OMD really match NEX APS-C sensor with 40% smaller size? Anyone have both?

[Jefftan]

To be honest, I never imagine MFT can be this good being 40% smaller than APS-C but seeing is believing. High ISO up to 3200 or 6400 is indeed comparable.

But there are other factors which may be even more important like dynamic range that cannot be easily compared. I know there is a techradar test that show OMD has the highest dynamic range of all mirrorless including NEX 7 but is mostly discredited.

I don't know if that test is valid or not but most don't seem to believe MFT can have more dynamic range than APS-C

By the way is dynamic range really that important now when up to ISO 400 you can slightly underexpose and freely boost shadow (DRO level 5) with not much noise.

Another question is if MFT can advance to this level, does it mean that a giant leap in APS-C IQ is around the corner?

 

[gfrensen]

I d believe, and stated it here very7 often, that IQ differences in real life pictures between large(r) sensored mirrorless camera's is minimal. Yes you can look at the test here and elsewhere on the web and see that camera x has slightly less noice when you are at ISO XXXX then camera y. But the real life pictures, what is the real difference?

So we should stop comparing these small things and look what camera is best for us, what camera handles best, has the lenses etc. you need or want etc.

For me the mft cameras that I hold where not near the handling of the Nex5, so I bought that camera. I will not buy a new camera soon as I think the Nex5 delivers more then enough for me in real life...

So Stop comparing cameras on IQ level, they are nearly the same. Use the camera you own. If you want a new camera go for the one you find handles the best.

 

[nzmacro]

To be honest, I never imagine MFT can be this good being 40% smaller than APS-C but seeing is believing. High ISO up to 3200 or 6400 is indeed comparable.

But there are other factors which may be even more important like dynamic range that cannot be easily compared. I know there is a techradar test that show OMD has the highest dynamic range of all mirrorless including NEX 7 but is mostly discredited.

I don't know if that test is valid or not but most don't seem to believe MFT can have more dynamic range than APS-C

By the way is dynamic range really that important now when up to ISO 400 you can slightly underexpose and freely boost shadow (DRO level 5) with not much noise.

Another question is if MFT can advance to this level, does it mean that a giant leap in APS-C IQ is around the corner?

Giant steps have always been around the corner Jeff. Never seen newer cameras go backward. They can all progress for sure. With the OMD which is excellent IMO, I would guess it can't crop near as much as the NEX-7. So for most thats not important, but for some of us, it is. So that would tell me something about the sensor and IQ.

I shoot with m4/3 (Panny G2) and one thing has changed the way I shoot. Focus peaking for MF lenses with the NEX. No focus peaking, no camera sale here . Personally IBIS and OIS don't interest me, only IQ.

Besides which, I would wait and see exactly what a Panasonic GH3 might offer. If the OMD IQ is that good with that sensor, a GH3 with a newer sensor could be very interesting Jeff.

The future is good mate and it always will be. I have no issue with DR with both m4/3 or NEX to be honest. Mind you, I don't shoot high ISO either.

All the best Jeff and its good for all of us.

Danny.
...........................
Birds and macro. NEX and m4/3

http://www.birdsinaction.com

Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.

 

[nzmacro]

I d believe, and stated it here very7 often, that IQ differences in real life pictures between large(r) sensored mirrorless camera's is minimal. Yes you can look at the test here and elsewhere on the web and see that camera x has slightly less noice when you are at ISO XXXX then camera y. But the real life pictures, what is the real difference?

So we should stop comparing these small things and look what camera is best for us, what camera handles best, has the lenses etc. you need or want etc.

For me the mft cameras that I hold where not near the handling of the Nex5, so I bought that camera. I will not buy a new camera soon as I think the Nex5 delivers more then enough for me in real life...

So Stop comparing cameras on IQ level, they are nearly the same. Use the camera you own. If you want a new camera go for the one you find handles the best.

Thats only for you though . IQ, cropping and lenses is for me. So we probably don't take the same type of subjects and I do take plenty of shots . I know what I need and IQ is at the top of the list, without going to the bulk of FF or meduim format.

