OM-D vs Pentax K-5

<p>Hello<br>

I am a newbie and having a hard time deciding between these two cameras.<br>

They are both weather resistant and both have good reputations for taking fine photos.<br>

I am comparing the Olympus with the 12 to 50 weather resistant kit lens to the Pentax with the 18 to 55 weather resistant kit lens.<br>

The Pentax lens is widely reviewed as better than the average kit lens, but I am getting the impression that the Olympus lens is even better than that - and of course, this Olympus lens has a wider focal range than this Pentax lens which is a real advantage.<br>

The Pentax has the larger sensor and apparently beats the Nikon D7000 and Canon 7D for image quality (testing by snapsort.com). I'm not sure if the OM-D also beats the D7000 and 7D for image quality.<br>

Whichever camera I choose, I will likely stick with the kit lens for some time, so having a huge selection of aftermarket lens really does not interest me much, however, in the future, I may change this opinion.<br>

I appreciate that the Olympus is lighter and smaller, but with my largish hands, I will need to buy the aftermarket grip to feel comfortable holding it.<br>

If they were the same price, I think I would lean to the Olympus because it is more modern.<br>

At the moment (in my city), the K-5 has been slashed to approximately $1,000 with the kit lens.<br>

The OM-D is selling for approximately $1,650 with the kit lens and the grip.<br>

My intention is to start photography as a hobby, so I am not sure what I will spend most of my time photographing, however, I love black and white street photos and portraits, so this will be my starting point.<br>

Both the OM-D and the K-5 have built in black and white filters, but I have no idea which works better (or whether I should just convert photos to black and white on my computer with software like Gimp).<br>

My main priority is image quality. If I ever manage to take a decent photo, I would like to be able to print a poster size version of the photo.<br>

Do you think it is worth spending the extra $650 to buy the OM-D over the K-5?<br>

Is the K-5 such a bargain at the moment that it is the best buy right now?<br>

Any opinions will be very welcome.<br>

Thank you.</p>

<p>There are very positive reviews for both from the same excellent source <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/"><strong>here</strong></a> and <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk5/"><strong>here</strong></a>.</p>

<p>I think the Pentax has a bigger sensor. This might not make much a difference for good weather situations but usually the bigger the sensor the better the high ISO performance. You will also get longer zoom coverage with the Oly. I think they are both very good cameras but as good as the OM-D is I am under the impression that it is just a weather sealed micro-fourthird?</p>

<p>I love the K7, and the K5 is a better camera by far (great ergonomics and build). It's reputed to have the best-implemented sensor in its class, so I doubt the Olympus will beat it if you push the ISO extremes. Why the insistence on weather resistance, though? It seems to have become one of those features that everyone thinks is mandatory, when it used to be just hard-livin' professionals (and Canadians) who needed it. Remember that the vast majority of great street/documentary images ever taken were on non-WR cameras!<br>

If you want one of these cameras (and both will take great photos, if YOU can) and can live without the WR'd lens, for the same price as the Olympus and kit lens, you could get the K5 and, say, a Tamron 17 - 50 (the non-stabilized version is a gem) or one of several really good 18 - 135s from Pentax or the independents.</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies.<br>

No doubt the biggest problem with both of these cameras will be the stooge operating them!<br>

I like the idea of weather resistance because I can be a bit of a klutz. No doubt, any camera I buy will drink as much coffee as I do (as does my shirt, my pants, my smart phone, etc).<br>

I saw the Tamron 17-50 in a local store. It looks fantastic. If I go with the Pentax, I would seriously consider buying this lens for coffee free and dry days.<br>

While I appreciate the smaller size of the OM-D, once I fit the mandatory grip and the 12 to 50 lens, it is no longer a compact camera. I can't just slip it into a pocket, right?<br>

So if the size advantage is lost, is it pointless looking at M4/3?</p>

"is it pointless looking at M4/3"

 

A complete M4/3 kit, with a WA zoom, standard zoom, and telezoom will be far lighter and smaller than a similar APS-C kit. The 12-50 is not a particularly compact lens, but Olympus and Panasonic do make much smaller alternatives.

 

If very light weight and a compact kit are not that important to you, then go with a standard DSLR instead of a mirrorless camera system. It will likely be somewhat cheaper and have better overall performance.

