Hrow wrote:
Respectfully, at lower ISO's I have to disagree relative to the 5DII. I don't disagree that Canon is falling way behind in their sensor technology (the reason I switched from Canon to Nikon) but the benefits of FF and the ability to control DOF to a higher degree is a feature that will hinder the likes of the OM-D5 regardless of how revolutionary its technology. Each to his own, but it is hard for me to imagine having to do my professional work with just a OM-D5. The counter-point is that I am very happy to have one while I am out having fun and don't want to carry 15 pounds worth of gear. ...Show more →
I agree with most of what you're saying, but I was talking about noise levels - not the DOF and FOV differences between FF and m43 sensors. There are clear differences there, but in terms of noise, DR and details rendered - the EM5 is as good as my Nex 5n, less noisy than the Nex7 is sold for the 5n and better than Canons APS-c offerings IMHO.
EDIT: I shot a series of test shots with various lenses, here's a couple 100% crops with the EM5 (top) with 45/1.8 lens and the Nex7 (bottom) with the 50/1.8, all shot from a tripod, self timer and so on. I framed them as close as possible to each other given the difference in FL's and the 4:3 aspect ratio of the EM5. I was so impressed with the EM5's performance that I sold the Nex7 and bought a lightly used 5n from a FMer and put the difference toward more lenses. I shot the same scene as various ISO's and also used adapted Rokkors to eliminate lens differences so I could get an idea as to how the sensors perform.
In terms of noise and DR the em5 is half a stop to a stop behind the 5n and c3. It's about 1.5 or more behind the nex7. I own all 3. I terms of post latitude it's somewhat more fragile as well.
bobbytan wrote:
+1. As good as the OM-D is, even with an incredible lens like the 75/1.8, you cannot knock out the background like you could with a 35L, 85L or 200/2L ... and you can do more tricks with 36mp file sizes. There are compromises and trade-offs with any format and system. Pick the one or two systems that best meet your needs. Micro 4/3 certainly has its place and is here to stay. The form factor and the beautifully crafted lenses like the 7-14 and 25/1.4 are such a joy to use, and I am so looking forward to using the 75/1.8 for portraits. My 5D II and lenses are all dangerously perched at the edge of a cliff and may not last another 6 months.
I am going to Venice and Tuscany next February with my OM-D and 7-14, 25, 45 ... and 75 that I will most definitely acquire before the trip ... and my Canon will probably stay behind ... if I still have it then. Shallow DOF can be "created" with any good/fast lens by increasing the separation between subject and background.
Hrow wrote:
Before you do that I think you need another trip to Italy just to "test" your theory. Heh, it's as good an excuse as any, right?
There have been tons of claims on the internet saying how this is the next best thing and only FF can beat it etc. My initial tests show that it is a nice camera however APS offers lots of advantages.
mawz wrote:
Better than APS-C? No. Better than a 7D? Yes and unequivocally so. The 7D was never a class leader in IQ, not even at introduction. Canon chose to compromise high ISO detail for noise performance at high ISO, and DR and Colour resolution at low ISO for noise performance at high ISO. At introduction the 7D was competitive but no class leader, but ever since the 16MP Sony-based bodies started shipping from Nikon, Pentax and Sony, the 7D (and the other Canon APS-C bodies) became a non-player in the APS-C IQ sweepstakes.
The Sony 16MP and 24MP based APS-C cameras match or exceed the OM-D in terms of IQ, both in DR and noise performance. But it's pretty close (probably because the OM-D sensor seems to be a cut-down version of the excellent Sony 24MP APS-C sensor in the first place).
prashant wrote:
There have been tons of claims on the internet saying how this is the next best thing and only FF can beat it etc. My initial tests show that it is a nice camera however APS offers lots of advantages.
To me, handling is the biggest advantage of larger bodies. Haven't gotten past the point of feeling like it is a toy - albeit a very nice one. The other factor is the AF. Olympus can claim they are the world's fastest but if they tried to claim they were the world's best they would be laughed off of the stage. Huge difference there for professional usage.
This is comparing RAW/TIFF files. Maybe this is the reason DXO may be scratching their heads and unable rationalize or make any sense from these results!