All the best and thats only for what I want. I did pick my camera that way.

Danny.
...........................
Birds and macro. NEX and m4/3

http://www.birdsinaction.com

Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.

 

[neonexxer]

I guess its to be expected. As NEX users, we already see APS IQ rivalling FF, so in the same vein, M43 is starting to match APS IQ. IQ is important, but if that were the only reason, I'm sure we would all have abandoned FF for APS a long time ago. Yet, FF still has leagues of users who wouldn't trade what they get with it for even an APS system. New FF cameras are still being made every year

Fact is, that, IQ aside, the physical sensor size will still partly dictate how we choose our systems. With a given lens, smaller chips may have similar pixel quality as larger sensors, but we'll still get different overall utility and apparent results for distance from subject, framing, DOF...etc. And for that reason, I wouldn't drop everything and run over to the OMD, even while I really envy its excellent IBIS (especially for video) and the collective native lens offerings of the M43 system. Just doesn't work as well for what I like to do. That's just me, though... I was out to use less-costly old glass from the get-go and didn't buy into NEX for its native lenses at all.

In the end, one man's compromise is another's windfall and vice versa. I'm sure the OMD is a godsend for some folks. If I were out to buy my first camera system and didn't have any legacy baggage or ingrained APS system preferences/habits, I would find the OMD extremely compelling. I would still baulk at OMD's price, though. At the moment, I'm happy enough with the workflow and overall results I get with an APS sensor and the lenses that I have. It would take more than just IQ alone to occupy me...my biggest thoughts are where/when/what/how to shoot next with what I have now

 

[Jefftan]

Hi, namacro, what you said is the key. Just for cropping the best mirrorless title go to NEX 7
The real interesting feature of OMD is weather sealing

Will we ever see a weather seal NEX or just dreaming?

If a sensor 40% smaller can be roughly equal to NEX-5N sensor, how much better can it be if the same advancement is getting into APS-C

Just thinking about that is exciting

Jefftan wrote:

Giant steps have always been around the corner Jeff. Never seen newer cameras go backward. They can all progress for sure. With the OMD which is excellent IMO, I would guess it can't crop near as much as the NEX-7. So for most thats not important, but for some of us, it is. So that would tell me something about the sensor and IQ.

I shoot with m4/3 (Panny G2) and one thing has changed the way I shoot. Focus peaking for MF lenses with the NEX. No focus peaking, no camera sale here . Personally IBIS and OIS don't interest me, only IQ.

Besides which, I would wait and see exactly what a Panasonic GH3 might offer. If the OMD IQ is that good with that sensor, a GH3 with a newer sensor could be very interesting Jeff.

The future is good mate and it always will be. I have no issue with DR with both m4/3 or NEX to be honest. Mind you, I don't shoot high ISO either.

All the best Jeff and its good for all of us.

Danny.
...........................
Birds and macro. NEX and m4/3

http://www.birdsinaction.com

Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.

 

[Jefftan]

you can't treat physics for DOF. If I am correct DOF in MFT is about 1 stop more than APS-C so F2.8 DOF in MFT is the same as F4 in APS-C

This can be good or bad. Panasonic promote this as an advantage that one don't have to be precise in focus to get so called sharp everywhere

But to me I don't think that is an advantage. If I want DOF I can always use F8 but the reverse is not true. In MFT if you want less DOF you got to have faster lens which is expensive

 

[gfrensen]

I d believe, and stated it here very7 often, that IQ differences in real life pictures between large(r) sensored mirrorless camera's is minimal. Yes you can look at the test here and elsewhere on the web and see that camera x has slightly less noice when you are at ISO XXXX then camera y. But the real life pictures, what is the real difference?

So we should stop comparing these small things and look what camera is best for us, what camera handles best, has the lenses etc. you need or want etc.

For me the mft cameras that I hold where not near the handling of the Nex5, so I bought that camera. I will not buy a new camera soon as I think the Nex5 delivers more then enough for me in real life...

So Stop comparing cameras on IQ level, they are nearly the same. Use the camera you own. If you want a new camera go for the one you find handles the best.

