Hello,
I'm selling my d7000 because of the size & weight.
20% of time I'm shooting videos. 80% of course stills. The video quality is important to me.
Which camera should I choose?
Very much depends on your use. If you're adapting manual focus lenses, the NEX is the way to go due to the larger sensor and the ability to use focus peaking.
If you want small, high quality lenses to go with your small body, IMO, the OM-D is the way to go. Image quality is pretty darn close between the two cameras, but the Micro 4/3 lens lineup is much more mature, and has some truly outstanding glass that is equal to top DSLR lenses in image quality, and are VERY small. Also, if you shoot non-moving subjects handheld in dodgy light, the IBIS on the OM-D is truly outstanding. I've done several night street shoots handheld and was able to keep ISO at 1600 or below the whole time. Sometimes even shooting at ISO 200-800 for night cityscapes (with something like the Olympus 12mm f/2 or the Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95).
Hi
I'm not using manual glass. All "good" Sony lenses are stabilized, except the expensive Zeiss one that I probably won't buy.
One thing bothers me - this size of the Olympus omd em 5. On google it looks much larger than any nex - is it really that big? If it is big, pancake lenses worth nothing...( am I right?)
The size of the nex 6 with the new kit is really small... but unfortunately Sony doesn't have much pancake lenses. Which camera has better video quality?
It's not that big. They are essentially the same size except for height, where the hump of the E-M5 sits higher than the NEX-7.
For native glass, go for the OM-D. The lenses are not only significantly more numerous, but they are generally smaller and of higher quality (at least so far). On the NEX side, the Zeiss 24 is a very good lens. The 50 OSS I've heard is fairly decent as well. Other than that? Nothing really stands out. The upcoming ultra-wide might be pretty good.
On the m4/3 side, the Panny 8mm fisheye, 7-14mm, 14/2.5, 20/1.7, 25/1.4, 45/2.8 macro, 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8 all stand out. Add Olympus truly stellar 12/2, 45/1.8, 60/2.8 macro and 75/1.8 and you've got tons of very high quality choices. The cheaper kit zooms are fairly decent as well (and there are a lot).
Pancake wise: the 20/1.7 pancake is tiny and outstanding, as are the Olympus 12mm f/2 and 45mm f/1.8, (very small but not a pancake) . The Panasonic 14/2.5 is also pretty darn good, and is VERY small. Olympus is releasing a 17mm f/1.8 sometime in the next year, and it is smaller than the 12/2 (which is already very small). Even the 'big' m4/3 lenses aren't all that big. Autofocus is faster on m4/3, though Sony isn't that far behind. I personally prefer the OM-D's viewfinder to the NEX-7's, though that's a personal choice. The NEX EVF is a little higher resolution, but the OM-D's is much cleaner and responsive in low light.
As to video, I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two. However, if you want really high video quality, there's the option of buying the Panasonic GH2 or GH3, both of which are significantly better in the video realm than either the Sony or the Olympus (you could get the OM-D and a GH2 and share lenses between them). The GH3 is fairly chunky, though. More the size of a small DSLR, though the video quality from it should be truly stellar (think 5D III and D4 territory).
Well, you do have to have a little bit of patience if you fo with the NEX as far as lenses goes..
The line up goes like this
10-24 f/4
16-50 Vario
24 1.8
35 1.8
50 1.8
and dont forget Zeiss:
X 12 2.8
X 32 1.8
X 50 2.8 Macro
Not that bad eh? but you do have to wait a bit
On the other hand Oly has proven AF (excellent touch shutter) while the Sony 6 is yet to be seen. Actually the OMD is a impressive camera except for the sensor size. But if you could accept m43 sensor size, go for it? I'm waiting for Sony to get it right like the OMD.
Until you actually get one of these cameras in your hands to try them, you won't get a real sense of how compact they are. I recently got an OM-D for my light travel kit and tried many MILC cameras before making the decision.
The NEX-7 has a better standard grip for my hands, but I didn't like the side position of the viewfinder. The OM-D seemed a bit awkward at first because it seemed too small, but I quickly adapted and found it easy to shoot, but the controls are tiny and not in the ideal placement. For me, you just can't beat the feel and ergonomics of a full-size DSLR, and this is the obvious trade-off you get with a compact camera.
It really comes down to a simple matter of personal preference. I like the miniature look & feel of an old SLR design that the OM-D follows over the modern/ergonomic NEX designs.
In regards to system lenses, each system has it's own benefits. If one system has better lenses for your needs, then the choice becomes much easier.
MrPacMan wrote:
From the photos above, Nex's grip is much deeper, so the ergonomics are much better?
It's a really personal thing. For many people, yes. For me? No. It might just be the size of my hands, but I found the NEX-7's grip to be horribly uncomfortable to use. It's square, and my fingers didn't naturally fall on it. Meanwhile, I'm one of the few who has no problems at all with the bare OM-D.
