E5 vs D700--tests

[mathomas]

I preferred the E5 results in every case, except the lake shot seemed a bit over-cool (I think the light changed on you). However, I don't know if that's an actual quality difference, or just a preference. They did seem more detailed, IMO.

 

[Jerry_R]

I would keep always aperture doubled on D700 - in order to keep the same DOF.

 

[Riley]

I am a little bit confused here. I tought that EV values are independent from sensor format; in fact if I take a picture in a sunny day with a D700 and an E5 both set at 100 ISO, I will get 1/125sec at f/8 for both as long as the lenses have the same equivalent focal lenght or angle of view (let's say a Nikkor 50mm and a PL 25mm). The only difference would be in the DOF which will be about twice for the E3+25mm. In terms of light we will get same EV for both (likely EV=13).

Form another perspective the amount of light hitting 4/3 sensor is going to be about 1/4 of the light hitting FF because 4/3 lens diaphram is set at 3,125mm diam. while FF diaphram diameter will be 6,25mm:

FF exposed area thru the lens = 30,7 mm2
4/3 exposed area thru the lens = 7,7 mm2.

On the other end the 4/3 sensor has just about 1/4 the area of a FF sensor, thus the amount of light per unit area is the same, which justifies the equal settings for shooting under same conditions.

Really, the only difference remains DOF.

carlo

i didnt name the thing the author did, why get so hooked up on names and definitions, i just dont see the point

you happily pronounce ...."the amount of light hitting 4/3 sensor is going to be about 1/4 of the light hitting FF " then go on to include mush that shouldnt be considered

well if it isnt 'about 1/4 of the light' exactly how much is it? and when you do know what the difference is then just how much is that difference in stops? And if you adjust your stops up or down from that they are then described as what? ............stops e/v

thats what the tables about

the total light available to the sensor regardless of lens
it so happens that shooting when the same DoF the same circumstances arise, where the light is controlled by the aperture/shutter, if you need to look at it that way then fine but it makes it more complicated than it needs to be.

 

[ptomsu]

Re: new pics from E5 vs D700

I went for a walk today with both combos: D700+24-120VR and E5+12-60.
You can download the direct comparisons here for private use only (the "D700 vs E5" album):

http://gallery.me.com/nugat#gallery

These are big jpegs: 6-11MB. At around 2:1 compression they are visually lossless, full size, no crops. Only the "Palace" I bothered to compare here and include Oly raw (ORF) to jpeg developed in Oly Viewer, as well as the out of camera (OOC) E5 jpeg. I could not see any difference ( I did couple more comparisons for myself ), so then I used only LR3 Oly OOC jpegs and Nikon NEF to jpeg.
Olympus is here exactly what E5 offered in Superfine JPG out of camera (I also recorded orfs). To level the ground I processed Nikon raws (14 bit NEFs/d-lighting normal) in LR3 Adobe Preset , as the Nikon OOC JPGs are immediately worse than Olympus in resolution. Fortunately LR3 developer is pretty good and no work on color had to be done. But most of these NEFs required exposition corrections (highlights, black level). Olympus on the other hand nailed the expossition almost perfect all the time. Both E5 and D700 were in "P" and exposure was full frame/center weighed, focus with one central spot. VR/IS on. Both camera chose very similar EI values and ISO at/near the native 200 (full EXIF included, or click "i" for info).

I will save you the trouble and give my appraisal immediately this time.
Both combos cost near the same money, are very similar in many aspects (Oly a bit smaller) and deliver similar pictures near native ISO.
Except Oly does it out of camera as JPEG, and on Nikon NEFs one needs to do work to get close. Close, because Oly OOC JPG resolution is a tad better than NEFs developed at the preset sharpening of 25. Again, I had the weird phenomenon of some Oly pics' sharp lines aliasing on the one monitor with the bigger pixels (EIZO), to smooth out at 100% on iMac 27 inch (smaller display pixels). Sharp people make sharp pictures. Sorry, Olympus people do so.
PS.
I could get Olympus jpegs sharpness working on NEFs with NIK Output Sharpener. But NIK on Oly raw/tiff again increased the distance.
In one of the pictures NEF seemed cleaner in shadows, but more comparisons should be done on that.
PSPS
When I get the SHG glass will do the lest leg of comparisons.

Thanks for that effort!

While in general I like the E5 images far better, I have a question what happened to the images "lake" and "leaves" - in these 2 images the D700 shot is tack sharp and good resolution, the E5 shots are either not sharp or do not get the resolution of the D700.

I think something went wrong while converting?

Thanks

Peter

 

[nugat]

DOF humbug

I would keep always aperture doubled on D700 - in order to keep the same DOF.