FlyPenFly wrote:
In terms of noise and DR the em5 is half a stop to a stop behind the 5n and c3. It's about 1.5 or more behind the nex7. I own all 3. I terms of post latitude it's somewhat more fragile as well.
This is awesome. The X-Pro 1 is 2/3 stops better than the 5DII, The OM-D is 1/3 stop better than the X-pro 1. The NEX 7 is 1.5 stops better than the OM-D. My 5DII is 1 stop better than my NEX 7.
alundeb wrote:
This is awesome. The X-Pro 1 is 2/3 stops better than the 5DII, The OM-D is 1/3 stop better than the X-pro 1. The NEX 7 is 1.5 stops better than the OM-D. My 5DII is 1 stop better than my NEX 7.
My 5DII just became 3.5 stops better than itself.
Run through this loop a couple more times, and pretty soon the 5DII will be a good camera
Being a long-time Canon user and having lusted after the Nikon 14-24 for a period, I'm kind of surprised how crummy the peripheral image quality from it is in this sample at f/8...
prashant wrote:
There have been tons of claims on the internet saying how this is the next best thing and only FF can beat it etc. My initial tests show that it is a nice camera however APS offers lots of advantages.
It is the next best thing if what you want is a small, respectable camera with truly compact, high quality lenses, regardless of depth of field control, resolution, etc.
My take, conveniently illustrated by Chris's crops at the top of the page, is there isn't a huge difference between APS-C and the EM5 when it comes to many factors, such as resolution, high ISO ability, depth of field control, etc. Cameras like the NEX series come close to it with a compact form factor, but much less so with the lenses. Here the m43 options are much more compelling as a complete system, especially in regards to compact and high quality lenses.
While I do like the look of the NEX-7 crop above slightly more, I would not base a system decision strictly on such minute differences. To achieve sufficiently noticeable differences in resolution, high ISO, depth of field control, etc., it makes much more sense to skip a stage and go directly to full frame, where imaging and handling benefits from each system are more noticeable and complementary (to owning both).
IMO, APS-C is possibly becoming a gap solution. At some point we'll probably see the 20MP sensor in the Sony RX100 appear in the Nikon 1 system cameras, and that pixel density appear in future m43 sensors. Combined with the considerably smaller lenses these small sensors allow, it will likely be a powerful draw for the average consumer looking to augment camera-phones with the benefits of a system camera, but without the bulk of current APS-C and FF options.
Jan Brittenson wrote:
Looks like an extremely soft image that has been way oversharpened.
That's 36MP @ 14mm through two miles of warm atmosphere. Only default LR4 sharpening was applied, which means essentially no sharpening vs the typical treatment a landscape photo would receive.
The only issue I see is that the 14-24 looks soft at the right border even at f/8. There should be more than enough DOF but it's not manifesting in the foreground or background.
AhamB wrote:
The only issue I see is that the 14-24 looks soft at the right border even at f/8. There should be more than enough DOF but it's not manifesting in the foreground or background.
Both the D800 and EM-5 are soft on the right side of that one image. It's a function of the Jeffrey Pine vegetation's detail frequency/distance rather than lens softening. Here's a new comparison image, both upsampled to 50MP and sharpened with ACR 6.7 amt=40, detail=35, masking=20 and CS5 USM of 30%, radius=30.
Comparatively speaking, the E-M5 image here looks like shit.
snapsy wrote:
Here's a new comparison image, both upsampled to 50MP and sharpened with ACR 6.7 amt=40, detail=35, masking=20 and CS5 USM of 30%, radius=30.
What was the point of focus in the second set of images? The house? The 14-24 certainly looks better here than the previous comparison set and am wondering if I'm seeing a bit of field curvature towards the camera at the edges?
I'm not sold on "Jeffrey Pine vegetation's detail frequency/distance rather than lens softening" for the first set. If you look at the itty bit of infinity horizon beyond the vegetation on the top right, you'll see it's smeared compared to the same landscape at the center of the frame. Same with the left hand side. Where was the focus set for this one? The jet ski/infinity or on the tree at left?
Anyway, it's nitpicking. The D800 is definitely better for such extreme file sizes. The EM5's pixel structure/grain pattern reveals a hint at what I see from my Oly XZ1 P&S's files
