Nikon DX vs FX vs Olympus OMD-EM5

<p>I'm curious how some of you might feel about this. There are people in the Olympus forum who are glad that they have sold their Nikon cameras and gone to the 4/3 format namely Olympus OMD-EM5. Here I was thinking of moving to FX for the broader range of lens availability better low light IQ. I shoot with the D7000. Now others are saying that this Olympus camera is the cats meow. Thoughts, opinions? This is just for fun, not looking for any right or wrong answers.</p>

<p>If you are a full time pro and shoot weddings in dim churches, the OMD won't do the job. However, the more experienced I've become, the less importance photo gear seems to have for me. I've been thinking of moving to something like the OMD eventually as it improves even further. I just don't need heavy camera bags to get the results I want. (And keep in mind I'm a night time photographer.) The idea of something light, compact, quick to use, and very "efficient" has great appeal to me. Right now my camera of choice is either my Nikon D5100, or my Leica IIIc. Small, capable, efficient.</p>

<p><br />Kent in SD</p>

<p>The OM-D E-M5 would be "better" than FX for you only if size and weight was a critical consideration. It is for me, which is why I seldom use my D2H any more. If I could afford the OM-D I'd definitely grab one.</p>

<p>However the D600 is a very appealing camera that would probably suit that niche demographic of folks who want the advantages of FX in a reasonably compact camera. Since you've specified low light IQ as an important factor for your photography, the D600 is probably a better choice for you.</p>

<p>BTW, while you're pondering the question, be sure to view some maximum resolution JPEGs from the OM-D. There are samples on dpreview and Flickr. Those photos look fine to me, but some folks have noted the fairly typical Olympus "look" - a little heavy on the smoothing, presumably due to luminance noise reduction in-camera. I rarely print larger than 8x10 so it wouldn't matter to me. If you print larger it might matter.</p>

<p>Sure, the Olympus is a fascinating camera, and I'm sure it delivers. But to me, frankly, it has no appeal: I prefer an optical viewfinder, I like handling larger cameras (so the weigth/size argument is reverse for me), and I want f/1.4 to be really shallow, not just f/2.8-like shallowish. In short, I'm really happy with my D700 and the D300 before, these cameras suit me perfectly fine.<br>

And I can completely understand Kent's and Lex' point to, in wanting something lighter, smaller. The Olympus might well be one of the cameras that gets a lot of things very right (I never used one, so I really can't tell).</p>

<p>There is no right and wrong. I read frequently that light and small are advantages, but to me, this is simply not the case. I dislike small buttons and fiddly controls.And I like external controls - so I'll end up with a relatively large camera.<br>

The good thing is having choice. There are cameras fitting almost any kind of need; each format, sensor-size and brand with their own distinct advantages and disadvantages. One can (and should) only compare them in the context of a defined set of needs and wants.</p>

<p>Keep in mind if you go full frame you will want to spend some cash on some quality glass. The only reason I use a nikon d800 is so I can make somewhat large landscape prints. If I were to travel, I would not want a full frame, because I rarely print those images. Also keep in mind that in a year or two the OMD will no longer be so popular.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Also keep in mind that in a year or two the OMD will no longer be so popular.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Nor will the D7000, D600 etc...<br>

<br>

As for the switch out from the D7000, it really boils down to how you shoot, what you shoot, and what you want as the results. To be honest, I shoot my lesser E-PM1 with the 45mm f1.8 a lot more than I do my D7000. And with the E-M5, your IQ is probably nearly identical if you use the right lenses. If you like compact and primes, I would say go to the OM-D. If you want fast zooms, thinner DOF, bulkier, and more expensive, go FX.<br>

<br>

All the systems are capable of amazing IQ, you just have to use it right. Low light, well, FX does have an advantage in that, but the E-M5 should have (haven't really tried it out) one of the best stabilization on the market.<br>

<br>

Personally, I am probably dumping my Nikon and switching to either an EM-5 or GH3 in the next month or so. M43 has proven to be a more versatile system for me, and I don't really shoots sports all that much anymore.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also keep in mind that in a year or two the OMD will no longer be so popular</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Keep in mind that this isn't a popular contest. It is mostly a tool, and one should find the correct tool for the correct job. As a nikon FX/DX/M43rd user, I seriously think one ought to play around with them before committing to each. The OMD is much more different than the difference between FX and DX, of course. If you are just talking about high ISO noise, the cameras are so good that I doubt you could tell which is which in a blind test, unless you are above 3200.</p>