Why should I keep the same DOF? Or to be exact the same CoC (circle of confusion) of the final viewed image ?
DOF is conventional (19th century legacy CoC definition), particular (f#, print viewing distance and magnification), individual (eye resolution, esthetics).
All lenses are sharp only focused on one plane. From there everything becomes progressively unsharp.
Both D700 and E5 were focused on the same plane with one central AF spot.
I let both cameras choose the picture parameters ("P"), presumably they did the best job for the final IQ. In fact D700 chose smaller aperture (bigger f#) most of the time.
If I had bumped D700 aperture two stops, immediately "equivalence theorists" of both sides would find a fault with ISO speed and shutter.
In the end what counts for me, is the overall picture quality as seen by my friends, family, myself and pundits--in that sequence.

 

[nugat]

Re: new pics from E5 vs D700

Thanks for that effort!

While in general I like the E5 images far better, I have a question what happened to the images "lake" and "leaves" - in these 2 images the D700 shot is tack sharp and good resolution, the E5 shots are either not sharp or do not get the resolution of the D700.

I think something went wrong while converting?

Thanks

Peter

Are you watching them from the downloaded files?
Do not pass judgement from the gallery viewer frames directly, there is something indeed strange how they are presented here. Some are converted by the gallery display software with less resolution (limited to 1280 anyway). Do not forget your browser algorithms. Only download and good jpeg viewer! Sorry for the size.

 

[Jerry_R]

Re: DOF humbug

Why should I keep the same DOF?

Otherwise - we can discuss apart from bodies - what one prefers - less or more DOF, 43 sensor or FF sensor.

Thread title is E5 vs D700, people discuss sharpness frequently. That was reason of my statement.

In the end what counts for me, is the overall picture quality as seen by my friends, family, myself and pundits--in that sequence.

Let more people share that approach!

 

[ptomsu]

Re: new pics from E5 vs D700

Are you watching them from the downloaded files?
Do not pass judgement from the gallery viewer frames directly, there is something indeed strange how they are presented here. Some are converted by the gallery display software with less resolution (limited to 1280 anyway). Do not forget your browser algorithms. Only download and good jpeg viewer! Sorry for the size.

I downloaded them and imported in LR3 - strange .....

 

[ptomsu]

Just found it is LR3.2 on my machine - sometimes pretty slow. So everything all right with your uploaded images.

Thanks

Peter

 

[jonoslack]

Re: new pics from E5 vs D700

Thanks for that effort!

While in general I like the E5 images far better,

Peter

HI Peter
I think the E5 looks great . . . . . but you seem to have written off Sony on the basis of the quality of the A900 and the autofocus speed. . . . . . and now you're considering ditching the Nikon D700 in favour of the E5.

I find the combination of these concepts to be completely odd - it doesn't seem to give any indication of your uses for the camera.

I think all three cameras have real advantages:

E5 - nice colour, fine zoom lenses, weather-sealing
D700 - fast autofocus - grand high ISO
A900 - great colour - splendid detail in 25mp files

If you want the detail AND the autofocus and you like the Nikon colour (all of which you've said). Then what's wrong with the D3x?

If you want the detail and you don't need the autofocus, then what's wrong with the A900?

If you want the High ISO and you don't want the detail, then what's wrong with the D700

If you want something smaller with decent quality, then the E5 isn't it either (you could think of Pentax or Sony, or even a Nikon D7000)

The only reason for wanting the E5 (that I can see) is that you don't care about the detail or the high ISO or the autofocus . . but you do like the Olympus colour and the weathersealing.

I'm very confused!

 

[ptomsu]

Re: new pics from E5 vs D700

HI Peter
I think the E5 looks great . . . . . but you seem to have written off Sony on the basis of the quality of the A900 and the autofocus speed. . . . . . and now you're considering ditching the Nikon D700 in favour of the E5.

I find the combination of these concepts to be completely odd - it doesn't seem to give any indication of your uses for the camera.

I think all three cameras have real advantages:

E5 - nice colour, fine zoom lenses, weather-sealing
D700 - fast autofocus - grand high ISO
A900 - great colour - splendid detail in 25mp files

If you want the detail AND the autofocus and you like the Nikon colour (all of which you've said). Then what's wrong with the D3x?

If you want the detail and you don't need the autofocus, then what's wrong with the A900?

If you want the High ISO and you don't want the detail, then what's wrong with the D700

If you want something smaller with decent quality, then the E5 isn't it either (you could think of Pentax or Sony, or even a Nikon D7000)

The only reason for wanting the E5 (that I can see) is that you don't care about the detail or the high ISO or the autofocus . . but you do like the Olympus colour and the weathersealing.

I'm very confused!

I have some mixed feelings too. It all depends if I will go with just one system in the future (sell Hssselblad and stay maybe with Nikon - D4X as my high resolution camera) or if I keep the Hasselblad for high resolution and great color and go for a smaller solution with less resolution - could then be 43 or M43, but also some other D800 to come.