<p>Also to consider: what range, and cost and quality, of lenses are available for the two candidates? You'll start with the kit lens, but unless you're stronger willed than most of us you'll want to aquire faster/wider/longer lenses relatively soon. Then Kenneth's points are very relevant. And if you ever want to use a tripod, the weight (and cost) of that goes up with the weight of the camera, too.</p>

<p>Using the DPReview comparatron it seems the EM5 beats the K-5 at high ISO and dynamic range. To my eyes anyway - I think Olympus pulled off some kind of miracle with this sensor. Also, I get the impression that the OP will be making his decision without handling the cameras. The E5 might not need the grip after all.</p>

<p>Point taken regarding the weight.<br>

It certainly does all add up... and not just the camera system weight. When travelling, everything including clothes, bags and toiletries all add to the total, so a lighter camera system is a real advantage.<br>

Rest assured I have held the OM-D at the store, with and without the grip.<br>

Perhaps I was paranoid about dropping it so I was squeezing a bit hard on the rear thumb grip.<br>

It felt much more comfortable to hold with the grip on.</p>

<p><em>I am currently traveling with the EM-5 and it is wonderful. I am just adding on the portrait grip and it is very nice. I am using the 14-140 Panasonic lens and while not pocketable, it gives me a great range and much smaller size than anything comparable APS. However, I think the K5 would have better image quality and be able to handle being enlarged better.</em></p>

<p>What store have you held the EM-5 at?</p>

<p>Ted's Cameras in Melbourne had an EM-5 and grip on display.<br>

I was able to hold it there with and without the grip attached.<br>

They also had the K-5 to compare it against.</p>

<p>Gotta say, if I was buying now in your situation - I'd get the Olympus.</p>

<p>Hi Emmanuel. Well thought out post and opinions. Fortunately, you can't go wrong with either decision. We are all spoiled today in that we have such incredible options. The truth is though, that even 10 years ago you had puh-lenty of good choices. In the images below, the first one is of my then 1 year old daughter, shot with a Canon D60 (2002 model!) and an 85/1.8 lens. (Straight-Out-Of Camera; SOOC JPEG). It's all about the glass.<br>

Back to your question -- far more professional photogs have commented (and more will do so), but I'll add some brief thoughts since I have owned the K-5, and now own the E-P3 and E-M5.</p>

<ol>

<li><strong>IQ/image output.</strong> Do not let the infinite number of reviews and websites confuse your thinking: IQ and image quality are paramount (yes?), sensor size is secondary. Period. For the 99% of your shots, the IQ/image output for these two cameras will both be superb.</li>

<li><strong> Glass/lenses.</strong> Both Pentax K-5 and Olympus E-M5 options offer you good glass choice--and THAT will make a difference. For instance, the new Pana 12-35/2.8 promises to be superb. But, if you are going to pixel peep, I'm not sure it will live up to fight a battle against the 24-70/2.8L. I mean, c'mon. The PanaLeica 25/1.4 is already a legend for m/43. See second image which was taken INDOORS on a quick snap when my youngest daughter came home from school with her birthday crown. (Note - the E-P3 was used for this photo, but I post it as reference for the lens)</li>

<li><strong>Handling</strong>. I owned the K-5 for a very brief time, and for me it was too large and heavy to carry around regularly. (I am 5'10", 150 lbs with avg size hands.) Image quality was superb but I just didnt want to "lug around the DSLR beast"</li>

<li><strong>OM-D E-M5 tilt screen and touch focus for street photos: A+.</strong> If you plan to do street photography as you mentioned, the LCD of the E-M5 while still offering a very functional EVF is a HUGE plus for you as I have found this very handy for street photo situations as well.</li>

<li><strong> E-M5 kit lens (12-50) is overrated.</strong> This is just my humble opinion. But the 14-42 from Oly is just as good (for non Macro work) in good light. Also, the internal zooming function of the 12-50 drives some people NUTS. Even on 'mechanical' focus, it's not as 'real feel' as the 14-42 and the lens doesnt zoom in-and-out, which bothers many people used to traditional. Again, the 14-42 is a lightweight kit lens, but its results are ample.</li>

