It's not inferior. It's not even inferior for what you do (weddings).
I don't do weddings for a living - can't imagine anything more hideous - but I've done a few for friends, but tell the truth: what's the ABSOLUTE biggest print you've ever had ordered?
Because I've printed flawless 20" x30" prints from an 8MP, three product generations old APS-C sensored Rebel (450D) that brought tears to my client's eyes. Pretty sure the OM-D E-M5, given my four-years-better PP skills, the 16MP sensor and the other new tech, will allow me to get prints of identical size or larger.
The sensor doesn't matter at all (glass is more important for one); it's your technique and ability that will get the shot.
43rumors has some more full size image samples from the E-M5, I must say the lower ISO shots are quite impressive. Granted these are most likely OOC jpeg's and I'm still curious to see what can be gained from RAW. EXIF info on image 11 shows 7mm, you would think this is the Panasonic 7-14mm f/4 lens; however, could it be a new Oly wide angle? Not sure how much they're touched up but I'm really liking the colors right out of the E-M5 I was really hoping to see EXIF on am image show 75mm and aperture of f/1.8 but I suppose it is still too soon. Olympus can't come out with that lens fast enough!
This image is 6Mp from Canon 300D from a wedding I did for friend of mine in 2005 or 2006. I've printed it to A3+ (roughly 19"x13") and it still looks pretty good. I'd however not like to use any of the current m4/3 camera for a wedding. Maybe the E-M5 changes that, it might at least be good to have with another larger camera. Also part of working as a professional photographer is presentation. While doing weddings you don't want people you have doubts about your gear. Big camera still = good camera with Joe Average.
yerknickers wrote:
...it's your technique and ability that will get the shot.
Not only that, but it's your "style" and "art" that will get you the $. I am a wedding photographer and I can guarantee you there are photographers who invest $$$$$ in equipment but don't get nearly the sales as other photographers with "inferior" equipment. Just putting professional equipment in someone's hands does not make them a professional That being said, I have also seen a lot of work from "non-professionals" that is absolutely stunning. Photography is an art form, and we are all artists in one way or another, whether we can sell our art is another challenge entirely (which is partly why I began pursuing weddings and portaits so many years ago as I was unable to successfully market and sell my nature prints). That being said, I love photography for the ability it gives me to express my artistic nature in image/print, and whether or not I make money doing it, I will always love to do it.
hauxon wrote:
Maybe the E-M5 changes that, it might at least be good to have with another larger camera. Also part of working as a professional photographer is presentation. While doing weddings you don't want people you have doubts about your gear. Big camera still = good camera with Joe Average.
It's not the size of the camera that counts, it's the way you use it!
Just out of sheer curiosity, I downloaded an ISO 6400 GX1 sample off dpreview, ran it through Lightroom for a couple of small tweaks, and printed what appears to be a perfectly passable 8x10 from the result. I am amazed. Sure, looking closely it is not perfect, but at normal viewing distances it gets the job done.
douglasf13 wrote:
The thing is, ISO 200 on the GX1 is equivalent to around ISO 800 on something like the 5Dii in terms of SNR, and even more in terms of DR. So using f2 on the GX1 is still giving similar performance results as using f4 on the 5Dii. When calculating exposures, it certainly makes sense to calculate in terms of f2 and call f2 what it is, but, when comparing lenses across various formats, I think it's helpful to mention equivalents.
Okay, but now we are really leaving the area I was discussing around in. Using my Leica 180/2 on an E-M5, for example, apparently adds up to 5 stops of hand-holding ability, presuming your subject is not moving too fast. That should cancel out all positive effects of high ISO noise characteristics on most FF cameras. I am not interested in all of that at this time, just having a fast lens (absolute aperture) on a camera with a high crop factor. Zoo lens, for example.
ChrisDM wrote:
Of course we would need a poll to properly settle the matter, but I would think that the majority of users seeking wider apertures are seeking greater control over depth of field. It is the key determining factor in most choosing full frame (and therefore not choosing some other more DOF-limited format)... And yes "total illumination" probably coming in a close second on that poll.
That could well be, but not I. I am looking at high hand-holdability of a long lens, and more depth of field is very welcome.
alundeb wrote:
I will try to present my point a little more clear.
