Nikon DX vs FX vs Olympus OMD-EM5

[alan_wilder1]

<p>I own a D800 and the EM-5. I prefer the EM-5 if I need gear with a small footprint like being a wedding guest or for light travel when doing a lot of walking. It also comes in handy with it's 2x crop @ 16P compared to a 1.5x crop @ 16MP with my D800 set for DX with supe-tele shots using a 600/4 AFS and TC-20E III. DxO also rated the EM-5 as the best micro 4/3 camera, so given the physical limitations of it's smaller sensor, APS sensor sized cameras will naturally perform better in some areas, all things being equal in state of art technology of sensor production.</p>

[s.rudolph]

I've got a d7000, and use it for traveling the world and around my streets. Since I'm lazy and use a 18-200mm zoom, I'm looking for a

similar setup for a potential omd. I was thinking about the fast Panasonic zooms ($ouch$). Like the 12-35 and 35-100. ( want something

fast for low light and better focusing. I don't take tripods with me on traveling )

I'd prefer not to carry a bunch of primes (could be convinced maybe) since I do a lot of street candids and may do an across the street

and then swing around and shoot something a block or 2 away).

So anyone have these kinds of lenses ? Seems like the majority are using only primes.

 

Steve

[seanbreadsell]

<p>I own a D800 and love it, amazing camera with awesome detail and just brilliant, wouldn't give it up for anything. Buying a new 70-200/2.8 VR2 soon<br>

I also own an OM-D, amazing camera and a lot better than most peoples give credit for. The image quality is truly amazing with decent glass, I use Olympus fast primes and a Voigtlander f/0.95 lens which blows your mind.<br>

i have used both cameras on the street, in the studio, for sports and landscapes. My D800 has an edge in most cases but the OM-D isn't as far behind as you all think. I would buy an OM-D over any DX camera in all honestly</p>

[robert_meyers]

<p>You know, sometimes people say things that don't make any sense. Being I shot weddings and auto racing for years with an E-1, and it worked fine. I don't see why an OM-D, which has clean 1600 ISO, would really be that problematic. In the end, any wedding photographer knows its about technique and eye, and has very little to do with equipment (outside of reliability).</p>

[kurt_milam]

<p>dedupe - it feels like I'm stepping back into the 90's when I try to interact with this forum :D<br>

Only this time, I have a 27" HDMI monitor and am running a modern browser. Photo.net is anachronistic, but not necessarily in a charming way :)</p>

[kurt_milam]

<blockquote>

<p>Willy Lorenzo: One thing to note about the EM-5 is that it appears that Olympus is cheating with exposure.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The appearance, however, is not correct. I'd argue that it's also not an appearance, with one exception - a set of misleading datasets that you also alluded to, and that I'll address shortly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Willy Lorenzo: According to DxOMark, ISO200 is actually ISO100. Normally, this is not cheating...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's correct. Normally this is not cheating, and it's also not cheating in the case of the E-M5.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Willy Lorenzo: 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>

</blockquote>

<p>And here the set of misleading datasets. Let me be clear, Willy, I'm not accusing you of trying to mislead here. Believe it or not, the EXIF data you're comparing from these imaging-resource.com images is lying to you, and I am not aware of images from any source other than imaging-resource.com that back up your statement.<br /> <br /> I know, it sounds crazy, but it's true, and imaging-resource.com has specifically called out the problem in a number of its reviews - unfortunately, in a way that's often overlooked by people who drop into DPReview quickly to grab a couple of RAWs from two different cameras for comparison purposes.<br /> <br /> Specifically, imaging-resource.com uses a Sigma 70mm f2.8 lens as its standard lens for testing Nikons. This lens has a known problem which, in combination with some Nikon bodies at some settings, results in EXIF data that <strong>significantly underreports an image's exposure</strong>.<br /><br /> When one sets this lens to f8.0 on certain Nikon bodies, the aperture is actually significantly wider than f8.0, but it still reports f8.0 in the EXIF data of the image.<br /> <br /> You will find that the large discrepancy between, for instance, the D800 and E-M5 test images at imaging-resource.com exists in images taken at f8.0 but practically disappears at images taken at f2.8.<br /> <br /> You can have a look at IR's statement on this issue on their <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d800/nikon-d800A5.HTM">D800 review</a> - specifically, it's on the Exposure page of the review in the Sensor section - the second paragraph under the bank of 4 images in this section. Here an excerpt:<br /> <em>These shots were captured with a Sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro lens, one of the sharpest lenses we've ever tested on SLRGear.com. We use Sigma 70mm lenses in most of our studio test shots because they are so sharp and are available for most major platforms. For some reason, though, on some (but not all) Nikon bodies, the Sigma causes the camera's exposure system to overexpose by somewhere between one third of a stop and a full stop depending on the aperture.</em></p>