<li><strong>K-5 cheaper.</strong> If you are looking to save money, K-5 looks to be cheaper now. However, I think an E-M5 is something you could add better glass to down the road.</li>

<li><strong>Size?</strong> Personal preference, and perhaps the most important for you. I dont think of the E-M5 as a small camera, but it seems lighter than the K-5 (especially with a 75-300 Zuiko lens on it when compared to similar reach for K-5). If the buttons are too small for you on E-M5, then that could be an important factor.</li>

</ol>

<p>Just my $0.02. Either way - cant go wrong. Good luck.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5177/5460178528_e85f126bb9_b.jpg" alt="" width="964" height="641" /><br>

<img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7221/7184994383_3f65823680_b.jpg" alt="" width="966" height="644" /></p>

 

<p>Thank you for all the thoughtful responses.<br>

BTW: Great photos of beautiful children!<br>

I now think I am going to select one of two options:<br>

Option A: (the tough as nails option) The Pentax K-5 with the 18 to 55 weather resistant kit lens; or<br>

Option B: (the high mobility option) The OM-D with one high quality prime lens to get started.<br>

Which M4/3 prime lens would you recommend for street photography?<br>

(The 17mm pancake did not review very well, while the brilliant 45mm lens looks perfect for portraits, but is probably too long for the street)</p>

<p>Street photography with the E-M5 deserves the PL 25/1.4 (eff focal length 50mm) or some would suggest the Pana 20/1.7 (eff focal length 40mm). Personally, I wouldnt walk around with anything longer than 50mm for street photos, but YMMV. One other choice is the new Pana 12-35/2.8, though not available for another couple of weeks.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Pentax lens is widely reviewed as better than the average kit lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That may have been the case upon the release of the first version, but things have changed since 2007. As far as comparisons to MFT go, I prefer the 14-42 Olympus lens to the Pentax 18-55.<br>

<br>

As far as E-M5 vs K-5, they are two different style of cameras - the first is a MILC, the second is a DSLR. I think that DSLRs are becoming obsolete and I will not invest in such systems any more. I am waiting for Pentax to release a new system of cameras once they manage to figure out which way trends are going. In the meantime, I am using my MFT camera much more than my DSLRs.</p>

<p>If you like the DSLR technology, however, the K-5 is one of the best APS-C DSLRs out there.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think that DSLRs are becoming obsolete</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow...that is a big call.<br>

Do you predict we will end up with MILC systems (for the majority of users) and Full Frame systems (for the professionals and prosumers) with crop sensor SLRs falling into no-man's land and dying off?<br>

An interesting prediction...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Wow...that is a big call.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not really. People have been predicting this for years. There is no question that this will happen, the only question is the time frame in which it will happen. And I realized last year that this is going to happen sooner than I thought, because the technology is here and it is already good enough for 90% of the market. Others have voiced similar opinions recently. I have some arguments and information on this topic <a href="http://laurphoto.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-camera-should-i-buy.html">here</a>, <a href="http://laurphoto.blogspot.com/2012/02/musings-on-vision-of-camera-companies.html">here</a>, and <a href="http://laurphoto.blogspot.com/2012/06/some-thoughts-on-sensor-formats-and.html">here</a> - the first link collects other similar opinions in an update at the end.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you predict we will end up with MILC systems (for the majority of users) and Full Frame systems (for the professionals and prosumers) with crop sensor SLRs falling into no-man's land and dying off?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Look at what happened to rangefinders when SLRs came by. I expect the same thing will happen to SLRs now that fully digital cameras are picking steam. I can see some companies still putting out SLRs for people that want them, but I can't imagine the reason why someone will want to pay more for a camera just so it is an SLR. Also look how far the MFT system has got in just 3 years.</p>

<p>We're in a digital era. A basculating pair of mirrors reflecting light into an AF sensor and through a pentaprism towards an optical viewfinder are just odd.</p>

<p>Really informative articles. Thank you for the links.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Which M4/3 prime lens would you recommend for street photography?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>20/1.7 and 12/2. 45/1.8 for portraits.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think that DSLRs are becoming obsolete</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As someone with a foot in both camps, I think that is a big call. I prefer my dslrs for everything other than their size. In any event, SLRs have always been just one style of camera. Even in the film days most used non slr 35 mm compact cameras.</p>

