Looking for opinions from those who have used the OMD and any recent 18MP canon. I am considering switching from my canon T2i to the OMD. I have been exceedingly happy with the photos obtained from the canon, in fact, it forced my beloved 5D into early retirement. I do quite a lot of travel and backpacking and the canon with the 15-85 covers virtually all my needs. The only problem is water and wishing I had a tilting screen. I spend much of my travels shooting in the rain and kneeling/laying on the ground using liveview for focus. So far, all of the camera rain covering options are a bit of a kludge. So, all other issues aside, are the RAW files that come out of the olympus as good as those coming from the canon up to iso 800? Especially as it relates to dynamic range. And yes, I am also considering the pentax options but like the 4/3 lens lineup better. The 60D would also be a consideration with at least some degree of weather sealing but it does not sound extensive and is bigger than my current backpacking camera.

Thanks

OM-D IQ is better than the T2i at all ISOs but the 12-50mm while being flexible and compact is not particularly a stunning lens.

The new 12-35mm F2.8 Panasonic and the upcoming 35-100mm F2.8 Panasonic will be much nicer but expect to pay quite a lot of money for those lenses.

Otherwise you'd have to get an MMF-3 along with either the Olympus 14-54mm Mk2 F2.8-3.5 or 12-60mm F2.8-4 (huge) to have full weather sealing. There's also an upcoming weather sealed 60mm F2.8 macro. The battery grip might make the bigger lenses easier to handle.

Fly-
Thanks, actually surprised to hear it's better, was hoping for "as good". The 12-50 kit lens- is is comparable to the 18-55 that comes with the canon? Just looked at the Oly 12-60, and while big, it is almost exactly the same size as the 15-85 I am carrying around now. Would be nice if the MMF-3 had the tripod mount on it.

The OM-D will have a bit less chroma noise and it has a fairly weak AA filter.

If the 12-50mm was a bit faster, I can forgive its softness but it seems like a slow plasticky CA prone lens to me.

Some people are getting great results with it though but the kit 14-43 seems sharper to me. Personally I use the 14-45mm Panasonic because IMO its the best balance of size and IQ but it's not weather sealed although you can just put a ziplock around it with a rubber band.

I like how it performs though.

I actually like the 12-50. It's not the sharpest lens in the book, but the CA is easily corrected in LR and it's very versatile. the range is great (24-100 equiv) and the macro mode is quite good, though slow. The increased range, weather sealing and good macro capabilities make it much more useful than the standard 14-42 in my opinion.

That said, the great strength of m4/3 are its outstanding primes, but they aren't weatherproof at all.

Yeah, the primes are where MFT really beats other systems.

That giant Olympus 12-60mm SWD F2.8-4 though, man in some tests, it beats most primes. It seems like a really special zoom and it actually AFs fairly quickly on the OM-D.

Note that 'giant' means 'slightly larger than the 15-85 IS'. It just looks so big because the camera is so small.

The 12-60 is also optically superior to the already excellent 15-85 IS.

Thanks Jman, if I get the camera, I was planning on the 12-50. Though, truth be told, I have been ogling that tiny little 12mm for longtime...

Fly, first of all, nice photographs- I looked through your uploads, particularly like the recent retouched Switzerland/France shots. Second, just how may cameras to you own anyway? Saw the 5N, X100, RX100- On a purely quality of print judgement, do you have a preference? Third, and please don't ruin my ogling, is the 12-60 better at 12 than the little prime? Most of what I do is stopped down, f2 not a priority

Haha I guess I go through cameras a lot.

The Oly 12mm F2 is a phenom lens from the samples I see but stopped down I doubt you'll see much of a difference between that and a high quality zoom.

In terms of quality of prints, I find having more megapixels matters. I have printed the A850, Nex-7, 5N, and C3; I see a major quality difference between 24mpx and 16mpx even though mathematically the difference shouldn't be that much at 16x20. In print, I prefer having more native mpx but that's just my personal experience when using print labs.

I'm not sure what will be announced at Photokina so I'm patiently waiting for that before I make another major purchase. I'll probably be picking up the 12-60 or 14-54 mk2 if Olympus doesn't announce a MFT version of those lenses.

The OMd raws beat any current Canon (1.6) crop, especially in manipulation.

The 12-50 is actually a good lens, slow at the long end but that is ok by me...I will take weather sealing and macro for it

"Slow" at macro is pretty much a non issue- typically I find myself stopping down anyway.

Two samples.


Velvet Wasp (Cow Ant) by J L Smith, on Flickr


Sun and fog by J L Smith, on Flickr

I have several different versions and makes of the 14-45mm MFT and they're all pretty much rubbish! They're pretty drab and typical kit lenses - not that sharp, not that great colors, and the worst build quality on the planet (probably). I don't own the Oly 12-50 macro although I have shot with it and from what I've seen on-line (and even in this thread) and from my own preliminary tests it kicks ass on all the 14-45mm variants! Just from handling the Zuiko-M 12-50mm I would say the build quality is a cut or two above all the 14-45mm ones. Still not great build quality but notably better. If I had to choose between any of the 14-45 models and the 12-50 there wouldn't be any hesitation.

That's weird, the Panasonic 14-45mm is one of the most loved lenses of the platform if you go to any MFT board and is universally reviewed well.

FlyPenFly wrote:

I like how it performs though.

Not to totally hijack the thread, but what's going on in the last photo you posted? There's a weird band of pixelation through the sky. It's non uniform. Is this posterization induced from whatever processing you applied?

I think that mixed with JPG artifacting. In the RAW at 100% I don't see it in LR. Could also be a problem with Adobe RGB to SRGB.

I am not familiar with the T2i but I think the OM-D is good enough to replace my 5D II, and I have some serious glass like the 24L II, 85L II and 70-200L II. The 12-50 kit lens will not cut it. If you want really good IQ you need really good glass like the 7-14, 12/2, 25/1.4, 45/2.8 macro, 45/1.8, 75/1.8 ... and maybe the 12-35 and 35-100 when that lens becomes available.

For walkabouts, inclement-weather shooting and other non-serious shoots, the 12-50 will do just fine, but if you want the IQ to match or even be better than your T2i you need to invest in good glass.

I don't see the point of using the 12-50 in bad weather since bad weather = less light, couple that with a slow lens that doesn't sharpen up until even further stopped down... well I guess it's a good thing we have great IBIS.

Well, you certainly don't want to use your 12-35 or 75/1.8 lens shooting in Hurricane Isaac!

As long as it's insured, I would have no qualms about using the weather sealed 12-35 or ziplock bag + rubber band 75/1.8.

My 12-50 is very sharp. That is the lens I use the most even over my 45mm and 17mm primes. The IBIS helps with low light situations and I shoot in low light alot at ISO3200 and some at 6400 wen needed with very good results. IQ and color rendition is really good.

Ultimate, nail-biting sharpness is just one component of a good image but (as I'm increasingly finding) not really the component I'm looking for in my images or really anyone else's (besides maybe macro and birding).

Sure, I own the 25 and 45 1.8, but this is mostly for any DOF separation and shutter speed - though I certainly love the sharpness as an added bonus!

Maybe I'm just getting lazy, but taken for what it is (a good range, decent IQ, weather sealed, lightweight, small power-or-manual zoom with good macro capability), the 12-50 is pretty good. Not $500 retail good, but ~$200 used/kit good.