w. I provided educational links, it makes sense to read them, otherwise people keep rehashing the same misinformation again and again.

Hey, Forpetessake

Couple of questions. Why are you so perturbed by people's lack of understanding (or interest) in equivalence? You do realise it really doesn't matter much in practice.

Given that you are such a proponent of equivalence, DSLRs, optical viewfinders, etc, why are you using a small sensor mirrorless?

Are you unsatisfied with your equipment or photographic skills? Why else would you keep visiting a forum for a camera format you don't own?

Here's a tip. You can take good photos with any camera system, even a cellphone (Well, a lot of people can, perhaps not you).

Here's a second tip. Knowing something and using that to educate others is noble. Knowing something and using that to belittle others is the opposite. Guess which side of the line you're on.

PS

SDPharm actually has a point. FF has the advantage of a sensor that's 4x the size. What's the point of buying into FF, and then using crappy lenses so that you can only approximately equal m4/3s capabilities? If you're going to buy FF, then you should also buy quality glass. I obviously can't talk for everyone, but If I were to buy into FF, then I'd be doing so for excellent IQ. I sure as hell wouldn't compromise that with average lenses.

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ +7 more
RezaTravilla
RezaTravilla Regular Member • Posts: 308
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

gbhwc wrote:

I am ready to upgrade from an older fixed lens camera and looking for a versatile camera for:

  • Misc. Family Activities
  • Kids sports – outdoors
  • Travel
  • Backpacking & landscapes

Note: The above use list is in descending order of expected use.

I currently have a Nikon so I am partial to them.  The Nikon 5200 has caught my attention.

COMPARING THE NIKON 5200 to the OMD

Size is obviously important and the OMD wins there.

Weigh is also important and the OMD body is 4.6 oz. lighter.  Now sure about zoom lenses but a 4.6oz difference seems minor.

Environmental sealing is a nice feature.

There are a few things I like about Nikon that is better:

-       Low light focusing

-       Built in flash

-       Optical viewfinder

-       Better feel/comfort unless I add optional power battery holder / grips which reduce the weight / size advantage.  (I wouldn’t bring these backpacking and probably not traveling).

-       NOTE: I just compared the reviews from this website and the OMD received a higher rating on ergonomics and handling.  Does this make sense?

-       What else am I missing?  What do you think?

Thanks,  Glenn

The decision is in your hand, Glenn

OMD is a great camera, i almost buy OMD too (in the last moment i chance my mind to Sony RX100) but you must consider the lenses. When you buy OMD, you will never satisfied with the slow kit lens (12-50mm F3.5-6.3).

The range is good 24-100mm but the f-stop so slow. Then you will buy more lens such as the new 17mm f1.8, 45mm f1.8, 75mm f1.8 or just buy the all around zoom lens, the legendary panasonic 12-35mm f2.8?

you will need about f2.8 bellow since you also have interested on photograph kids so that you don't need to use high ISO to compensate speed per second.

About Nikon D5200, i dunno what lenses do you have but if you already invest many of it i suggest you take Nikon D5200. But for i'm concern Nikon lenses besides the fixed lens (35mm, 50mm, 85mm f1.8), the zoom lens f2.8 really expensive.

For f2.8 zoom lens i suggest you take Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 for all around. Yeah i know there's also Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 but it has a bad copy and the autofocus not so accurate. My friend got the bad copy.

oh! if you really like to take a bokeh shot, OMD were beaten compare to DSLR due to the sensor size.

 RezaTravilla's gear list:RezaTravilla's gear list
Nikon D300S Olympus E-M5 II Olympus PEN-F Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +5 more
richarddd
richarddd Veteran Member • Posts: 3,095
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
1

Mjankor wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

SDPharm wrote:

But when equivalent lenses do exist in both systems, such as the 35-100 / 2 on 4/3 vs the 70-200 / 4L IS on 35mm FF, the lenses for the larger sensor systems are  usually lighter <

I'm not sure what world you live in, but here's a real world example of the 'equivalent lens' comparison:

Panasonic 35-100/2.8: 360 g

Canon 70-200/2.8 II: 1490 g

Both are expensive, excellent lenses.  The FF lens is more than 4x the weight.

How many times should the equivalence be explained here that people may finally learn? The equivalent lenses result in the same image on different size sensors. You are again comparing apples and oranges. If you want compare Panasonic 35-100/2.8 to equivalent FF lens then find 70-200mm/5.6. Nobody does such lens, because FF lenses traditionally much faster, but it's not difficult to understand that such lens wouldn't be any heavier than its m4/3 equivalent.

B.t.w. I provided educational links, it makes sense to read them, otherwise people keep rehashing the same misinformation again and again.

Hey, Forpetessake

Couple of questions. Why are you so perturbed by people's lack of understanding (or interest) in equivalence? You do realise it really doesn't matter much in practice.