Thats only for you though . IQ, cropping and lenses is for me.

Oh but those things are important, only the differences between the new Oly, the Nex7 and even the Nex5 will hardly been seen in real life pictures. When you have to buy a new camera and you go for the best you can get, that is what everybody should do, but I find it funny how people her where shouting praise over the Nex7, buy one and then a few mont later buy (or want to buy) the new Oly. When you need the lenses the mft arte offering I understand, but about the slightly better high ISO or the slightly better DR those people have to buy a new camera that often, as new improved versions are comming every moment.

So we probably don't take the same type of subjects and I do take plenty of shots . I know what I need and IQ is at the top of the list, without going to the bulk of FF or meduim format.

All the best and thats only for what I want. I did pick my camera that way.

But are you picking a new camera every time a new improved one comes to the market? Or ar you sattisfied with what you got and stay with that camera for some years?

Danny.
...........................
Birds and macro. NEX and m4/3

http://www.birdsinaction.com

Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.

 

[gfrensen]

you can't treat physics for DOF. If I am correct DOF in MFT is about 1 stop more than APS-C so F2.8 DOF in MFT is the same as F4 in APS-C

This is not totaly right:
Put a 50mm lens on a FF camera and take a picture at 1.8
Do the same with a M43 cmera, take a 50mm lens and put it at 1.8

Take from the same position the same picture and see: the DOF of both cameras are identical the only difference is that on the FF camera you have to crop the picture to get the same picture as with your m43 camera
You can even try it with a midframe camera, exactly the same.

Only when you are comparinging the same FOV comparing to cameras, you need a 25mm lens for m43 to get the same FOV as a FF camera, and then the DOF is different.

I think the cameras with smaller sensors are great for tele work (as you can use smaller lenses (both in FL as in size) to get the same tele effect. A camera with a larger chip will show you more with the same FL making it the better choice for WA photography (assuming you have the same FL lenses.

 

[Boris]

In real life shooting it doesn't matter. Only pixel peepers compare iso 3200 or 6400 (they all have terrible IQ above iso 800 in my opinion) I shoot FX/DX and m4/3 and don't nit pick IQ of each all are good! If you can't get a good image from any of the current digital cams blame your technique. Lenses is what is lacking in NEX land but even this can be overcome by using older legacy lenses.

with m4/3 GH2 with the right lens you can get pretty good subject isolation and background blur
Boris

M4/3



M4/3



as you can with the NEX7



nex7



--

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

 

[edwardaneal]

exactly, its like the new panny 12-35mm lens, everyone likes to say that it is the equivalent of a 24-70 f/2.8 on full frame and from an angle of view perspective this is true, but from a DOF point of view it is actually the equivalent of a 24-70 f/5.6 lens

you can't treat physics for DOF. If I am correct DOF in MFT is about 1 stop more than APS-C so F2.8 DOF in MFT is the same as F4 in APS-C

This can be good or bad. Panasonic promote this as an advantage that one don't have to be precise in focus to get so called sharp everywhere

But to me I don't think that is an advantage. If I want DOF I can always use F8 but the reverse is not true. In MFT if you want less DOF you got to have faster lens which is expensive

--
NEX-7 & Sigma 30mm f/2.8
NEX-5 & 18-55 OSS
And a spare black 18-55

 

[Michael Everett]

I have not used the OMD, but did use five different m43's, including the GH2. No question the GH2 gives excellent images, but I went to the NEX (5 and now 7) mainly for the DR, and there is a difference. There are many scenes where underexposing and bringing out shadows just doesn't give a comparable image.

The second reason I went with NEX is focus peaking. For legacy lens IMO it's the only way to go. It's the 21st-century rangefinder. Once you learn some of the tricks of using it, it is fast, and accurate.

Michael

 

[edwardaneal]

but the OM-D is bigger than the NEX-7 so why settle for a smaller sensor and having to use faster lenses to get the same DOF

http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.336,33.88,ga,t

--
NEX-7 & Sigma 30mm f/2.8
NEX-5 & 18-55 OSS
And a spare black 18-55

 

[Everdog]

...but I went to the NEX (5 and now 7) mainly for the DR, and there is a difference.