I actually would have gone the D3X path, if this camera would not be at its price level and be already out there for 2 years, so replacement should show up pretty soon.

Why did you not go for the E3 or now E5?

Why did you not try Nikon D700 lately with new FW - I think colors are quite good?

Why not make a profile in C1 Pro, where you can almost tweak any color from any cam?

I must say I find the E5 very appealing, but I do not like the direction Olympus is currently moving with 43 - think they have much more emphasis on M43. And I would have expected the 16MP sensor from the GH2 in the E5 ... maybe too much wishes!

 

[jonoslack]

Re: new pics from E5 vs D700

I have some mixed feelings too. It all depends if I will go with just one system in the future (sell Hssselblad and stay maybe with Nikon - D4X as my high resolution camera) or if I keep the Hasselblad for high resolution and great color and go for a smaller solution with less resolution - could then be 43 or M43, but also some other D800 to come.

I actually would have gone the D3X path, if this camera would not be at its price level and be already out there for 2 years, so replacement should show up pretty soon.

Fair enough - but what's wrong with the A900, which is half the size and half the price (and I'd argue a nice camera to use, with better lenses, less PP to do and just as good results - unless you want the high ISO).

Why did you not go for the E3 or now E5?

I did have an E3, and I did like it, but it wasn't much smaller than the A900, the image quality was so much less good (really a different world).
. . . . and because there is a Pentax K5 which fills the same niche but has:
1. much smaller body (smaller even than the E1)
2. much quieter shutter (quieter even than the E1)
3. really excellent high ISO (colour at 6400 is completely useable)
4. has a selection of excellent and very small prime lenses.
5. has no obvious disadvantages when compared with the E5 - except for the lovely 12-60 lens.

Why did you not try Nikon D700 lately with new FW - I think colors are quite good?

Because I don't want a FF 12mp camera - for me the point of FF is to be able to have a lot of resolution, not just a big camera.

Because I prefer the Zeiss full frame lenses to the Nikon

Because as far as I'm aware the colours haven't changed with the FW (you are the only person I've seen suggesting this). i recognise that my position on Nikon colour is subjective and personal rather than objective (although plenty of others seem to agree).

But generally because these days the D700 has absolutely nothing I want.

Why not make a profile in C1 Pro, where you can almost tweak any color from any cam?

Because I don't use C1 pro anymore, and because I've been been there with respect to Nikon cameras in the past, and I found that I needed to change colours with lots and lots of shots (especially in evening light). I never could manage a profile which dealt with all situations.

Anyway, why buy a camera with the expectation of fiddling around with the colours when I already have one where I don't need to?

I must say I find the E5 very appealing, but I do not like the direction Olympus is currently moving with 43 - think they have much more emphasis on M43. And I would have expected the 16MP sensor from the GH2 in the E5 ... maybe too much wishes!

Well, I think the E5 looks fine if you already have or want the Olympus pro zoom lenses - but they're really big, and the E5 body is big as well. For me the attraction of 4/3 was the possibility of getting something small and tough and weather-sealed - For example the Olympus 90-250 weights 3 kg, I know it isn't quite a like for like comparison, but the Pentax 60-250 weights 1kg. I'm not criticising the reasons for it - just that I don't want a lens that big - not even if it's attached to a 25mp full frame sensor, but especially not if it's attached to a 12mp 43 sensor.

But as far as what you want is concerned, I would have thought that the A900 would do it - and with the expectation of Sony bringing out a >30mp body next year, it seems an even better reason to go in that direction.

If you're going to keep you Hassleblad gear and get rid of the Nikon kit (for the sake of something smaller) - well, I'm not sure that the E5 will be that much smaller if you choose the pro-zooms.

 

[ptomsu]

Jono,

agree with most of what you say. But it does only help so far in my current position to decide to buy NOTHING and wait for what is coming from Sony, Nikon etc. in high resolution FF DSLRs. Whoever will have the more appealing system will be the king for me I am definitely not shy to switch another time

Meanwhile I will stay with what I have and maybe add just a GH2 as soon as it becomes available.

 

[Godfrey]

Equipment is not the limitation once you get to cameras at the level of D700, E-5, A900, Hasselblad, etc, unless you have *extremely* specific needs for a particular attribute in image quality. Then the vanishingly tiny differences in what the equipment's potential is *might* be a reason to pick one over the other for specific purposes.

- Jono's been showing some pix with the Pentax K5. They look superb.
- Lots of work has been shown of the Nikon D700 ... superb.
- My work with the E-5 is extremely finely resolved and beautiful ... even a couple of casual product shots I snapped hand-held with a macro lens at close quarter were STUNNINGLY detailed and finished, right out of the camera as medium resolution, medium quality JPEGs. I'm delighted with it.

