All just conjecture and personal bias until someone posts a comparison.
I've shot quite a lot with MFT, APS-C, Full Frame and a little bit of 1".
The biggest differences are that it's a bit more of a pain in the butt to get everything in focus in larger formats and a bit more of a pain in the butt to get the wide angle shallow DoF look in MFT.
Add that with some noise performance and dynamic range limitations and that's it. Dynamic range is almost always reduced in well exposed photographs anyway in post.
Everything else so far as I've noticed in images is just midichlorians fairy dust, what people want to believe because they have false logic bias. Some cameras have a certain color signature, Sony generally has nicer colors IMO than Nikon. They may not be as accurate but for the overwhelming majority of highly inaccurate crap LCD screens out there, they look pretty nice.
It's my personal take. I base it on having seen maybe 2000 Nex images and 1000 OM-D images. I can't really proof it, nor do I have any interest doing so. I'm just passing on my experience and opinion. And as I understand, there are others having found the same.
The problem with this is that there is often an inherent bias when you know what equipment was used. Even if you don't consciously do it. People will often look at a photo shot with 'inferior' gear and start picking apart the problems with it, while when viewing stuff shot with the 'superior' gear, they look for the things that are better about it. It's a very human reaction.
However, In head to head comparisons, it's very hard to see any real difference, unless you are looking at DOF limited shots where larger sensors inherently have the ability to blue the background more for the same aperture and equivalent FOV. In fact, in my examples above, the majority picked the OM-D images as their preferred image in the landscape examples (while noting how very close they really were)...and this was with the mediocre kit zoom on the OM-D vs. the Zeiss 24/1.8!
Hehe. I'm not saying that it's the better camera. I prefer it, and the system is more mature, but I understand those that want the larger sensor, especially if they are shallow DOF people who use adapted glass.
My comments apply to much more than just OM-D vs NEX. It's NEX vs. Full frame, 7D vs Nikon D7000, even (for most printing and all web use), something like the D7000 vs the D800.
The fact is, in the vast majority of cases, the real world differences in output between these is extremely small. FAR more difference can be made in processing techniques and creative choice than in any technical differences between the majority of modern cameras. I'm not saying there aren't advantages to better gear or larger sensors. There certainly are, but most of these differences are only really visible pushing the limits of the gear, or when producing large output.
I think the other things, such as preferred ergonomics, usability features that matter to your style of shooting, etc, make much more of an impact on the quality of the photos you ultimately get.
Jman13 wrote:
Hehe. I'm not saying that it's the better camera. I prefer it, and the system is more mature, but I understand those that want the larger sensor, especially if they are shallow DOF people who use adapted glass.
My comments apply to much more than just OM-D vs NEX. It's NEX vs. Full frame, 7D vs Nikon D7000, even (for most printing and all web use), something like the D7000 vs the D800.
The fact is, in the vast majority of cases, the real world differences in output between these is extremely small. FAR more difference can be made in processing techniques and creative choice than in any technical differences between the majority of modern cameras. I'm not saying there aren't advantages to better gear or larger sensors. There certainly are, but most of these differences are only really visible pushing the limits of the gear, or when producing large output.
I think the other things, such as preferred ergonomics, usability features that matter to your style of shooting, etc, make much more of an impact on the quality of the photos you ultimately get. ...Show more →
I wish you convinced me - it might save me a lot of money and rid me of lust for the expensive FF. I think that eventually the small sensors will be so good as to be indistinguishable at web size results. The OM-D has certainly made me think and follow the picture thread.
It would be helpful if more people posted such comparisons and of different subjects, less walls and resolution charts I suppose.
It's a sliding scale...the OM-D is on par in many ways with some older full frame bodies and about half the APS-C bodies in pure capabilities. Current FF bodies are all better, though by what degree is debatable, and will vary per person. There are some APS-C sensors better than the OM-D, though I think real world it's not a large advantage. FF sensors are going to have a noise advantage, especially at base ISO. Dynamic range just depends on each individual camera. For instance, the Sony sensors are DR kings...such that the OM-D has better DR than any Canon body, including the 5D III. However, the NEX cameras better the OM-D, and the Nikon FFs using Sony sensors are likewise as impressive.