One nice thing, if you want to shell out the $$, is the ability to add the accessory grips to the OM-D. I generally have the horizontal grip on my OM-D, which adds a VERY comfortable grip and a second shutter button/dial to go with it, and it's awesome (though it makes the camera a little larger). The vertical grip that goes with it is nice too. I use the horizontal grip for general shooting and the vertical grip if I'm going to shoot a lot of portrait orientation shots or with larger adapted lenses. I take the grips off and go normal when I want to minimize size (such as when I use my really tiny bag with the OM-D, 12/2, 25/1.4 and 45/1.8).
frezeiss wrote:
Well, you do have to have a little bit of patience if you fo with the NEX as far as lenses goes..
The line up goes like this
10-24 f/4
16-50 Vario
24 1.8
35 1.8
50 1.8
and dont forget Zeiss:
X 12 2.8
X 32 1.8
X 50 2.8 Macro
Not that bad eh? but you do have to wait a bit
On the other hand Oly has proven AF (excellent touch shutter) while the Sony 6 is yet to be seen. Actually the OMD is a impressive camera except for the sensor size. But if you could accept m43 sensor size, go for it? I'm waiting for Sony to get it right like the OMD....Show more →
As someone who has been holding on to my 5N waiting for more sony lenses, I must say the prospects so far have not been very promising even after the recent announcements.
I was fairly interested in the 35 1.8 but disappointed that we still don't get a pancake. The 10-18mm already has reports of corner shift. The 50mm 1.8 is reported to be decent but then the olympus 45mm 1.8 is significantly smaller and lighter and is widely raved as being a great lens. Plus the oly 45mm at 90mm equivalent is a much better portrait focal length for me than the Sony 50mm at 75mm equivalent. The 24mm 1.8 is still the most desirable lens in the lineup, but not much else in there. In terms of lenses m43 is simply better. For pretty much every NEX lens there is an m43 lens which is better and smaller. And there are many m43 lenses with no counterpart in NEX. And with the recent Oly sensor the sensor difference has been reduced to very small levels.
At this point I am fairly certain that I will move away from NEX, either back to m43 (waiting for e-pl5) or to Samsung NX (have already got the NX200 to play with). I will likely still keep the 5N to play with MF lenses. Considering that it has a great sensor and cost me just about $200, not much incentive for me to sell it.
And with the recent Oly sensor the sensor difference has been reduced to very small levels.
That is of course about pixel quality, ISO sensitivity, noise levels, colour rendition, etc. The one thing that I can't like, as much as I want to love the OM-D, is the effect of the small sensor for the 3D - 2D conversion. As "bad" as all the lenses for the NEX system may be compared to those great small jewelish lenses of the m43 system, I like almost every image in the NEX threads better than those in the OM-D threads just because those images are less "flat" in comparison. I find the NEX images already flat in comparison to full frame pictures, but it's often above an acceptable level, while those of the OM-D are mostly below my standards. And yes, I have seen some great OM-D images from close ups that show a nice small DOF great bokeh, but those are the exceptions. To me the sensor size makes a big difference, and as good as Olympus sensor may be, the difference in image quality has not just been reduced to very small levels. In fact I find the better lenses of the m43 system can't make the difference with the NEX's lenses on a bigger sensor. YMMV.
If you're a shallow DOF hound, then full frame is where you need to be. The difference between m4/3 and NEX is the same as APS-H to FF, so it's not that huge, but the difference between APS-C and FF is relatively big. I understand that for some people, it's a step too far, though.
eosfun wrote:
...... As "bad" as all the lenses for the NEX system may be compared to those great small jewelish lenses of the m43 system, I like almost every image in the NEX threads better than those in the OM-D threads just because those images are less "flat" in comparison. .....
But keep in mind that almost none of the images in NEX threads here are taken with NEX lenses. Large majority of them are taken with MF lenses. As has been noted, for MF lens users NEX is still the system to go for. And I suspect that the qualities that you are observing in those images are as much a function of the lenses as the camera. The sensor size difference in NEX vs m43 is not drastic.
It's drastic for adapting lenses because 1.5 and 2x are hugely different perspectives.
Then again, I think the OP posted he doesn't want to use manual focus lenses.
The Voigtlander F0.95 lenses are amazing if you want shallow depth of field. It's an F1.4 equivalent wide open for MFT (although they don't perform as well wide open as FF lenses at $1000 do at F1.4).
curious80 wrote:
But keep in mind that almost none of the images in NEX threads here are taken with NEX lenses. Large majority of them are taken with MF lenses. As has been noted, for MF lens users NEX is still the system to go for. And I suspect that the qualities that you are observing in those images are as much a function of the lenses as the camera. The sensor size difference in NEX vs m43 is not drastic.
Of course I am aware of that. My point was that even the lowish kit lens and other "bad" NEX lenses look better to me on the bigger sensor, than the best m43 glass on the tiny OM-D sensor. Of course, there are a lot of pictures that don't suffer from a greater DOF and benefit from the sharpness of great m43 glass like the 45/1.8, 75/18. or summilux 25 that add a crispness and contrast to emphasise the structure of a photographic subject. Some photographers have a style that is oriented to that kind of pictures. I noticed quite a few in the OM-D thread that really get the best out of the m43 cameras because it fits their style. But in general I want more "depth" in a picture than what I see in m43 pictures. As I stated YMMV, and of course it's to the OP to make his own choice. But I wanted this to be said as to my taste the difference in sensor size isn't that small at all. And again, I really really wanted to like the OM-D because of all it's features and the great glass available for the system. I still own an OM-2n, and for years I have dreamt of the digital equivalent of that camera. The IBIS, the finder system and articulated screen are even more than I dreamt for, but that tiny sensor size in the OM-D just keeps me away from it.