75/2 <-> 150/2 : The result is less DoF and less noise on the larger sensor.
75/2 <-> 150/4 : The result is about equal DoF and equal noise.
75/2 <-> 150/8 : The result is less DoF and less noise on the smaller sensor.
With your logic, I could say that a 150/8 is an equivalent to 75/2 because I want more DoF anyway, and I don't care about the noise.
Reductio ad absurdum? The first two lines make perfect sense, respectively, for people interested in those properties, although the depth of field is only lens specific, but noise characteristics depend very much on the cameras selected (E-M5 vs. 1Ds anyone?)... The third line is yours alone, no one is with you there (so far)
pingflood wrote:
Just out of sheer curiosity, I downloaded an ISO 6400 GX1 sample off dpreview, ran it through Lightroom for a couple of small tweaks, and printed what appears to be a perfectly passable 8x10 from the result. I am amazed. Sure, looking closely it is not perfect, but at normal viewing distances it gets the job done.
Yup...I've found with proper RAW processing that 8x10s at ISO 6400 are easily doable if you expose properly with the GX1. Even ISO 12,800 shots look fine at that size provided you are OK with some visible grain.
It's not inferior. It's not even inferior for what you do (weddings).
I don't do weddings for a living - can't imagine anything more hideous - but I've done a few for friends, but tell the truth: what's the ABSOLUTE biggest print you've ever had ordered?
Because I've printed flawless 20" x30" prints from an 8MP, three product generations old APS-C sensored Rebel (450D) that brought tears to my client's eyes. Pretty sure the OM-D E-M5, given my four-years-better PP skills, the 16MP sensor and the other new tech, will allow me to get prints of identical size or larger.
The sensor doesn't matter at all (glass is more important for one); it's your technique and ability that will get the shot. ...Show more →
If you think "the sensor doesn't matter at all", then you have no idea what counts in shooting a wedding (obviously, since you've only done "a few for freinds")... Just a few weeks ago I was shooting in a dungeon of a church, no flash allowed of course. My 5D2 was nearly maxed out at 6400 to get a decent enough shutter speed to catch the recessional down the very dark aisle. Furthermore, those "father walking the bride down the isle" often make for great album spreads (20 inches)... I that situation, my "latest & greatest" m43 camera, my GX1, would have been struggling beyond an acceptable level. The sensor matters, of course, and to say that it doesn't is simple naive.
Not that it adds anything to the current debate but I think this will be the camera that gets me to retire my Panasonic G1, the IBIS seems like it will be a great match for my 20 1.7. Almost switched to Nex but I really like the m43 lens selection.
Got to momentarily handle a OM-D at Arlington Camera (I was walking in right as the Olympus rep was walking out). I didn't want to hold him up, so I basically just got a look through the EVF, focused, and held it for a second.
EVF - it was broad daylight, seemed richer (unnaturally, almost) in color than my X100 EVF and smaller. Maybe a faster refresh rate, but I'm used to the X100 indoors or at night.
Body - felt nice in the hand, a good size (even though I have large hands and the OM-D didn't have any of the add-on grip attachments), solid
AF - seemed fast, but it was broad daylight and I think it was just set to choose the focus spot on its own.
wjmeyer wrote: 43rumors has some more full size image samples from the E-M5, I must say the lower ISO shots are quite impressive. Granted these are most likely OOC jpeg's and I'm still curious to see what can be gained from RAW. EXIF info on image 11 shows 7mm, you would think this is the Panasonic 7-14mm f/4 lens; however, could it be a new Oly wide angle? Not sure how much they're touched up but I'm really liking the colors right out of the E-M5 I was really hoping to see EXIF on am image show 75mm and aperture of f/1.8 but I suppose it is still too soon. Olympus can't come out with that lens fast enough!...Show more →
Depends on the shot. The shot in the market square (Brussels Grote Markt?) is horrible...It's supposedly at base ISO, but there is absolutely ZERO fine detail. I hope it's some really weird setting with some creative preset and ultra-high NR turned on. Shot 11 looks really nice on the other hand. Still too much JPEG compression for my taste, but I only shoot RAW, so it really doesn't matter too much. Good color.
I was really hoping to see EXIF on am image show 75mm and aperture of f/1.8 
but I suppose it is still too soon. Olympus can't come out with that lens fast enough!