<p>The bigger differences are size, VF, LiveView and tracking AF. Do you prefer big/small? EVF/OVF? Do you shoot fast action sport? And what type of photography do you shoot mostly?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I switched to a D800E from the D7000. I did this mainly for the larger selection of prime lenses. But the dynamic range of the images is my favorite feature of this camera.</p>

<p>I tried the OM-D in the store and I didn't care for it in use. The viewfinder was good for an EVF, but I still don't think it's good. The sensor stabilization is also nice. The size is nice. But it's not that much smaller than my DSLR kit. There aren't many fast lenses, and combined with the smaller sensor there really aren't any lenses to compete with the f/1.4 FX lenses as far as focus/DOF flexibility. All in all I think it would be best as a secondary camera system for me. But it might be ideal for your uses.</p>

<p>My wife also shoots with the D7000, but she has a bad back and can't lug around a tripod, bend over to get unique shots and cary several lenses because of the weight. So my initial reason for the post, other than I think its fun to discuss things like this, was for her benefit. We drive around looking for landscape shots old abandoned farm houses, etc.. She recently tried a monopod to see if images would get sharper, but had the opposite effect. If I can convince her to switch I think she would enjoy our outings more, she doesn't like change. As for me, I'm leaning to the D600 and keep my D7000 for back up. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The viewfinder was good for an EVF, but I still don't think it's good.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably because you are so used to OVF. And please do note that a FX OVF is much different than a DX OVF. Furthermore, the VF between, say, a d3100 is way different than, say, a d4 VF. People talk, as if all OVF (or EVF) are the same...</p>

<p>One thing to note about the EM-5 is that it appears that Olympus is cheating with exposure. According to DxOMark, ISO200 is actually ISO100. Normally, this is not cheating...when the measured ISO is lower than the rating, it usually means that there's some amplification being performed by the camera. This isn't cheating because you get noise from the amplification, so nothing is being improved...it's just processing decisions.</p>

<p>Olympus, on the other hand, appears to be exposing ISO200 as ISO100. Now THAT is cheating because now they're gathering more light than the competition at ISO200. When you compare the DxOMark SNR of APS-C cameras, at ISO100, to the EM-5 at ISO200, the difference is exactly what the math says it should be for the difference in sensor size. And when you compare test images from the EM-5 at places like Imaging Resource, the exposure for ISO200 samples seems to always be one EV more than other cameras at ISO200.</p>

<p>Ultimately, as DxOMark indicates, you'll get better IQ out of APS-C at ISO100 than you'll get from the EM-5. Also, with 4/3 you need expensive lenses to get the shallow DOF that you get from larger sensors. And of course, FX gives you even better IQ and even more shallow DOF.</p>

<p>Leslie, no that's not it. I was saying I don't think it's a good view finder when looking at the features that I like in a viewfinder. I'm sure EVFs will eventually be good, but I don't think they've reach the point where they are truly "good" yet. I think the FX Nikon OVFs are good, but the DX cameras' OVFs are mediocre at best. It's hard to manually focus on the D7000, but I have a much higher success rate on the D800. Add in that things are very clear and bright on the D800 makes it a pretty decent view finder. But I have seen better. My Hasselblad is brighter and focus snaps nicely across the image. And it's much larger feeling.<br>

Of course getting additional info in the viewfinder can be nice. For that the EVFs excel.</p>

<p>I wish some company would stimulate an F3HP VF in an EVF... </p>

<p>If UPS would ever get it here I'd be glad to share. Went from the D200 to the D700 probably three years ago. Love it. Ordered the EM5 becuase I am tired of carrying the weight. May not like it, don't know. If I don't I may go to the Fuji, may go to the D600. If I do i've got a couple of lenses on the want list and an adapter so I can use my Leica lenses and maybe my Nikon. I'm ready for small, lightweight and quiet.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now others are saying that this Olympus camera is the cats meow.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Holds zero appeal for me. Too small, EVF, and 2x crop factor add up to 3 strikes against. To me, DX is the best compromise - currently, the additional price paid for FX isn't worth it for me.</p>

<p>Lex - speaking of weight - I know you have a hard time with heavier cameras now and are considering the Nikon 1. Have you considered the D3200? I was at a local retailer last week and for the first time handled a D3200 and a J1. The price of the 3200 is right. I realize the lenses are still quite a bit larger than the 1 lenses.</p>

<p>My D300 with battery grip and 70-200 f/2.8 with hood was a tank compared to both the 32000 and the J1.</p>

<p>Mark</p>

<p>I see lots of praise for m4/3 cameras but not often have I seen absolute quality comparisons to DX or FX cameras. I'm not giving up the great results from my D7000 unless it's to go to full frame. Low light performance and dynamic range are important to me. </p>