<p>This issue is also discussed in more detail in several threads on the DPReview forms, <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/41108722">this one</a>, for example. Here an excerpt:<br /> <em>I also e-mailed Imaging-Resource about this issue where Nikon cameras are getting 50% more light than Canon ones and they are aware of it. Imaging resources put forward that the the Sigma 70mm Macro has a software bug which causes it to overexpose on most Nikon bodies. On newer Nikon cameras the Sigma reports the aperture incorrectly and lower than it actually is. So if you tell the lens to go to f/8.0 it's actually going to f/7.0.</em><br /> <br /> I believe this should be enough information to put this erroneous claim to rest. And note, Willy, I don't blame you at all - you simply believed the EXIF data from imaging-resource.com, something I usually do, as well. It took me a while to figure this all out, because I simply assumed the IR EXIF values were correct. A couple of things that motivated me to dig deeper were that I haven't seen this claim (of hugely different exposure values) made anywhere else (not even in the imaging-resource.com review, for instance), and I also found it very strange that the f8.0 test images showed a full stop of discrepancy, whereas the f2.8 images only showed around 1/5th of a stop of discrepancy.</p>

<p>Hope that's all clear. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or concerns! :)</p>

[andylynn]

<p>And the OM-D also overreports ISO more than some other cameras. You can see the same results from other sites that do tests using other lenses. For example, go to DXOMark and compare the Olympus to the D7000 and D800 and look at the chart for ISO measurement.</p>

[kurt_milam]

<p>Andy,</p>

<p>What DxOMark measures is a different thing, altogether, and, as Willy wrote in his first post, "this is not cheating."<br>

<br>

He's absolutely right. See this<a href="/nikon-camera-forum/"> DxOMark article on ISO for more info</a>. Here an excerpt (emphasis mine, my comments in square brackets):<br>

<em>The RAW ISO measured value [a type of Saturation-based Sensitivity measure] is almost always inferior to [lower than]* the ISO [aka Exposure Index or EI] that you decided to use with your camera. Take a Canon EOS 60D, for instance. When you select ISO 200, the measured RAW ISO sensitivity is 160. At ISO 800, the measured value is 632.</em><br>

<em>...</em><br>

<em>In fact, it is precisely the JPEG ISO value [aka Exposure Index or EI] that all the manufacturers publish. They do so because JPEG (or any RGB) output is the visible output that photographers use. So when you select ISO 800 on your camera, you’ll have a JPEG ISO at 800, but the RAW ISO will be at (for instance) 550. The JPEG results are achieved by playing with the tone curve shape. <strong>This is absolutely legitimate: the ISO standard allows manufacturers to use this JPEG value. They are not cheating</strong>.</em><br>

<br>

<strong>*</strong> Regarding DxOMark's use of the phrase 'inferior to' here - DxOMark is a French company, and I believe the use of 'inferior to' in this sentence is due to a false translation - what some translators call a 'false friend'. 'Inferior to' implies a value judgement, but I believe the actual English phrase the DxOMark writers were looking for was the value-neutral 'lower than'. In other words, they were simply trying to say that the Saturation-based Sensitivity is almost always lower than whatever ISO Setting one might choose. Note also that this passage is not specific to the E-M5 or to Olympus cameras. It is a generalized statement applying to the world of digital cameras with no brand or model specificity implied.<br>

<br>

Cheers!</p>