Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

E-M5 review at DPR
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras  Micro Four Thirds (Micro 4/3) Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:06 pm    Post subject: E-M5 review at DPR Reply with quote
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/


Quote:

The E-M5 can't completely overcome the light capture disadvantage brought by its smaller sensor, compared to APS-C, but it reduces it to the point that it's irrelevant for almost all practical purposes. At which point we think its size advantage, in terms of both body and lenses, will outweigh that difference for most uses. If you're absolutely unwilling to compromise on image quality then spending twice the money and moving up to the bulk of a full-frame is the only way of gaining a significant step up from the E-M5.


For a sensor decried by the NeX fans on this forum as "Fiat Punto engine", I think it's doing pretty well, IQ wise (of course the crop factor is what it is.)

Last edited by bogolisk on Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
that is the camera from that bankrupt company? it seems olympus has its fighter in the ring:)


PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
i will tell you right now that many people, on this forum and eleswhere, will refuse to believe this conclusion, whether based on 'expert' reporting, in depth 'chart' testing, or 'real life' results. and one of the premier issues for shooters of RF legacy glass is that, unlike the new crop of apsc stud cameras, m4/3 has absolutely no issues like color shift, focus shift and smeared corners. but that still will not be enough to silence the critics. happily for the rest of us, we will very much enjoy this and upcoming m4/3 gear!
tony


PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think that camera users have a tendency to form "fan bases" and as we know from sports, fans reasoning isn't always the most logical one Smile
For instance, some of the same users that say that it is not a problem to use APS-C compared to full frame, say that M4/3 is too small compared to APS-C.
I fail to see the logic in there, because a step down is always a step down; it can't be good or neutral in one case, and bad in another case.
I am a user of both full frame and APS-C. I use crop format because it allows me to obtain big enlargement using small size lenses.
Of course the megapixel count must justify that: the APS-C camera must have a MP count that comes close to that of the full frame camera in order to become an advantage;
otherwise, it would be better to just use the full frame camera then crop the output.
I don't think that I would have problem using a M4/3 reflex camera for the same purpose (tele photography) that I use the APS-C reflex camera.
It would all depend on if there's a profitable proportion in MP count with the full frame camera that I have. And of course if the image quality is good.
Needless to say, if I had to choose only *one* camera, that would be a full frame one. A crop format camera, be it APS-C or M4/3, will always be a second camera for me.
And if I could not afford a full frame DSLR, I would rely on film for sure, rather than losing the wide end of lenses.
But I am not "ideologically opposite" to crop formats.
For me the only thing that counts is if a camera is useful for me, or not, for taking photographs the way I need.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
i totally agree with orio, and have said so many times i feel like i stutter: crop is crop. FF is to me the preferred way to shoot, not to me as a matter of IQ, but as a matter of using one's legacy lenses at the FLs they were intended. if you say, and i no longer do, that IQ decreases from apsc to m4/3 because of sensor size, than it must for the same reason decrease from FF to apsc-you cant have it both ways. i shoot m4/3 not because i think crop factor is 'better' for me, but because i dont yet like how any of the interchangeable lens apsc cams perform, either because of lack of vf or poor RF lens performance or ergonomics of tiny camera/big lenses. in light of how much i like the x100, i really wanted to like the x pro1, but, like the nex7 that i thought also had a lot of promise, they just dont work well with the RF lenses i have chosen to work with. unfortunately i made a 'stylistic' decision to no longer shoot with large gear, so no reasonably priced FF options are available to me. when such opportunity presents itself, i would happily take that leap.
tony


PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It looks great as a system with m4/3 lenses Smile


PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
i totally agree with orio, and have said so many times i feel like i stutter: crop is crop. FF is to me the preferred way to shoot, not to me as a matter of IQ, but as a matter of using one's legacy lenses at the FLs they were intended.


I think yours (nor Orio's) is quite an extreme position. To me the fact that you can use any of the tens of excellent and cheap 50mm lenses as portrait ones is already a huge advantage of crop over FF. Portrait lenses are much more valuable than normals, so here crop increases the value. On FF you'd have to fork out for 85-100mm lens and this means 3 to 10 times increase in price and much narrower selection of good candidates.