<p>When digital was in its early days, P&Ss were the way to go for most due to SLRs costs. Now they have a much smaller market share due to prevalence of camera phones. DSLRs have grown in market share due to falling costs and the accessibility of digital spurring interest in photography itself.</p>

<p>MILCs in turn are growing due to their size advantage over DSLRs, and some cool retro designs that suit the amatuers trying to look like professionals trying to look like amatuers brigade. But when I look at all the supposed reasons why MILCs are going to drive DSLRs to oblivion it looks like humbug to me.</p>

<p>Costly, complex and expensive SRL mechanisms? Really? Canon and Nikon can produce $500 dslrs with such a mechansim that shoot at 5 fps and are rated to 100 000 shots. Before digital they were producing even cheaper film slrs with such a mechanism.</p>

<p>And arguing EVFs will catch up with mirrors is a bit like saying video displays will replace windows.</p>

<p>And then there is the glass. In dof terms the M4/3s equivalent of the Canon 85 f1.2 L would be a 45 f0.6. When are we going to see that lens? Even matching the common $340 Canon 85 f1.8 would require an M4/3 equivalent of 45 f0.9.</p>

<p>And as for rangefinders being obsolete, Leica still seems to be in business as far as I can tell.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Costly, complex and expensive SRL mechanisms? Really? Canon and Nikon can produce $500 dslrs with such a mechansim that shoot at 5 fps and are rated to 100 000 shots.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, and they can improve their margins by dropping the mirror out. Especially since they won't win any prizes for the quality of those pentamirror based OVFs they put in such cheap models.<br>

<br>

Search any photo forum for complaints related to focusing of lenses on SLRs and you'll find out the extra costs of using this technology. Just the idea that we might finally get rid of the "My X lens backfocuses - what can I do about it" threads makes me feel positive about the future.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And then there is the glass. In dof terms the M4/3s equivalent of the Canon 85 f1.2 L would be a 45 f0.6. When are we going to see that lens? Even matching the common $340 Canon 85 f1.8 would require an M4/3 equivalent of 45 f0.9.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a format issue and has nothing to do with SLRs vs MILCs. And as far as the format issue goes, these are academic arguments whose importance you are exaggerating.</p>

<p>How many times do you need to shoot with an 85/1.2 wide open on a FF camera? You advertise cheap APS-C DSLRs in one paragraph and then in the next one you demand FF equivalence with one of the fastest lenses in Canon's lineup. Do you have an equivalent for an 85/1.2 lens on APS-C?</p>

<p>FF sensors are not used exclusively in DSLRs. For those that want a FF sensor without the drawback of an SLR mirror, Sony will probably announce their A99 SLT camera this year. And there is always Leica, if a rangefinder is something you would like. There were also rumors that the NEX E-mount is wide enough to accommodate a FF sensor - so Sony may have that avenue open too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And as for rangefinders being obsolete, Leica still seems to be in business as far as I can tell.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So what? Obsolete does not mean extinct. Bows and arrows once represented the state of the art in warfare, but they are now obsolete - being still produced today does not change any of that. Cost is not relevant either - you can find luxury bows that cost more than an automatic rifle.</p>

<p>Well what does obsolete mean? If it means that the vast majority of wedding shooters, photojournalists and sport shooters will still continue to use SLRs, which they will, then what is your point.<br>

Canon and Nikon's pro cameras accurately AF track using phase detect, shooting at 10 fps. Are MILCs going to beat this?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well what does obsolete mean?<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is not the question. You are confusing "becoming obsolete" with "have become obsolete".<br>

<br>

Will MILCs provide the same performance that top DSLRs provide today? Sure - top MILCs will, but there is none yet in the same price range as top DSLRs. You are making the mistake of judging a technology after early models targeted at a lower level market. You don't even need an SLR for phase detect - see the Nikon 1, for example, and that is not even attempting to be a pro camera. Sony's SLT cameras provide another alternative as well.</p>

<p>There is absolutely no technical argument that can ensure the survival of SLR technology. Whether some company will leverage people's nostalgia for SLRs and continue producing them like Leica does with rangefinders is besides the point as well.</p>