I just find it all rather amusing that we're actually even comparing and OM-D setup at $1900 (body/lens) to a D800 setup at $5000 (body/lens). Who would have guessed that even last year?
String wrote:
I just find it all rather amusing that we're actually even comparing and OM-D setup at $1900 (body/lens) to a D800 setup at $5000 (body/lens). Who would have guessed that even last year?
Certainly a great time to be a photographer!
Exactly. Getting anywhere close to a 14-24mm in a 1.8lb total package is remarkable IMO. I can carry the E-M5+7-14mm anywhere; the D800+14-24mm not so much
String wrote:
I just find it all rather amusing that we're actually even comparing and OM-D setup at $1900 (body/lens) to a D800 setup at $5000 (body/lens). Who would have guessed that even last year?
Certainly a great time to be a photographer!
Interesting. yes, its a great time to be a photographer. however, for me the point is not price. in fact, the OMD system is not designed to be cheap but portable. a t2i or d5100, with a sigma 8-16 or tokina 11-16 lens would give you as good if not better results, at less price.
also if you do need more control over dof, autofocus for moving objects, you can just about always get a cheaper system with better results.
You can also go back and look at luminous landscape article when the g10 first came out, comparing the prints to medium format for landscape.
However, OMD is the first to offer a truly compact system with good dynamic range and noise performance, and good lenses to provide detail and sharpness to compete with the big boys.
A D5100 might get slightly better results but it won't have an EVF or IBIS or weather sealing on the body side at least. The D5100 has a horrible tiny CHEAP cramped terrible OVF. I would wager the T2i probably won't get better results.
You also won't be able to compose with the LCD easily on either camera.
D5100 OVF might be small and cheap, but one thing that even a cheap OVF do better than EVF is dynamic range. (i 've not used the EM-5 but NEX-7, I suppose NEX-7 has one of the best EVF in the market at the moment).
D7000 has a much better VF, price is similar to EM-5 too. but a Tokina 11-16 is cheaper than 7-14.
I thought I will not invest in M43 again, I have to admit that EM-5 is appealing to me (while i seldom use M43 .. I do have GF-1 14-50, 20 1.7 and 55-200) but I really prefer the body style of NEX-7 (no obtruding viewfinder.. easier to put in bags)
ytwong wrote:
D5100 OVF might be small and cheap, but one thing that even a cheap OVF do better than EVF is dynamic range. (i 've not used the EM-5 but NEX-7, I suppose NEX-7 has one of the best EVF in the market at the moment).
D7000 has a much better VF, price is similar to EM-5 too. but a Tokina 11-16 is cheaper than 7-14.
I thought I will not invest in M43 again, I have to admit that EM-5 is appealing to me (while i seldom use M43 .. I do have GF-1 14-50, 20 1.7 and 55-200) but I really prefer the body style of NEX-7 (no obtruding viewfinder.. easier to put in bags) ...Show more →
A D7000 is far larger than a E-M5 and when you take into account lens size, the D7000 system requires a big back pack if you plan on carrying a few lenses.
The NEX-7 EVF is far too contrasty by default, you can fix some of this by having JPEG preview with decreased contrast settings but that also has some major problems... the OM-D EVF is far less contrasty and on sane settings.