Of course, FF has an obvious advantage for wides, so that's not a free lunch. However, I wouldn't call the ability to use a lens in its native focal lens an advantage per se.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tony wrote:
i will tell you right now that many people, on this forum and eleswhere, will refuse to believe this conclusion

I can believe in this conclusion but I still need to be convinced by m4:3

there is no magic in optic, m4:3 lenses are not cheaper, not smaller, not lighter than other format
check this table from photozone.de, m4:3 & aps-c are almost the same, the full frame is heavier and more expensive but it is faster & L


all lenses on m4:3 are leveled down by diffraction
a good lens like the Summilux is limited from f2.8 and have almost the same quality than a zoom at f8
people believe they buy a 25:1.4 but they get a slow normal 50mm f2.8


PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu, youre way too smart for me! if a gun was held to my head i could not figure out what that chart is trying to say! for me personally, it is not about charts or dp reviews, it is about images i get from a camera. ive shot many digis, including FF 5d and crop apsc sony and apsc x100 and m4/3. ive shot each with some great mf legacy lenses (well, not the x100!), like zeiss and leica. i can only tell you my opinion based on what i see from my pictures, and what i see from other pictures listed here and on the web, and that is my OMD has highly competitve resolution and DR to my FF 5d with the best lenses on each up to iso 800. past 800, the OMD is far superior, and is surprisingly competitive with the stunning x100, though which someone would prefer is more a matter of taste imo than a matter of science. for me personally, that is really the end of the discussion, because all i wanted out of a small mirrorless camera is that it perform as well as a 5d in good light, and better than the 5d in low light. happily, i got what i want.
tony


PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Poilu, this comparison chart is misleading as heck. You are comparing 4/3 lenses, which were not smaller because Olympus decided to compete on optical quality and required lens to be telecentric. This resulted in excellent but large lenses that undercut the biggest advantage of larger crop -> the promise of small size.

With m4/3 Oly and Pany became smarter, dropped down telecentricity requirement and built in software correction for geometric distortion. As a result, m4/3 lenses are significantly smaller than APS-C equivalents and in many cases better optically. See Pany 20mm pancake, see Oly 45mm/f1.8, really dream lenses, excellent performance in a tiny package. M.Zuiko 9-18 is also ridiculously tiny wide angle, OK performance.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tony wrote:
happily, i got what i want

and that is the more important!
when the price will go down, I will try to also get one, not to replace but to complement my FF

fermy wrote:
Poilu, this comparison chart is misleading as heck. You are comparing 4/3 lenses, which were not smaller because Olympus decided to compete on optical quality and required lens to be telecentric. This resulted in excellent but large lenses that undercut the biggest advantage of larger crop -> the promise of small size.

With m4/3 Oly and Pany became smarter, dropped down telecentricity requirement and built in software correction for geometric distortion. As a result, m4/3 lenses are significantly smaller than APS-C equivalents and in many cases better optically. See Pany 20mm pancake, see Oly 45mm/f1.8, really dream lenses, excellent performance in a tiny package. M.Zuiko 9-18 is also ridiculously tiny wide angle, OK performance.


you are right fermy, I didn't see it is a 4/3 lens and not a micro 4:3
the zuiko 45:1.8 is equivalent to a 90:f3.6, 100g is much less than the 260g of my contax 85:2.8
almost same size (56x46mm vs 61x47) but it is also plastic vs metal
the pana 20:1.7 is equivalent to a 40:3.4, 100g is great, almost as good as the 90g of my contax 45:2.8
the 9-18 f4-5.6 is equivalent to a 18-36 F8-11
nobody in full frame word would buy a lens who is already diffraction limited wide open
the 9-18 f4-5.6 is only 155g, indeed it is hard to beat
it is a 12-24 f5.6-8 in aps world, I could not find so slow zoom to compare
the tamron 11-18 f4.5-5.6 is equivalent to an 9-15 f3.1-4 in 4:3 world
it have 355g, more than twice the 155g of the 9-18, it is also longer but almost 1 stop faster

of course lens is not all and full frame body with mirror is very heavy
but when mirroless FF will appear, differences for same IQ will not be very big


PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
So is the diffraction limit of the M4/3 sensor why the results I've seen from the OM-D so far look like they came out of a good compact pns camera? Smile


PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
full frame body with mirror is very heavy


A FF DSLR is a pro/semipro camera. It's not supposed to be used by 5 years old,
and if a grown man/woman does not have muscles to handle a 5D, then I would say his/her main
concern should not be what camera, but getting an appointment with a physiatrist Laughing


PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:

....
of course lens is not all and full frame body with mirror is very heavy
but when mirroless FF will appear, differences for same IQ will not be very big


FF is much better than m4/3 -> one should not use m4/3 -> one should use aps-c (a.k. NeX) Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil


Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy


PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
you are right fermy, I didn't see it is a 4/3 lens and not a micro 4:3
the zuiko 45:1.8 is equivalent to a 90:f3.6, 100g is much less than the 260g of my contax 85:2.8
almost same size (56x46mm vs 61x47) but it is also plastic vs metal
the pana 20:1.7 is equivalent to a 40:3.4, 100g is great, almost as good as the 90g of my contax 45:2.8

However Contax 45:2.8 is a Tessar, so corners on full frame will be less than stellar, Pany performs well across the frame.

poilu wrote:

the 9-18 f4-5.6 is equivalent to a 18-36 F8-11
nobody in full frame word would buy a lens who is already diffraction limited wide open
the 9-18 f4-5.6 is only 155g, indeed it is hard to beat

Haha, people in full frame world are buying Beroflex fisheyes, which are not even close to being diffraction limited at any aperture. F8 is quite acceptable for wide angle lens, especially if the size is that small.

This equivalence business, while partially correct, here just serves to hide one important fact. With m4/3 you can put up high performance (or decent performance, depending on your needs) pocketable kit. Even if you can find some small "equivalent" lenses in FF world, the total size/weight of your kit will be 2x or more, nowhere close to being pocketable or compact. So compactness of your "equivalent" lenses does not matter anymore. Simply put m4/3 works as a good performing compact package, while FF does not.

This good performance in small package is the whole point behind m4/3 and it delivers. Matching FF for equivalent aperture and focal length is pointless as what was the best compromise on FF is not necessarily the best compromise on crop sensor.


PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:

the 9-18 f4-5.6 is equivalent to a 18-36 F8-11
nobody in full frame word would buy a lens who is already diffraction limited wide open


You are saying the 9mm lens is diffraction limited at F4? This is simply wrong.

The pixel spacing is on the OM-D is 3.75 microns. The DPR review shows the sensor resolution is limited to about 1.3 times Nyquist (this deficiency being common to any digital cameras with an anti-aliasing filter). So diffraction blurring will become the limiting factor when it has a magnitude of about 4.9 microns. For a lens of 9mm focal length, the diffraction blurring (as defined by the well known formula 1.22*focal_length*lambda/aperture_diameter) would occur at F7.3, or nearly 2 full stops down from wide open.

Don't forget the EQUIVALENT apertures relative to 35mm relate to depth of field and have nothing to do with the resolution. A 9mm F4 lens is still 9mm F4 whatever sensor you stick it over.

Another related point is that whilst FF aficionados moan about 4/3 having two stops greater depth of field for a given f-number, this can be an advantage in landscape work. It gives you two stops more light to work with. It's always easy to get rid of light if you have too much (use an ND filter) but not so easy to add more when there isn't enough. Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
SXR_Mark wrote:
You are saying the 9mm lens is diffraction limited at F4? This is simply wrong

Hi SXR_Mark, check http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/529-oly_m918_456?start=1
you will see on the graph that the lens at 9mm is diffraction limited at F4

photozone wrote:
Please note that four-thirds cameras have a different diffraction characteristic than APS-C or full format cameras. The real-world sweet spot, the point of highest resolution, is generally around f/4, maybe a little less. Therefore it's hardly possible to improve the performance by stopping down when using (such) slow speed lenses. Remember that f/8 on a four-thirds camera is comparable to f/16 on a full format camera so f/5.6 is actually already well sufficient to achieve a maximum amount of depth-of-field at conventional focus distances


PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
SXR_Mark wrote:
You are saying the 9mm lens is diffraction limited at F4? This is simply wrong

Hi SXR_Mark, check http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/529-oly_m918_456?start=1
you will see on the graph that the lens at 9mm is diffraction limited at F4

photozone wrote:
Please note that four-thirds cameras have a different diffraction characteristic than APS-C or full format cameras.


What a load of codswallop. How does diffraction work differently on 4/3 relative to APS-C? Diffraction is a fundamental property of light. The statement you quote is a load of rubbish - non physical crap. I remember when Photozone used to say the depth of field of a lens was a property of the lens and the camera format made no difference. He wrote pages of sh*t trying to prove his point, but is was still sh*t. Now of course he says (correctly) just the opposite.

Just do the math yourself; it is not difficult. At F4, the diffraction spread from a 9mm lens is only 2.7 microns, which is less than the pixel spacing. So HOW CAN THE RESOLUTION BE DIFFRACTION LIMITED??? Do we have magical Olympus diffraction? Is this is different to Sony diffraction. Or Canon diffraction? Or do small sensors cause light to spread out more through some hitherto unknown force? Of course they don't!!