In case you didn't know Adobe had a bug in their software that was fixed with LR4 and the latest ACR version. The older versions limited the DR of the Panasonic sensors (and some others too). Since it was fixed, there has been some extensive testing and people have found there is almost no difference between the GH2 and E-M5 vs. the NEX cameras. Search the forums and you will find a ton of posts on this. Anyway, you can push and pull from shadows and highlights now to an amazing extent.

again, search for the threads on this. The testings was pretty rigorous.

 

[Everdog]

http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.97,33.89,ga,t
http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.93,33.87,ga,t
http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.92,33.88,ga,t
http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.95,33.90,ga,t

You are correct. With virtually any similar lenses, the OMD is a lot smaller.

That is amazing because the NEX 7 LCD is so teeny tiny and the camera lacks IBIS.

 

[Boris]

Yes but you need lenses to take a picture and m4/3 lenses are smaller.
Boris
--

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

 

[headofdestiny]

http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.97,33.89,ga,t
http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.93,33.87,ga,t
http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.92,33.88,ga,t
http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.95,33.90,ga,t

You are correct. With virtually any similar lenses, the OMD is a lot smaller.

That is amazing because the NEX 7 LCD is so teeny tiny and the camera lacks IBIS.

The big problem with the OM-D is the dumb prism hump size. It's one thing to add extra length to the lens dimension of the camera, which is usually already the longest dimension, but to add to the height of the camera makes it noticeably less packable. The Om-d is about the same height as the NEX-5N with the EVF attached, and I sold the 5N for the 7 for this reason. I only use small Sigma primes and the Sony 50, so the lens size difference is minimal.

 

[headofdestiny]

To be honest, I never imagine MFT can be this good being 40% smaller than APS-C but seeing is believing. High ISO up to 3200 or 6400 is indeed comparable.

But there are other factors which may be even more important like dynamic range that cannot be easily compared. I know there is a techradar test that show OMD has the highest dynamic range of all mirrorless including NEX 7 but is mostly discredited.

I don't know if that test is valid or not but most don't seem to believe MFT can have more dynamic range than APS-C

By the way is dynamic range really that important now when up to ISO 400 you can slightly underexpose and freely boost shadow (DRO level 5) with not much noise.

Another question is if MFT can advance to this level, does it mean that a giant leap in APS-C IQ is around the corner?

I would wait for DxO Mark tests come out. The tests on dpreview give the OM-D a +1 EV exposure advantage over the NEX-7, so it's not even close to a fair comparison. It's absurd that dpreview doesn't make exposure consistent across their tests.

 

[Everdog]

I have held an E-M5 and you really don't notice the "hump". It does add to the height and make the camera larger though. They say it holds some of the IBIS. sensors. The EVF is actually below the "hump".

Honestly, and don't tell anyone I said this, if you own a NEX and some lenses, stick with what you have and learn everything about them Understanding a camera makes a bigger difference than anything else. Same goes for the m43 cameras...but not the Nikon 1!

http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.97,33.89,ga,t
http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.93,33.87,ga,t
http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.92,33.88,ga,t
http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.95,33.90,ga,t

You are correct. With virtually any similar lenses, the OMD is a lot smaller.

That is amazing because the NEX 7 LCD is so teeny tiny and the camera lacks IBIS.

The big problem with the OM-D is the dumb prism hump size. It's one thing to add extra length to the lens dimension of the camera, which is usually already the longest dimension, but to add to the height of the camera makes it noticeable less packable. The Om-d is about the same height as the NEX-5N with the EVF attached, and I sold the 5N for the 7 for this reason. I only use small Sigma primes and the Sony 50, so the lens size difference is minimal.

 

[darkref]

@everdog

It's not that much smaller. It's not surprising considering those olympus lenses are for a smaller sensor and don't have OSS.

Choosing between the om-d and nex 7 is hard, but stop making useless comparisons.

Yes, the OM-D has a bigger LCD. The nex 7 has a bigger and brighter viewfinder. Among many other non biased comparisons.