I've owned FF, 7D, NEX 5N, OM-D, blah blah blah pick one if you can't make interesting pictures with one or the other, it's not the camera's fault. Flat I don't know what flat is .. you want bokeh get FF or MF even. Too many excuses are not good .
Your going to get far more of a subject isolation and "depth" shooting a m4/3 lens like the 25mm f1.4 wide open (and sharper results to boot) than you are with a f3.5-5.6 kit zoom on a bigger sensor.
Also I think your throwing around a bit of hyperbole when you talk about the "big" APS-C sensor and the "small" m4/3 sensor. Its really not that drastic of difference between a 1.5 and 2x crop, especially when you've got 2 or more stops of extra speed with the m4/3 kit.
Step it up to a 45mm f1.8 vs the 55mm f5.6 long end of the NEX kit zoom and its even more apparent.
Of course one doesn't need to use the kit zoom on the NEX, and the 50mm f1.8 OSS would make more sense, but your statement mentioned the kit zoom.
Would I be wrong in guessing you've never actually shot the EM-5 and its "tiny" sensor yourself ??
eosfun wrote:
Of course I am aware of that. My point was that even the lowish kit lens and other "bad" NEX lenses look better to me on the bigger sensor, than the best m43 glass on the tiny OM-D sensor. Of course, there are a lot of pictures that don't suffer from a greater DOF and benefit from the sharpness of great m43 glass like the 45/1.8, 75/18. or summilux 25 that add a crispness and contrast to emphasise the structure of a photographic subject. Some photographers have a style that is oriented to that kind of pictures. I noticed quite a few in the OM-D thread that really get the best out of the m43 cameras because it fits their style. But in general I want more "depth" in a picture than what I see in m43 pictures. As I stated YMMV, and of course it's to the OP to make his own choice. But I wanted this to be said as to my taste the difference in sensor size isn't that small at all. And again, I really really wanted to like the OM-D because of all it's features and the great glass available for the system. I still own an OM-2n, and for years I have dreamt of the digital equivalent of that camera. The IBIS, the finder system and articulated screen are even more than I dreamt for, but that tiny sensor size in the OM-D just keeps me away from it....Show more →
Your going to get far more of a subject isolation and "depth" shooting a m4/3 lens like the 25mm f1.4 wide open (and sharper results to boot) than you are with a f3.5-5.6 kit zoom on a bigger sensor.
That's right of course. But I didn't compare the kit zoom with the 25/1.4. The 35mm/1.8 OSS is more like a comparison. Even if we both like the optical performance of the Summilux over the 35mm/1.8 OSS, I'd prefer the NEX shot because of the image from the bigger sensor.
If we compare kit lenses, the 18-55 NEX lens is definitely below the 14-42 for instance, but again the end result of the NEX images is more to my liking. Of course YMMV.
Also I think your throwing around a bit of hyperbole when you talk about the "big" APS-C sensor and the "small" m4/3 sensor. Its really not that drastic of difference between a 1.5 and 2x crop, especially when you've got 2 or more stops of extra speed with the m4/3 kit. Step it up to a 45mm f1.8 vs the 55mm f5.6 long end of the NEX kit zoom and its even more apparent. Of course one doesn't need to use the kit zoom on the NEX, and the 50mm f1.8 OSS would make more sense, but your statement mentioned the kit zoom. ...Show more →
I found even the difference between my 1D series cameras with a 1.3x crop noticeable in comparison to 1Ds-es. The difference may not be significant to you, it may be to others. We have different standards. I want the OP to be aware of that when making his choice. If his preferences are like yours, it's obvious the OM-D is the best choice for him. I just encourage any potential buyer for one of these cameras to browse through the image threads of the OM-D and other m43 cameras and the NEX thread to get an idea. And yes, take into account that some photo's are made by better photographers than others, and yes not all glass is the same. But I am sure a lot of photographers are capable to notice the difference in image rendering of lenses on the different sensors.
Would I be wrong in guessing you've never actually shot the EM-5 and its "tiny" sensor yourself ??
Yes you are wrong. I have tried the OM-D a few times. As a co-owner of a camerastore I am in the lucky position to be able to take cameras and try them as much as I want. As I said, I wanted this OM-D very much to be my camera, I love it's size and ergonomics, I love the finder and screen, I love the IBIS. But after I used the camera a few weekends I decided it's not for me because of it's image rendering. To each his own, YMMV.
.
I am in the lucky position to be able to take cameras and try them as much as I want. As I said, I wanted this OM-D very much to be my camera, I love it's size and ergonomics, I love the finder and screen, I love the IBIS. But after I used the camera a few weekends I decided it's not for me because of it's image rendering. To each his own, YMMV.