If the real world performance of the Zuiko 9-18mm zoom is optimum at f4, this is NOT BECAUSE IT IS DIFFRACTION LIMITED BELOW F4. Basic physics tells you that it is not diffraction limited at F4.


poilu wrote:
SXR_Mark wrote:
You are saying the 9mm lens is diffraction limited at F4? This is simply wrong

Hi SXR_Mark, check http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/529-oly_m918_456?start=1
you will see on the graph that the lens at 9mm is diffraction limited at F4


all the graph shows me is that the lens is so we'll corrected for aberrations wide open that the resolution does not improve when stopping down to f5.6. It does not say the resolution is diffraction limited.


PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
SXR_Mark wrote:
all the graph shows me is that the lens is so we'll corrected for aberrations wide open that the resolution does not improve when stopping down to f5.6. It does not say the resolution is diffraction limited

if I understand you, the resolution of all those lenses fall down because there are well corrected and it have nothing to do with diffraction Very Happy


PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:

if I understand you, the resolution of all those lenses fall down because there are well corrected and it have nothing to do with diffraction Very Happy


No, you don't understand me. I said exactly the opposite. The resolution does NOT drop from f4 to f5.6 because it is well corrected. At F4, the diffraction blurring is too small to have any impact on the resolution (especially with the EPL1 used in the photozone tests). This is an absolute fact, calculated from unarguable physics. I said nothing at all about diffraction at f11 or f16 etc.

I have no interest in trying to persuade someone who is either too pig-headed or too stupid to overcome their obvious prejudice. The important thing is to set the record straight so people will not be conned by your sort of anti-small sensor bigotry backed up by pseudo scientific clap-trap.

And to re-iterate - the important point is the E-M5 resolution will not become diffraction limited until about F8 (for any focal length). Incidentally, The NEX-7 has only a slightly larger pixel spacing than the E-M5, so its resolution will become diffraction limited at about the same aperture.


PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
i dont inderstand anything about this argument. but 'codswallop'?! holy made up word batman! Laughing

seriously, what the Heck is a 'codswallop'????? Laughing

tony


PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:


seriously, what the Heck is a 'codswallop'????? Laughing




It's a word I grew up with (means nonsense). It's a fine example of how expressive a language English is. Just say it - cods wallop - so much more satisfying than merely saying "nonsense" isn't it?

Judging by the wiktionary entry, it would seem to be of quite recent origin. So, yes, it is a made up word.


PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
i love it man! language is a living organism! i totally agree, who would say 'nonesense' when one can spew 'codswallop'!


PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 6:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm in my mid 60's and grew up using 'codswallop' so it is certainly not 'new' at least not as new as sexting, pants (used as an adverb meaning rubbish) and innit which once stood as a contraction of isn't it and now seem to adorn every utterance of the low forehead brigade? lol

Doug

rbelyell wrote:
i love it man! language is a living organism! i totally agree, who would say 'nonesense' when one can spew 'codswallop'!


PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is so hilarious!!!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=41507684

Basically, a NeX/Nikon "professional photographer" feels the need to put the puny E-M5 and its filthy sensor back to their place, i.e. away from the real cameras (he seems to be a D700 and NeX fan). He also sneered at m43 lenses...
Quote:

the camera you used does NOT even match the performance of a four year old D700, let alone best it. Look at the pictures in anything other than web size (I checked them out on your Flicker account) and you can see noise in the shadows, and even in the daylight sky! You won't have that problem with a D700. It's also clear that the optics you used were barely up to the task of capturing "professional images", when looking at the images in full size. Was this the kit lens? I'm sure your friend saved a bundle by having you shoot their wedding, but personally, I would not pay for these images. Lastly, have a look at your sensor, its filthy with spots all over the sky of the outdoor shot.
It absolutely amazes me how people have an undying need to shoe horn M 4/3 cameras in as professional cameras that "beat out" a FF DSLR. While the EM-5 is a nice camera that does a good job in most conditions, it's still miles away from the dynamic range of a pro FF DSLR. I happen to like a lot of the mirrorless designs (specifically the Sony NEX cams), but I also believe that you need to apply the right tool for the job, and I don't feel that the M 4/3 system is up to that task of critical professional photography based on the limitation of dynamic range.


The problem is, the images he criticized were taken by the Nikon FF D3 and the lenses were: 105DC f2, 135DC f2, and 70-200 f2.8 VR Twisted Evil

This is just so priceless: filthy FF sensor and 132DC f2 kit lens! Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras  Micro Four Thirds (Micro 4/3) Cameras
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2