This is why I feel these sorts of "side by side" comparisons have such little real merit. What I see is a pile of relatively inexpertly made snapshots that are somehow supposed to characterize what one super-high-quality, multi-thousand-dollar, professional-grade camera does differently from another ... when the real hard edges to a particular piece of equipment's capabilities are so much finer grained than that.

I've simplified already: I'm very happy with my lenses and my camera, and not really looking at anything else. I'm working on my photography now. ;-)

 

[jonoslack]

I've simplified already: I'm very happy with my lenses and my camera, and not really looking at anything else. I'm working on my photography now. ;-)

HI Godfrey
Not for a moment criticising your decision for the E5 - I absolutely understand the rationale, especially with respect to the lenses you love to use.

I was questioning Peter trying to decide between an E5 and a D700, when what he seems to want is either:
1. something small to complement his Hassleblad or
2. something high resolution to replace his Hassleblad.

I didn't see why either camera fitted either bill!

but what do I know :ROTFL:

 

[douglasf13]

Re: new pics from E5 vs D700

I have some mixed feelings too. It all depends if I will go with just one system in the future (sell Hssselblad and stay maybe with Nikon - D4X as my high resolution camera) or if I keep the Hasselblad for high resolution and great color and go for a smaller solution with less resolution - could then be 43 or M43, but also some other D800 to come.

I actually would have gone the D3X path, if this camera would not be at its price level and be already out there for 2 years, so replacement should show up pretty soon.

Why did you not go for the E3 or now E5?

Why did you not try Nikon D700 lately with new FW - I think colors are quite good?

Why not make a profile in C1 Pro, where you can almost tweak any color from any cam?

I must say I find the E5 very appealing, but I do not like the direction Olympus is currently moving with 43 - think they have much more emphasis on M43. And I would have expected the 16MP sensor from the GH2 in the E5 ... maybe too much wishes!

FWIW, the color advantage of the A900 isn't a matter of color profiling. Sony, in general, uses a less transparent color filter than most other DSLR makers, so, while this can cause more noise at higher ISO, it provides less metameric failure and better color separation. Essentially, this results in better resolution in greens and/or skin tones (ie: less mushy) than some DSLR brands. Because of this, the Sonys are well suited for landscape and portraiture.

 

[Vivek]

Re: new pics from E5 vs D700

Sony, in general, uses a less transparent color filter than most other DSLR makers, so, while this can cause more noise at higher ISO, it provides less metameric failure and better color separation.

I am genuinely interested to know more details about this. Could you help?

 

[Godfrey]

... I didn't see why either camera fitted either bill! ...

And I don't know why he wants to replace his Hasselblad at all.

BTW ... I loved shooting with my Hasselblads (500C/M and 903SWC). If there hadn't been these digital cameras that did what I wanted better, I would have just kept on doing so. I was similarly quite happy with my Nikon F3/T and Nikkor AI-S lens kit, had them for almost 20 years.

... Boy, that all seems like an eternity ago.

 

[douglasf13]

Re: new pics from E5 vs D700

I am genuinely interested to know more details about this. Could you help?

Sure. It's a long, winding road, and I've really only scratched the surface. Essentially, though, most DSLR makers have been making their CFA filters more transparent over time, in order for more light to reach the sensor, and this requires less amplification gain. Thus, they sacrifice low ISO color performance for better high ISO. This is one of the reasons why Sony cameras in the past have had slight high ISO disadvantages when compared to cameras of other makes that have Sony sensors. Canon and Sony seem to be on the opposite of the end of the spectrum in this regard, with other makes falling somewhere in between (generally.)

I've probably read every single post that Iliah Borg has posted on dpreview over the last 3 years, as he is an authority on this. He is responsible for RPP's color transforms, and has early access to all cameras for testing, so you may want to start digging through some of his posts:

http://www.dpreview.com/members/4752561233/forums/Messages

here are a few other various links:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&message=34102685&changemode=1

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/847088/2#7910053

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/847088/2#7911913

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&message=31460404&q=iliah+borg+a900+d2x&qf=m

"Hardloaf" on these forums can explain in more detail than me, as he is an expert in the field.

 

[jonoslack]

Re: new pics from E5 vs D700

FWIW, the color advantage of the A900 isn't a matter of color profiling. Sony, in general, uses a less transparent color filter than most other DSLR makers, so, while this can cause more noise at higher ISO, it provides less metameric failure and better color separation. Essentially, this results in better resolution in greens and/or skin tones (ie: less mushy) than some DSLR brands. Because of this, the Sonys are well suited for landscape and portraiture.

Thank you Douglas
It wasn't a battle I felt fit to fight . .. hence the personal preference plea . . . (but I don't really believe it :ROTFL