Some more non-direct comparisons. Two shots with the 1Ds II (one with the 100L macro, the other with the Sigma 150/2.8), and two with the OM-D and Olympus 75. Are there differences? yeah...some. Some things are better on the FF shots, other things better on the OM-D shots.
Yes, I think the m43 system is definitely more mature than NEX with a rapidly growing line of lenses and accessories. It will be fully mature when Olympus releases a "pro version" of the OM-D with improved focus tracking, longer prime lenses and tele-converters, etc. It will overshadow the DX and APS-C sensor/formats before too long.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the availability of the LA-EA2 adapter for the NEX. Neither the NEX nor the OMD are particularly adept at action photography. With the adapter you get the functionality of a pretty good mid-level DSLR for those times you need it and still get a substantial size advantage over even the smallest DSLRs. I'm still deciding on which one to get, but this is a rather important consideration for me and the reason I most likely will go the NEX route.
Jman13 wrote:
It's a sliding scale...the OM-D is on par in many ways with some older full frame bodies and about half the APS-C bodies in pure capabilities. Current FF bodies are all better, though by what degree is debatable, and will vary per person. There are some APS-C sensors better than the OM-D, though I think real world it's not a large advantage. FF sensors are going to have a noise advantage, especially at base ISO. Dynamic range just depends on each individual camera. For instance, the Sony sensors are DR kings...such that the OM-D has better DR than any Canon body, including the 5D III. However, the NEX cameras better the OM-D, and the Nikon FFs using Sony sensors are likewise as impressive.
Some more non-direct comparisons. Two shots with the 1Ds II (one with the 100L macro, the other with the Sigma 150/2.8), and two with the OM-D and Olympus 75. Are there differences? yeah...some. Some things are better on the FF shots, other things better on the OM-D shots.
I chose the NEX because to me the system has a lot more potential: phase-detection autofocus with focus peaking, best in class high-ISO IQ, class leading 1080 60p to 1080 240p consumer and professional video, Full-Frame sensor option, M43-sized pancake kit lens, and the most surprising part of all - Sony/Zeiss announced 15 E-mount lenses in 2½ years - faster than anyone had predicted! Four more Sony E-mount lenses are coming in 2013, according to the lens roadmap so there will be 19 E-mount lenses by the end of next year.
The problem with E-Mount lenses is that some of them are Good, 1 is excellent, and the rest are mediocre to wow that's bad.
The 1 that is excellent is also really prone to CA, really prone to it. Makes it's use sometimes limited for product photography that have metal or gloss to it.
I'd say the GH3 and GH2 have better video quality than the NEX series, though no phase detect AF capability.
As to the high ISO....the NEX-5N is better, though the NEX-7 is almost identical to the OM-D in high ISO quality...maybe a half stop difference.
Meanwhile, the OM-D has 4 stop in-body IS. With, say, the 12/2 or 20/1.7, you could have taken the shots above at ISO 200 to 400 on the OM-D. I've gone night shooting with the OM-D and shot exclusively at ISO 800 and below many times. Sure, if you need to stop action, it won't matter, but the IBIS on the OM-D is truly spectacular.
Jman13 wrote:
I'd say the GH3 and GH2 have better video quality than the NEX series, though no phase detect AF capability.
GH2 only has 1080 30p (a non starter for me) and GH3 1080 60p. NEX-FS700 delivers 1080 240p and 4k RAW professional video and NEX-VG900 has a full frame sensor and clean uncompressed 4:2:2 HDMI video output!
I have a 10-18mm on pre-order and the IQ of the new lenses look good enough to me! I may upgrade to a NEX-6 if the phase detection video autofucs is noticeably better than my 5N.
but the FS700 is like $7000, somewhat unfair to compare $1100 cam to a $7000 one .
A.Y. wrote:
GH2 only has 1080 30p (a non starter for me) and GH3 1080 60p. NEX-FS700 delivers 1080 240p and 4k RAW professional video and NEX-VG900 has a full frame sensor and clean uncompressed 4:2:2 HDMI video output!
I have a 10-18mm on pre-order and the IQ of the new lenses look good enough to me! I may upgrade to a NEX-6 if the phase detection video autofucs is noticeably better than my 5N.
I'm happy you enjoy your OM-D. It sure is a great camera and system.