Given that you are such a proponent of equivalence, DSLRs, optical viewfinders, etc, why are you using a small sensor mirrorless?

I haven't been following the forepetessake saga, but if you care about DOF, then you should be comparing a m43 35-100/2.8 to a FF 70-200/5.6. Similar issues with noise.

There's no good reason to multiply the focal length by two, but leave the f-stop unchanged.

 richarddd's gear list:richarddd's gear list
Sony RX100 III Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +4 more
digitallollygag Contributing Member • Posts: 971
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

If "kids sports-outdoors" was your third or fourth priority instead of your second, I'd say to go with the OM-D.  But with the Nikon you're going to have fewer missed action shots than with the OM-D, so you might be happier with the D5200.  Another option might be to save about $400 and go with the D5100 (refurbished or gently used) and put that $400 toward a lens.

 digitallollygag's gear list:digitallollygag's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon G9 X II Sony SLT-A65 Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM II +2 more
tt321
tt321 Forum Pro • Posts: 12,846
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

richarddd wrote:

I haven't been following the forepetessake saga, but if you care about DOF, then you should be comparing a m43 35-100/2.8 to a FF 70-200/5.6. Similar issues with noise.

There's no good reason to multiply the focal length by two, but leave the f-stop unchanged.

Very true. However the argument that if someone made an FF 70-200/5.6 it would be the same size and weight as the 35-100 is wrong. Such lenses were made (in the MF era) and they were larger and heavier. Going for a more extreme example, could anyone make a 200-600 lens, even a very slow one (e.g. wide open f11 at the 600 end) to the size of the Panasonic 100-300? Towards the longer zoom range, the mm count matters. There are a lot of compact superzoom cameras out there going to equivalent 600-800mm ranges with physically very short lenses because their real FL are in the 100+mm range so they can be built to not much more than 100mm long. To match the FoV in FF you will need to build a 600mm lens to 100mm long. You cannot do that no matter how slow you go.

So the sensor size does matter, in some cases at least, in lens size.

richarddd
richarddd Veteran Member • Posts: 3,095
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

tt321 wrote:

richarddd wrote:

I haven't been following the forepetessake saga, but if you care about DOF, then you should be comparing a m43 35-100/2.8 to a FF 70-200/5.6. Similar issues with noise.

There's no good reason to multiply the focal length by two, but leave the f-stop unchanged.

Very true. However the argument that if someone made an FF 70-200/5.6 it would be the same size and weight as the 35-100 is wrong. Such lenses were made (in the MF era) and they were larger and heavier. Going for a more extreme example, could anyone make a 200-600 lens, even a very slow one (e.g. wide open f11 at the 600 end) to the size of the Panasonic 100-300? Towards the longer zoom range, the mm count matters. There are a lot of compact superzoom cameras out there going to equivalent 600-800mm ranges with physically very short lenses because their real FL are in the 100+mm range so they can be built to not much more than 100mm long. To match the FoV in FF you will need to build a 600mm lens to 100mm long. You cannot do that no matter how slow you go.

So the sensor size does matter, in some cases at least, in lens size.

The Canon 70-200/2.8 is 1490g, while the f/4 is 760g. One stop halves the weight. An f/5.6 is likely to be substantially smaller.

The Panasonic 35-100/2.8 is 360g.  A FF 70-200/5.6 might be heavier than that, but not by a whole lot. In any event, the original comparison, which suggested a FF lens would be about 4x the weight of an equivalent m43 lens, is highly misleading, at best.

 richarddd's gear list:richarddd's gear list
Sony RX100 III Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +4 more
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

richarddd wrote:

tt321 wrote:

richarddd wrote:

I haven't been following the forepetessake saga, but if you care about DOF, then you should be comparing a m43 35-100/2.8 to a FF 70-200/5.6. Similar issues with noise.

There's no good reason to multiply the focal length by two, but leave the f-stop unchanged.

Very true. However the argument that if someone made an FF 70-200/5.6 it would be the same size and weight as the 35-100 is wrong. Such lenses were made (in the MF era) and they were larger and heavier. Going for a more extreme example, could anyone make a 200-600 lens, even a very slow one (e.g. wide open f11 at the 600 end) to the size of the Panasonic 100-300? Towards the longer zoom range, the mm count matters. There are a lot of compact superzoom cameras out there going to equivalent 600-800mm ranges with physically very short lenses because their real FL are in the 100+mm range so they can be built to not much more than 100mm long. To match the FoV in FF you will need to build a 600mm lens to 100mm long. You cannot do that no matter how slow you go.

So the sensor size does matter, in some cases at least, in lens size.

The Canon 70-200/2.8 is 1490g, while the f/4 is 760g. One stop halves the weight. An f/5.6 is likely to be substantially smaller.

The Panasonic 35-100/2.8 is 360g.  A FF 70-200/5.6 might be heavier than that, but not by a whole lot. In any event, the original comparison, which suggested a FF lens would be about 4x the weight of an equivalent m43 lens, is highly misleading, at best.