<p>The cameras are good for different reasons. The Olympus is good because it's small and, as small cameras go, has controls and features that make it suited to SLR replacement. The FX cameras are good because they don't have a crop factor, have large sensors for image quality and low light performance and have SLR speed and AF performance. As nice as the OM-D is, it doesn't come with the Nikon lens selection and isn't in the same league as a D800, D600 or even D700 in high ISO imaging. Its closest comparable in Nikon for image quality and high ISO would be a D90 - which puts it ahead of older M4/3 models by a respectable margin.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I see lots of praise for m4/3 cameras but not often have I seen absolute quality comparisons to DX or FX cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just curious, what would you consider an "absolute quality" comparison? </p>

<p>Mark, I began considering a smaller dSLR back when the D90 was introduced. It was an impressive camera for the money, size and weight. </p>

<p>But most of what I do can be handled with a good compact digicam. And the smaller sensor better suits my preferences for DOF. Looking back over my photos since getting the D2H in 2005, I was surprised to discover how seldom I shot wide open for shallow DOF. The last time I consciously used fast lenses wide open to isolate subjects using shallow DOF was 2010. Most of the time I use the hyperfocal setting, which with a tiny sensor digicam can be f/2.8.</p>

<p>I own the OM-D, the Nikon D600, and a few APS-C DSLRs. The OM-D is a marvelous camera, no bones about it. I am quite often amazed (there's no other word for it) at what that little jewel of a camera can do. The D600 is also an amazing machine. I take the OM-D when I want light weight. That's the biggest draw it has, for me. The D600 is my work camera, I use it for real estate interiors where you need as wide a lens as possible. I can't say, from my experience, that for what I shoot outside of real estate, there's a measurable difference between these two cameras, nor my elder APS-C cameras. </p>

<p>Ultimately, and always, it comes down to what you want for an output. Sharing on the web? Either camera is grand. Low light? They both shine. Price? The D600 costs more but has more wide angle lenses available. And if you don't have either, what you currently own is probably good too. The DSLR revolution (since the EOS Rebel broke the $1000 price point) has been a boon to great photography worldwide. The latest cameras merely extend, not eclipse, what are already a slew of great cameras out there.</p><div></div>

<p>Willy, first off, I don't have a great deal of confidence in anything that DxO says, but more importantly, ISO was originally a standard created for film; for digital, it has to be simulated, and there are different methologies that may be chosen for the simulation, and different ways of measuring the result. Every camera maker has their own ideas on this subject, none of them fully in agreement with the others.</p>

<p>Since you mentioned the sample images on The Imaging Resource, I made a quick comparison between ISO 200 test images on that site from the OM-D and the Nikon D7000. It is true that the OM-D gave one more stop of exposure (1/20 sec. vs 1/40 for the Nikon) at the same nominal aperture (f/8), but it also produced a noticeably brighter image with better deep shadow detail. Both cameras were set to use matrix metering, but there is no guarantee that the matrix metering implementations in two different cameras (even from the same manufacturer) will produce equivalent results. Also, since different lenses were used, we can't simply assume that the amount of light reaching the sensor was equal in both cases. What a lens reports as f/X usually isn't exactly f/X -- it could be off by as much as a third of a stop. And the glass of the two lenses may not transmit light equally well. There are enough variables here to collectively account for a one-stop difference in exposure times. Then there's also the fact that both cameras were in manual mode, so we don't actually know that the meters were reporting correct exposure when the images were shot. Had they been in aperture-priority mode with no exposure compensation or AE lock in effect, at least we would know that the camera decided for itself what shutter speed to use.</p>

<p>It might be possible to come up with a really convincing comparison of the ISO behavior of two cameras, but you can't extract such a comparison from any of the sample images I've seen online, and I'm not convinced DxO would know how to do it if they wanted to.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Since you mentioned the sample images on The Imaging Resource, I made a quick comparison between ISO 200 test images on that site from the OM-D and the Nikon D7000. It is true that the OM-D gave one more stop of exposure (1/20 sec. vs 1/40 for the Nikon) at the same nominal aperture (f/8), but it also produced a noticeably brighter image with better deep shadow detail.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you referring to the JPEGs or the RAW images? I would expect the JPEG images to be similar because, as I mentioned, most cameras will underexpose slightly (that is, have a lower actual ISO) and then amplify to get the correct exposure. I would expect the RAW images to differ by one EV, because the EM-5 captured an EV more of light.</p>

<p>Between the Still Life JPEGs at ISO200, the EM-5 shots appears to be less than 1/3 EV brighter (the "WhiBal" white is around 212 RGB values on the Nikon D7000 shot and 222 RGB on the EM-5 shot, and the background near the center differs by 167 to 178.) To me, that's expected. I didn't look at the EM-5 RAW, but being a Nikon person I already know that the D7000 RAW, demosaiced with no processing, renders darker than its out-of-camera JPEG.</p>

<p>As for lenses, prime macro lenses were used of similar construction, with the EM-5 having the more expensive lens.</p>

<p>The metering and processing of each camera produced JPEGs that were very close. But regardless of the internal computation of their respective multi-segment metering systems, it is clear that at ISO200, the EM-5 requires one EV more exposure to get the same apparent brightness from its JPEG engine as the D7000 when comparing out-of-camera JPEGs.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>ISO was originally a standard created for film; for digital, it has to be simulated, and there are different methologies that may be chosen for the simulation, and different ways of measuring the result. Every camera maker has their own ideas on this subject, none of them fully in agreement with the others.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ISO is not simulated for digital. ISO means exactly the same thing with digital and it does with film. ISO defines the reaction (film) or the response (digital) to light. The latest ISO standards on digital ISO have made ISO more consistent across cameras. The CIPA DC-004 standard, from which the latest ISO standard is based, describes the purpose of REI...</p>

<p>"Recommend Exposure Index is an exposure index corresponding to the average exposure in a focal plane recommended by camera (imaging system) vendors (manufacturers etc.) for the purpose of reference to the setting [of] an exposure index (film ISO speed value) when using a separate exposure meter or accessory strobe etc.."</p>

<p>And from the "Explanation" section (not officially part of the standard...)</p>

<p>"In recent years, various methods have become available to process luminance information, using partial photometry information taken from multiple parts of the subject, including Pattern Photometry or Peak Photometry.</p>

<p>On the other hand, when the aperture or shutter speed is to be obtained by using a reflective stand-alone exposure meter or accessory strobe, the average photometry values are used. Adequate preset value of film sensitivity (exposure index) must be adapted to such equipment during photography, in which case the recommend value preset by the maker (in other words, the value to obtain the 'standard exposure' mentioned above) is the 'Recommend Exposure Index."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cipa.jp/english/hyoujunka/kikaku/pdf/DC-004_EN.pdf">http://www.cipa.jp/english/hyoujunka/kikaku/pdf/DC-004_EN.pdf</a></p>

<p>So the purpose of the latest ISO standards is to ensure that handheld meters provide Standard Exposure values that work correctly in digital cameras. It would be interesting to see the results from an EM-5 with exposure values set from a handheld reflective meter instead of its own meter.</p>

 

<p>there is no right answer but i dont think you'll get better low-light performance from an OM-D than from an FX camera. the OM-D appeals to me because of its compactness and high level of performance, particularly with AF speed. but i wouldn't view it as an equivalent to FX or even APS-C. i wouldn't sell my D3s or d300s for one, but i might sell my d90.</p>

<p>the OM-D seems like it would be good for photojournalism, street shooting, and travel -- not so good for fast action and large prints. seeing that there are some really good fast primes out there for m4/3 is also appealing, however, the only thing really stopping me is my investment in nikon lenses, and the realization that i'd have to spend a fair amount on glass to get the setup i wanted (12/25/45 primes + 12-50 kit). i'm also considering the fuji XE1 which does have an APS-C-sized sensor, with which i would probably just go with the acclaimed 35/1.4.</p>

<p>in either case, i would be augmenting my DSLR kit, not replacing it. for me that makes more sense than jumping on a d600 or d800 right now, as resolution isn't a huge need to me and i already have a D3s and pro lenses for critical shooting. what i dont have is a super-compact body with better IQ than a point and shoot which takes interchangeable lenses.</p>

<p>I liked the idea of compact MFT. So, I decided to sell my D7000 and bought EPL2 (not omd though). It's fun, small, fast and makes me want to take pictures more. I also bought nice lenses for it. I enjoyed it for a while.<br>

Then D600 was sold at a great price, so I pulled the trigger. When I saw the results from the D600, I realize how very different they are. Nothing can match FX pictures in my opinion. Not even my D7000 pictures. I'm glad I did not sell all my nikon lenses. Note: I use it mainly for portrait of my family so I cannot say for other use (i.e. landscape, etc). So, for IQ I like FX the most and I don't mind the size/weight.<br>

Anyway, I keep my Olympus because it's a lot of fun but for sure not for IQ. If omd is sold for $500, I will get it for travel or street photography. At $1000, I think it's too expensive and I much prefer the D7000 or better yet the D600.</p>