Correct. It makes sense to down-size if you know what the restrictions are and are ready to live with them. You could make FF systems nearly as small and light, but not quite, with the same performance in terms of DoF, diffraction, and light on the sensor. Part of the reason I am with MFT is that they don't exist. Part of the reason is the "not quite".

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
Alumna Gorp Senior Member • Posts: 1,531
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

Mjankor wrote:

SDPharm wrote:

But when equivalent lenses do exist in both systems, such as the 35-100 / 2 on 4/3 vs the 70-200 / 4L IS on 35mm FF, the lenses for the larger sensor systems are  usually lighter <

I'm not sure what world you live in, but here's a real world example of the 'equivalent lens' comparison:

Panasonic 35-100/2.8: 360 g

Canon 70-200/2.8 II: 1490 g

Both are expensive, excellent lenses.  The FF lens is more than 4x the weight.

Not quite. Forpetessake is an equivalence troll. This means that he's using a very specific meaning of equivalence, to browbeat anyone he can. Not sure why, as he also uses small sensor mirrorless (APS-C Sony).

Anyway, true equivalence requires that the image taken by both systems is equivalent, with same amount of light captured, same depth of field, etc.

So, if a shot was taken on 35mm, 1/100, f4, ISO100 on m4/3s, on FF the equivalent image would be  70mm, 1/100, f8, ISO 400. Theoretically these images should end up being the same with similar noise levels, etc. In practice, it's not quite so clear cut.

So, the "equivalent lens" would be a 70-200 f5.6.

His argument only works if:

1) You consider equivalence theory to be important, rather than what it really is - a useful comparison tool across camera systems.

2) You are happy to compare m4/3s lenses with FF lenses that don't exist.

Best thing to do is just ignore him. I think he's just compensating (look at his gallery :D).

The reason I compare against lenses that do exist, and since its the lenses light gathering properties, not the by-product dof that I am interested in I would only compare one F2.8 against another f2.8

So the full frame equ of the 35-100 is 4x the weight and cost almost twice as much.

 Alumna Gorp's gear list:Alumna Gorp's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +4 more
richarddd
richarddd Veteran Member • Posts: 3,095
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

Alumna Gorp wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

SDPharm wrote:

But when equivalent lenses do exist in both systems, such as the 35-100 / 2 on 4/3 vs the 70-200 / 4L IS on 35mm FF, the lenses for the larger sensor systems are  usually lighter <

I'm not sure what world you live in, but here's a real world example of the 'equivalent lens' comparison:

Panasonic 35-100/2.8: 360 g

Canon 70-200/2.8 II: 1490 g

Both are expensive, excellent lenses.  The FF lens is more than 4x the weight.

Not quite. Forpetessake is an equivalence troll. This means that he's using a very specific meaning of equivalence, to browbeat anyone he can. Not sure why, as he also uses small sensor mirrorless (APS-C Sony).

Anyway, true equivalence requires that the image taken by both systems is equivalent, with same amount of light captured, same depth of field, etc.

So, if a shot was taken on 35mm, 1/100, f4, ISO100 on m4/3s, on FF the equivalent image would be  70mm, 1/100, f8, ISO 400. Theoretically these images should end up being the same with similar noise levels, etc. In practice, it's not quite so clear cut.

So, the "equivalent lens" would be a 70-200 f5.6.

His argument only works if:

1) You consider equivalence theory to be important, rather than what it really is - a useful comparison tool across camera systems.

2) You are happy to compare m4/3s lenses with FF lenses that don't exist.

Best thing to do is just ignore him. I think he's just compensating (look at his gallery :D).

The reason I compare against lenses that do exist, and since its the lenses light gathering properties, not the by-product dof that I am interested in I would only compare one F2.8 against another f2.8

So the full frame equ of the 35-100 is 4x the weight and cost almost twice as much.

An f/2.8 on a FF sensor gathers 4x as much light as an f/2.8 on a m43 sensor.

Perhaps you want to revise your statement to say you don't care about DOF, light gathering or noise?  Even in that case, you could get the Canon 70-200/4 at only twice the weight.  B&H sells this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183198-USA/Canon_2578A002_EF_70_200mm_f_4L_USM.html  for $710, less than half the cost of the Panasonic 35-100/2.8. Nowhere near 4x the weight.

 richarddd's gear list:richarddd's gear list
Sony RX100 III Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +4 more
illdawg New Member • Posts: 8
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

Since the 4/3 sensor gathers so much less light than FF at the same f-stop, how many stops should I overexpose by on a FF body if I plan to crop in post?

Since the 35-100/2.8 is so clearly different in dof from the 70-200/2.8, why not compare it to the 24-70/2.8, which is a similar range of focal lengths and therefore has similar dof?

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads